/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13384958]

>One of the wilderness oases Kaczynski loved to visit was a “plateau that dated from the Tertiary Age” a two-day hike from his cabin. The spot was sort of a secret retreat for him. As Kaczynski remembers, “It’s kind of rolling country, not flat, and when you get to the edge of it you find these ravines that cut very steeply into cliff-like drop-offs. There was even a waterfall there.” The area around his own cabin was getting too much traffic from hikers and hunters, so in the summer of 1983 he retreated to his secret spot on the plateau.

>As he tells an interviewer later in prison, “When I got there I found they had put a road right through the middle of it” His voice trails off; he pauses, then continues, “You just can’t imagine how upset I was. It was from that point on I decided that, rather than trying to acquire further wilderness skills, I would work on getting back at the system. Revenge. That wasn’t the first time I ever did any monkey wrenching, but at that point, that sort of thing became a priority for me.”

Is this when he put aside Ted and became the Unabomber?

[Anonymous No.13384979]

Why do incels take this terrorist and MK ultra subject seriously? He was and is clearly mentally ill..

[Anonymous No.13384987]

>>13384979
>He was and is clearly mentally ill..
Mental illness is a product of and invention of society

[Anonymous No.13385023]

>>13384979
I thought the same thing. Then I read ISAIF. Don't parrot bullshit opinions. Get informed.

[Anonymous No.13385030]

>>13385023
May I recommend The Technological Society by Jacques Ellul?

[Anonymous No.13385031]

>>13384958
i loved his book , he has very good points and his writing is good

[Anonymous No.13385040]

>>13385023
I've read it. Technology has been a net positive to society and will save humanity.

[Anonymous No.13385053]

>>13385040
Technology will save humanity from what? Technology?

[Anonymous No.13385075]

>>13385030
I haven't had time to read it but I want to have a physical copy.

[Anonymous No.13385081]

>>13385023
The only way to have a anarcho primitive society is through force because humankind always advanced through technological means to make life easier and reduce suffering.

[Anonymous No.13385155]

>>13385053
Death, disease and anything that makes man's existence on the planet miserable. Look around you, you live in comfort and prosperity thanks to technology..

[Anonymous No.13385164]

>>13385155
I don't go to the doctor at all and I haven't ever had an emergency situation. I don't have any diseases. Would living on a farm or in the woods really make my life more miserable than wageslaving and living in the suburbs? No, no it would not.

[Anonymous No.13385174]

The obsession with this midwit literal terrorist is unsettling and creepy. Mods should start banning everyone who posts a Unabomber thread.

[Anonymous No.13385212]

>>13385174
Very Reddit

[Anonymous No.13385335]

>>13385174
>implying mods aren't the ones posting them in the first place

[Anonymous No.13385344]

>>13384958
hahahaha only 90s kids rember this guy

[Anonymous No.13385577]

>>13385155
if we are so dependent on technology to the point that without it death and disease will spread then technology is never positive and is the most negative thing ever

[Anonymous No.13385628]

Tedfags are all brainlets who rationalize away the value of technology because they know deep down they can't keep up with the demands of the higher caste of society who is better at utilizing the technology than they are. Their motivation is almost entirely due to their fumbling incompetency with modern technology.

[Anonymous No.13385636]

>>13385628
They also overlap with Landfags and X/acc faggots, which is hilarious.
>lemme overcompensate for being anxious about my lack of understanding of history and technology by memeing about how technology the singularity is going to kill us and it's good aside from the fact that I can't get laid because of cell phones

[Anonymous No.13385640]

I went hiking around that area yesterday. The wind blew a Clif bar wrapper out of my hand and I didn’t bother chasing it. Fuck you murderer.

[Anonymous No.13385642]

>>13385628
its not about who is better and who is worse , its about what we get out of technology and what will technology lead us to

[Anonymous No.13385646]

>>13385642
There are people other than the Unabomber who have worthwhile thoughts on this, and yet the only ones among them who ever receive attention from you faggots are Nick Land and Mencius Moldbug. Any mention of Marx is greeted with
>read muh von Mises
>muh Communism doesn't work
>muh capitalism is the only way
>muh /pol/
Kill yourself

[Anonymous No.13385647]

>>13385642
Case in point

[Anonymous No.13385649]

>>13385628
ah yes, silicon valley technocrats and app programmers, the paragons of humanity

[Anonymous No.13385655]

>>13384979

[Anonymous No.13385660]

>>13385081

His own argument abour self prop systems says that his revolution is impossible. The self prop system with technology would outcompete the primitivists. The entire argument he suggests make an ecosophy impossible would make his own revolution impossible.

[Anonymous No.13385666]

>>13384979
>accept my cult of consumption and mediocrity or be labeled mentally ill

oh nooo, a diagnosis

[Anonymous No.13385668]

>>13385655
Is it healthy to be a terrorist? I ask because the Unabomber is a terrorist.

[Anonymous No.13385671]

>>13385646
fuck off with your marx shit , it just more dependency and weakness

[Anonymous No.13385677]

>>13385164
You don't need to go to the doctor because of the benefits of modern technology. Vaccines, nutrition from agricultural technology, cheap shelter, general shared wisdom and knowledge from books/internet/media on how to avoid danger and live well etc. all of these are contributing to your overall wellbeing. Will you be happier on the farm? Maybe depends on how well your needs and wants can be met. Your average farm probably has a heck of a lot of technology going on. How much technology is too much? Why is an early twentieth century woodsman the ideal life?

[Anonymous No.13385678]

>>13385668
if you want change you need force , thats why ted is known and i wish they never caught him

[Anonymous No.13385680]

>>13385628
>higher caste
The irony

[Anonymous No.13385684]

>>13385677
>How much technology is too much?
the type of technology like what you said before , the one that without it many will die , i dont want a future of weak sickly humans who need a vaccine every week to live

[Anonymous No.13385686]

>>13385671
Oh look, another imbecile.
>>13385678
Answer the question I asked you, imbecile #1. It's a yes or no question.

[Anonymous No.13385691]

>>13385649
sadly most normies would unironically agree with this
there is no future for men

[Anonymous No.13385693]

>>13385684
>i dont want a future of weak sickly humans who need a vaccine every week to live
Why should I care what you think? Why do you see the Unabomber's manifesto as a viable outline of a path to the future you want?

[Anonymous No.13385697]

>>13385693
Why should I care what you think?

[Anonymous No.13385699]

>>13385697
got em

[Anonymous No.13385700]

>>13385697
I'm not the one making sweeping statements about how terrorism is ethical or how the future will be awful unless we do what Uncle Ted says

[Anonymous No.13385702]

>>13385686
ask the Marxist gangs

[Anonymous No.13385707]

>>13385700
You're responding and thus thinking about it. You asked him why you should care what he thinks. Why should we care what you think?

[Anonymous No.13385708]

>>13385700
>violence is unethical unless it's ordered from an air conditioned office in Washington

bootlicker

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13385713]

>>13385671
>dependency
Individualism isn’t going to save the world, turkey.

No, Ted isn’t crazy, he’s just sociopathic and chose a stupid path.
Unless he wanted to get executed or spend the rest if his live in prison

But do you, any of you Ted fans! Care about the issue or do you just like his mad and stupid solution?

>Technology will save us all
This is just as shortsighted a stance. It *could* save us. But so can “primitivism”. We need to adapt both tactics to survive

[Anonymous No.13385715]

>>13385707
>>13385708
I sincerely hope that you're just b8ing because otherwise you're just advocating terrorism

[Anonymous No.13385716]

>>13385649
Nerds aren't ideal men to me, but all my ideal men certainly can't be realized without modern technology, or the technology of the future for that matter. The cool cyberpunk cop, the heroic space marine, the cyborg ruler of a galactic empire—countless other ideals shown to us by the artists of science fiction, all nerds only because the new physis of our age developed through them first, being that they were the most successful and cutting edge minds of the age (which is always the group that it develops through first); but it will not end with nerds, just like their art shows us.

[Anonymous No.13385722]

>>13385716
>all my ideal men certainly can't be realized without modern technology, or the technology of the future for that matter. The cool cyberpunk cop, the heroic space marine, the cyborg ruler of a galactic empire
cringe

[Anonymous No.13385729]

>>13385715
violence is only appropriate if it enforces the status quo, is that what you're saying?

>>13385716
>men need technology to self-actualize so they resemble the protagonists in my sci-fi books and video games

god just fucking end it

[Anonymous No.13385731]

>>13385716
*snap*

[Anonymous No.13385739]

>>13385713
>Care about the issue or do you just like his mad and stupid solution?
first we need awareness , if no one is willing to admit it then what ted did was justifiable , after that come the solutions an no marx inst one

[Anonymous No.13385743]

>>13385729
>violence is only appropriate if it enforces the status quo, is that what you're saying?
Keep dodging the question, Osama

[Anonymous No.13385754]

>>13385668
Imbecile #1 here. Our planet is the host and humanity is a cancer growing out of control with nothing to stop us.
We’re in track to kill our selves so... maybe it’s healthy.

[Anonymous No.13385757]

>>13385729
>men need
They don't need anything but an ideal to get by. The ideal is formed from physis, which is organized by technology; technology is how we commune with physis. It is an unbreakable loop.

[Anonymous No.13385760]

>>13385743
Yes, violence is justified against an elite that maintain their hegemony with violence. Now go cry to your knitting circle

[Anonymous No.13385786]

>>13385760
>>13385754
OK, now admit that you advocate terrorism

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13385790]

>>13385739
>no marx inst one
Why? Because you want your bitcoin or gold standard solution?
Socialism is absolutely part of the solution. For you not to see it only means you know little of it.

[Anonymous No.13385793]

>>13385754
agree somewhat but
>humanity is a cancer
No

[Anonymous No.13385813]

>>13385790
now is not the solution part , its the ss part and youawarene know well that ted helped allot with this , theory isnt enough , action is a big part

[Anonymous No.13385816]

>>13385668
>Is it healthy to be a terrorist?
A terrorist is just a revolutionary for a cause or ideal different than your own. It has nothing to do with health.

[Anonymous No.13385817]

>>13385813
>its the ss part and youawarene
its the solution part and you
sorry my post is screwed up

[Anonymous No.13385825]

>>13385816
It's a yes or no question, fuckstick

[Anonymous No.13385828]

>>13385816
agreed , if you want to do something worth a while you need a revolutionary man

[Anonymous No.13385832]

>>13385825
you're not proofing anything with your yes or no question , stop being annoying

[Anonymous No.13385834]

>>13385825
Only if you assume that conforming to what faggot ninnies like you think is "healthy" is worthwhile or valuable, which most itt don't.

Your argument can be reduced to "oh geez, what will the plutocrats and their media apparat- uh, neighbors think?"

[Anonymous No.13385836]

>>13385825
That doesn't mean it has a yes or no answer simply because you phrase it that way. Both yes and no are wrong answers because neither are true.

[Anonymous No.13385847]

>>13385834
>>13385832
You're either retarded or disingenuous. You are the reason this thread topic should be banned.
>>13385836
I'm not interested in half-assed attempts to weasel out of this. It's the fundamental question that you people want to gloss over when discussing this work. Is it ethical to advocate the Unabomber's theory when that theory's application results in acts of terrorism, for which the author of the manifesto is currently in prison?
You people are pathetic. Read an actual book by someone who isn't in prison after committing stupid crimes for a bad cause.

[Anonymous No.13385855]

>>13385847
estrogenized af

[Anonymous No.13385859]

>>13385855
Retarded as fuck tbqh

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13385864]

>>13385813
His actions where less than helpful. No better then Lenin

[Anonymous No.13385865]

>>13385859
>only my masters are allowed to enforce their worldviews with violence

ahahah, americans are the only slaves that sing their overlord's praises

[Anonymous No.13385870]

>>13385847
>You are the reason this thread topic should be banned.
wow look who is saying this after coming here claiming everyone is a retard then shilling for marx

[Anonymous No.13385871]

>>13385865
It's attitudes like this that lead people to think that your opinions are so retarded. Maybe you're not completely unreasonable, but here you go acting as if I've got to offer up a prescriptive alternative to the thing I'm criticizing. All I'm saying is that the Unabomber is a terrorist and anyone advocating his philosophy is simultaneously advocating terrorism. You just keep calling me a bootlicker because the only alternative is admitting that you are advocating terrorism.

[Anonymous No.13385880]

>>13385871
All I'm saying is no one gives a fuck about you or anyone like you whose arguments have never evolved past being just a really verbose "yikes!"

[Anonymous No.13385887]

>>13385880
If you don't care about my arguments then stop replying to them, imbecile

[Anonymous No.13385901]

>>13385716

[Anonymous No.13385913]

>>13385887
articulate your objections like a man instead of falling back on feminine "yikes! not a good look" tactics

you don't know it, but you're the house nigger of the machine. us field niggers are not so pre-disposed to having such a high opinion of massa and his moral character

[Anonymous No.13385916]

>>13385887
he is just being honest you know , he is doing you a favor

[Anonymous No.13385918]

>>13385847
>I'm not interested in half-assed attempts to weasel out of this.
I've encountered this line of rhetoric before while arguing with you lefties here. Whenever you ask questions with flawed logic or based on incomplete or politicically correct views and then anons respond by providing more context you keep rejecting it and only accept answers within the derived scope of the question or statement. You are the faggot weaseling out of this.

>It's the fundamental question that you people want to gloss over when discussing this work.
A quick search found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#Mental_Health
>Ariel Merari, a psychologist who has studied the psychological profiles of suicide terrorists since 1983 through media reports that contained biographical details, interviews with the suicides’ families, and interviews with jailed would-be suicide attackers, concluded that they were unlikely to be psychologically abnormal.
So far the science says being a terrorist doesn't correlate with mental illness. That is about as close to an objective answer as you can get.

>Is it ethical to advocate the Unabomber's theory when that theory's application results in acts of terrorism
Like your previous yes/no question, it forces one to answer yes or no without considering that morality is relative and changes with time and cultures. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist yet he is viewed as a saint.

>You people are pathetic.
Another pattern I noticed in these lefty ideology shill posts, calling anons pathetic, cowards and children when we disagree. The proper terminology here is faggot and nigger. Also you argue like a woman, so tits or gtfo.

>Read an actual book by someone who isn't in prison after committing stupid crimes for a bad cause.
Whether the cause is bad or not is another case of moral relativism.

[Anonymous No.13385921]

>>13385174
You’re over-socialized.

[Anonymous No.13385931]

>>13385722
>>13385731
>>13385901
Children with no clue how the world works, and no understanding of what >>13385757 means.

[Anonymous No.13385936]

>>13385931
>technology's teleology is automatic and default and unalterable :^)

No

[Anonymous No.13385938]

>>13385918
ted approves

[Anonymous No.13385944]

>>13385793
Only because we are growing at the rate of a cancer. We can fix it though.

[Anonymous No.13385956]

>>13385936
>teleology
By "technology is how we commune with physis" I mean that technology is the expression of our communal with it, i.e., what I said isn't teleological.

[Anonymous No.13385959]

>>13385864
I probably wouldn’t have heard of him or read his writings otherwise.

[Anonymous No.13385971]

>>13385956
while I agree some measure of "artificiality" is unavoidable in man's relationship with nature, there's no reason to assume that we shouldn't constrain ourselves to a certain gradient of technology/energy use than to go all the way into what we see today

[Anonymous No.13385983]

>>13385971
>some measure of "artificiality" is unavoidable in man's relationship with nature
Not even remotely like anything I said. There is no "artificiality" bullshit involved. Nature IS technology.

[Anonymous No.13385990]

>>13385983
then feel free to convert the rest of the planet into iMatter with the rest of your overlords

[Anonymous No.13386016]

>>13385990
Cope. Get off the computer or phone if you hate it so much and go join the Amish or something.

[Anonymous No.13386020]

>>13386016
>worship technology unreflectively
>psychological, sociopolitical and spiritual dynamics are identical to what they were thousands of years ago, it's just easier to order to takeout after midnight now

cope

[Anonymous No.13386026]

>>13386016
that can be said to any argument , oh you are being raped ? C O P E

[Anonymous No.13386044]

>>13386020
Neither points have anything to do with me or what I'm saying. I am saying the OPPOSITE. You guys are such morons.

[Anonymous No.13386054]

>>13386016
A doctor should be among the sick, not the healthy.

[Anonymous No.13386057]

>>13386044
we are replaying to the post , the post is retarded and you are the moron

[Anonymous No.13386078]

>>13386057
>no u
>does not grasp even remotely that I said physis and technology are united and thinks I am saying physis has not changed for millennia despite technology changing
You get better reading comprehension by reading more. Consider doing that.

[Anonymous No.13386083]

>>13385871
>All I'm saying is that the Unabomber is a terrorist and anyone advocating his philosophy is simultaneously advocating terrorism.
This conflates his actions with his philosophy. He was a terrorist, sure, but as far as I know he only advocated opposing technology in vague terms, he didn't specifically call for outright violence in order to achieve that.

>>13386044
>You guys are such morons.
Pic related. As soon as we have shot down all your arguments, all you have left is weak and feminine insults. No arguments of any merit to be found from you so far.

[Anonymous No.13386090]

>>13386078
i dont care what you said , your cope point was so stupid that i had to jump in , your reading point is also meh

[Anonymous No.13386100]

>>13386083
forgot pic

[Anonymous No.13386107]

>>13386083
>As soon as we have shot down all your arguments, all you have left is weak and feminine insults. No arguments of any merit to be found from you so far.
This , he will say one thing then keep saying it with showers of feminine insults

[Anonymous No.13386117]

>>13384979
This post is glowing in the dark

[Anonymous No.13386118]

>>13386083
>No arguments of any merit to be found from you so far.
Is that why you're all dancing AROUND my argument rather than addressing it even remotely, even so far as to address its exact opposite? Or maybe you're so dumb you don't even know what my argument is?

>>13386090
Will to power cannot be restrained except by death. I don't care for the moral argument earlier in the thread when that other poster basically called you terrorists, but he was right with one thing: you vouch for Ted's actions in secret because you know violence is the only solution, one which you desire.

[Anonymous No.13386140]

>>13386117
And call for back-up has been answered.

>>13386118
Feel free to restate your arguments then and lets go through this again.

[Anonymous No.13386162]

>>13386140
>Feel free to keep writing so I can continue to completely misread you because I have no real interest in ever understanding you.
Nah, how about you just learn to read, read real philosophy, and eventually drop Ted like the trash you will find him to be, if you can.

[Anonymous No.13386168]

>>13385716
if your ideal man isn't the Son of God you need to go back right now

[Anonymous No.13386171]

>>13386162
Back again with the gay learn to read shit

[Anonymous No.13386188]

>>13386171
Well considering you or someone else refuted the exact opposite stance that I took more than once, I can't help but think you guys can't read to save your lives.

[Anonymous No.13386193]

The man had nowhere to go

[Anonymous No.13386198]

>>13386162
I think you are just incapable of constructing a coherent argument that can stand up to proper scrutiny. Rather cowardly and pathetic.

The real reason I ask you to compile your arguments is that I don't have the time now to go through the backlog and compose your arguments for you. You are also best able to present your arguments with less of a risk of my "poor reading comprehension" misunderstanding it or accidentally confusing another anon's post or argument as yours.

Really I'm giving you the perfect opportunity to clarify things and to clear up our misunderstandings, as you claim. After all, why bother replying if we can't read, unless your only purpose is to further ad hominem instead of putting your dilation hole where your mouth is.

[Anonymous No.13386208]

>>13385628
lol techies

[Anonymous No.13386228]

>>13386083
He insists in anti-tech revolution that any movement against technological society must be done though legal means, without any considerations of fantastical assassinations and break ins. He stresses subversion and the only time you would resort to "terrorist" violence is when things are so unstable there is a free for all opportunity for everyone and the state doesn't even really exist.

[Anonymous No.13386295]

>>13385786
George Washington was a leader of a terrorist cell. I advocate the action of George Washington

[Anonymous No.13386322]

>>13386198
>I think you are just incapable of constructing a coherent argument that can stand up to proper scrutiny. Rather cowardly and pathetic.
Translation: I want you to keep reconstructing your argument until you phrase it in a way that lets me discard it under false terms without having learned anything in the process.

>Really I'm giving you the perfect opportunity to clarify things and to clear up our misunderstandings, as you claim.
And I already gave you the perfect opportunity to provide a rebuke when I provided my arguments the first time, in a perfectly readable format (and almost verbatim regurgitated from other writers, by the way) which no one successfully did without misrepresenting my position, or even bothered to research or think about at any significant length. Address what I wrote or fuck off.

[Anonymous No.13386350]

Anyone who likes Ted should read The Foundation for Exploration by Sean Goonan.

[Anonymous No.13386361]

>>13386322
Here is one of my rebukes you ignored: >>13385918

I answered your question about terrorism and mental health using actual facts disproving the claim that terrorism correlates with mental illness. I also pointed out the flawed logic of how constructed your question, to which you also had no response other than I'm dodging, which is a dodge from you yourself.

Then I pointed out that Ted being a terrorist doesn't mean his philosophy advocates terrorism, which you also claimed.

I didn't address the argument that technology is physis, but it being physis doesn't mean anything in and of itself. And you could easily argue the speed at which technology developed has surpassed humanity's ability to develop alongside it, causing it to be less physis with regards to it's relation to humans than it originally was. This rapid development is also causing it to affect the environment on an a scale and speed only seen before global catastrophes.

Any I missed? I have to get back to doing stuff.

[Anonymous No.13386365]

>>13386361
Disregard the bit about technology being physis, I'm not sure I understand your usage of the term physis exactly, can you elaborate?

[Anonymous No.13386385]

>>13386361
I'm not the guy talking about terrorism and mental illness. I'm the guy talking about physis and Tedfags being brainlets.

>I didn't address the argument that technology is physis, but it being physis doesn't mean anything in and of itself
Wrong. Guess you don't know what physis means.

>And you could easily argue the speed at which technology developed has surpassed humanity's ability to develop alongside it
No, you couldn't. This isn't an observable phenomenon. Whoever you're observing that you think isn't developing "alongside" technology anymore, is simply failing to keep up with the intelligence of those who have developed "alongside" it; i.e., those who INVENTED it. The idea that technology, after being invented, possesses its own agency, is also something that isn't observable. What you're failing to observe is the inventors who continue to work behind the scenes, being changed by technology and changing technology after being changed, making technology physis and not separate from it.

>This rapid development is also causing it to affect the environment on an a scale and speed only seen before global catastrophes.
The physis of more intelligent (read: powerful) individuals is "catastrophic" to the "environment;" i.e., its will must bend its knee to the greater will, or die struggling. That is the real matter here.

[Anonymous No.13386394]

>>13386385
>Wrong. Guess you don't know what physis means.
See >>13386365

[Anonymous No.13386406]

>>13386365
Physis as in the Greek notion of nature as growth, or in a more modern sense, nature as will to power. It is contrasted with the modern "nature" typically used in contrast with "supernatural," or "metaphysical"; physis is the term for a sense of nature that does not lead to such fallacious distinctions.

[Anonymous No.13386559]

>>13386406
If >>13385628 is your original argument:
>Their motivation is almost entirely due to their fumbling incompetency with modern technology.
Seeing how humans use technology today and what it is doing to nature is not the same as being incompetent with technology. I myself count as someone who doesn't like the way technology is used by humans despite knowing how it works and how to use it. In fact, it was only from exposing myself to technology more and more through work and personal interest that I came to learn more about how humans are using it and how that is impacting the planet. As they say, familiarity breeds contempt.

In my case, I'm not opposed to technology as a phenomenon, and neither is Ted from what I can tell, just the way it is used which has more to do with how people use it and less with what people are using it for. There is a positive feedback relationship between the two, and currently industrial use of technology, while regulated, is still unregulated enough to cause what is most likely unsustainable population growth, which will necessitate more technology, which will further spur on more growth, repeating while all the while further twisting humanity in to less natural environments. This will and in some ways already are causing all kinds of other problem for society and individuals subject to this system.

Ever wondered why transgenders are so common among millennials who work in IT, especially software development? Immersing themselves in technology has removed them so far from their natural state of being that they have lost all ability to recognize themselves or develop a concrete and independent sense of self. These people hardly seem like a "higher caste", and they are knee deep in tech. That is the kind of thing I think Ted was referring to when he talked about the "psychological suffering" industrial societies will suffer from, but that is just a hypothesis at this point in time.

Eventually the entire system will collapses under its own weight, however, and by that time nature will be fucked beyond repair. I like nature and think we should stop treating the pursuit of technology like something that only solves problems.

Not wanting to stab yourself doesn't mean you are bad at stabbing things. It just means you don't want to harm yourself. Likewise, being good at stabbing things that doesn't mean you should go do that the whole time either.

For what it is worth, I don't think a Ted style anti-tech revolution is feasible and that the collapse is more likely to happen if things keep going the way they are. These were my own conclusions from a few years ago before I even knew about Uncle Ted.

I really have to go now and can't address the rest, I've already spent more time on this than I can afford. Sorry for the poor quality posts but I'm trying to post while doing chores and very sleep deprived.

If the thread is still up in a few hours I can do a proper response from top to bottom.

[Anonymous No.13386578]

>>13386559
The collapse is inevitable, Ted argues a revolution now will just make post tech life very livable. He doubts we will even survive a natural collapse and argues civilizations destroy themselves when they reach a particular point which is why we don't see any in space. He doesn't argue to just wait it out, but intelligently wait for an opportunity in weakness. He strongly advocates against any criminal activity as it's very risky and tends to break up small dedicated groups that do the vast majority of work, be may be slightly disingenuous seeing as he's in prison.

He goes into all this in anti-tech revolution.

[Anonymous No.13386773]

>>13384979
He was an Mk Ultra subject as much as a kid who doesn't stand for the pledge is an enemy of the people. He more or less just took a quizlet, the terrorism and mental illness were more an affect of some early events in his childhood after his brother was born that he never properly dealt with after the fact. I mean seriously, read enough biographical accounts and you see the picture of an antisocial math savant who could never grapple with his issues paints itself.

[Anonymous No.13387458]

>>13384979
Reducing Ted to "he cray" shows your own ignorance or dishonesty.

[Anonymous No.13387465]

>>13387458
>trying to rehabilitate a terrorist by calling him by a friendly abbreviation of his first name
Kill yourself idiot

[Anonymous No.13387514]

>>13387465
>hurr he's a "terrorist" so nothing he said was true or interesting
kys oversocialised cuck

[Anonymous No.13387519]

>>13387514
>If he said something that isn't an outright fabrication and I think it's interesting then I should go around telling everyone how great he is and making a big deal out of how little my brain is
Fuck off, idiot

[Anonymous No.13387526]

>>13385628

>"caste system" determined entirely by your value as an economic unit

it'll be good when this shit regresses, not out of any spite to technology itself, but instead so retards like you can taste some pain

[Anonymous No.13387536]

>>13387526
Based

>>13386559
Also based.

[Anonymous No.13387545]

>>13385577
Underrated

[Anonymous No.13387611]

>>13386559
>I myself count as someone who doesn't like the way technology is used by humans despite knowing how it works and how to use it.
If you dislike one way that we use technology, you necessarily must dislike them all; and what you really dislike then is humans, not technology (which aligns with my statement that technology is physis, aka it is not something we "use" but an extension of our being, our being itself). There can be no reality where we have technology (i.e., ourselves) and it is not used in all possible ways (i.e., growing in all possible directions). The alternative is a Marxist view that ignores how life really works and imagines itself as a plausible system in the world. Where there is a will, it will make a way for itself. Human will contains multiple facets, or drives, that cannot be suppressed, and can never be removed without also removing humans altogether.

>Ever wondered why transgenders are so common among millennials who work in IT, especially software development? Immersing themselves in technology has removed them so far from their natural state of being that they have lost all ability to recognize themselves or develop a concrete and independent sense of self. These people hardly seem like a "higher caste", and they are knee deep in tech.
I already disputed the point that these technocrats and code monkeys were the higher caste. Those nerds aren't part of the higher caste; it's men like Elon Musk, and men who use technology to its fullest, who use THEMSELVES to their fullest THROUGH technology, advancing what we are capable of by making things happen themselves. No human can attain greatness without using modern technology to its fullest, because technology is physis, i.e., it is an extension of our being, i.e., to disregard technology means to disregard a part of our being, and to try and grow to your fullest without technology is the equivalent of trying to grow your body while disregarding a limb or two: what you're left with is a deformed man.

>Eventually the entire system will collapses under its own weight, however, and by that time nature will be fucked beyond repair.
This risk has been prevalent since the dawn of civilization. It's why we have had apocalyptic religious texts for millennia. It has not happened yet, and there is no guarantee it ever will. A big reason why it hasn't happened yet is because great men, the very men who are responsible for civilization and everything it has become (EVERYTHING, not a single ounce of it not), are motivated by the risk itself, harness their power directly from that risk.

>>13387526
It has basically nothing to do with economic value. There are millions of rich folks who are not part of the higher caste, just like how there were millions in the past yet only some men garnered names for themselves.

[Anonymous No.13387782]

Why'd he target low level people and have no sympathy whatsoever for killing and maiming people? I can't respect such an immoral man.

[Anonymous No.13387817]

>>13387611
Collapse has happened numerous times in history you dolt, it just gets worse the larger and more complex a society is. Do the Romans not count? The Mayans? Various Chinese dynasties? You seriously think the modern government could handle something similar or that it isn't possible?
>Men like daddy Elon Musk will fix all the problems produced by technology with more technology!
Oh, nevermind.

[Anonymous No.13387833]

>>13387611
>read The question concerning technology once

[Anonymous No.13387837]

>>13387817
>Collapse has happened numerous times in history you dolt
Not total collapse, which is what anyone talking about collapse always refers to. Otherwise, there'd be no civilization in which we could talk about such historical incidents right now. What you're talking about is some scrapes and lumps, maybe a slash or two, which are a natural part of every learning process.

[Anonymous No.13387858]

>>13387837
You’re so fucking retarded. I can’t believe that there are people who advocate for universal suffrage and the universality of human freedom and the moral imperatives that follow from it when fuckwads like you exist.

[Anonymous No.13387903]

>>13387837
No shit? Most people are expecting a catabolic collapse, which is FAR from a few "lumps". Did "gets worse the larger and more complex society is" totally go over your head?

[Anonymous No.13387925]

>>13387858
You're disgustingly ignorant if you think any collapse is a finality. Even when (and if) the big crunch happens, the result will be a new big bang.

>>13387903
Faust making a deal with Mephistopheles and attaining great power is as much a part of the prophecy as his inevitable death. When he ascends to Valhalla, another Faust will appear on earth soon enough, built from the ashes of the previous one, seeking to go further than the previous one did. It's a never-ending process and you would know this if you ever figured out what physis means.

[Anonymous No.13387932]

>>13387925
>muh everything is a cycle I don't have to explain shit
>muh vague proclamations about phoenixes and classical German literature
1/10

[Anonymous No.13387958]

>>13387925
This isn't even worth arguing anymore, embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.13387967]

>>13387932
>>13387958
You dumb faggots don't even read, replying to just one little, fairly arbitrary thing in posts like >>13387611 and then act like nothing is getting explained. Fuck you. And you wonder why you're the ones eating the pollution.

[Anonymous No.13387988]

>>13385757
>technology is how we commune with physis
Yes, through techne i.e. poiesis, not your faggot ass challenging-forth.

[Anonymous No.13387991]

>>13387967
It's not that nothing is being explained, it's that the explanations are infantile and cringe. Also this >>13387988

[Anonymous No.13387999]

>>13386016
>Cope
Open a dictionary for once you illiterate nigger.

>cope1 | kōp |
>verb [no object]
>(of a person) deal effectively with something difficult: his ability to cope with stress | it all got too much for me and I couldn't cope.
>• (of a machine or system) have the capacity to deal successfully with: the roads are barely adequate to cope with the present traffic.

[Anonymous No.13388001]

>>13387988
There is no poiesis in a world where everything flows. This is just another one of Plato's philosophical sleight-of-hand maneuvers.

[Anonymous No.13388002]

>>13384979
>muh mental illness
unironically kys

[Anonymous No.13388006]

>>13388001
The best part of this is that you probably think your post refutes some element of your interlocutor's post.

[Anonymous No.13388014]

>>13387967
You hand waved everything he said with sweeping bullshit statesments with no justification behind them. Are we supposed to take things like your Elon Musk cock worship, not knowing the difference between small scale technology and large organizational technology depending on massive amounts of resources and conflating them just so you can say there is not other way humans can live without unsustainable consumption and production, not knowing catabolic collapse, and dismissing the problems that technology poses to the world and society because "when there is a will there is a way"?

[Anonymous No.13388022]

War is the father of all. Kaczynski did nothing wrong.

[Anonymous No.13388026]

>>13387999
How doesn't that definition work with the usage there? >>13385990 is strawman AND ad hominem in response to a correction in his argument. What other interpretations are there of such a response besides resentment?

>>13388006
How can it be through an activity that doesn't make sense? Heidegger's emergence theory is based on the ill judgment that creation still happens in a world where everything is in a constant state of change and all being is eternally bound to becoming. The long story short is that Nietzsche was better at explaining this than Heidegger was.

[Anonymous No.13388037]

:^)

[Anonymous No.13388056]

>>13388026
Shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.13388071]

>>13388014
>Elon Musk cock worship
You think I worship the guy because I used him as an example? Get your head out of your ass.

The "difference" between "small scales" and "large scales" is arbitrary, like the "difference" between "microevolution" and "macroevolution." Your brain is too coarse to see the parallels between the small scale model and the large scale enterprise. The truth is that your imaginary utopia in which humans work together to utilize technology that benefits everyone equally as well as all other species on the planet and discard all other technology and pursuits that do otherwise is pure fucking faggotry that does not hold up to reality in the slightest.

Also, I didn't say "when there is a will there is a way," I said where there is a will, it will make a way for itself. Will to power can't be restrained, where life can grow, it WILL grow there, and the only way to stop that endless growth is death.

[Anonymous No.13388078]

>>13388026
>effectively
>successfully
Coping means overcoming and prevailing against all odds. The fact that illiterates like you who haven't opened a single book keep parroting the word for everyone you accuse to be in denial won't change that. If you cannot comprehend the difference between the actual meaning of the word and the meaning you think it carries, you're in no position to play around with such vague yet loaded concepts as change, being or becoming.
>inb4 you screech about ad hominems, non sequiturs, straw men and what have you

[Anonymous No.13388084]

>>13388037
why would a collapse of the age of industry bring about mass mortality?

[Anonymous No.13388098]

Are people still worshiping the brainlet that chose a computer store owner as his target?

>targets selected included Percy Wood and Professor Leroy Wood. Crime writer Robert Graysmith noted that his "obsession with wood" was "a large factor."
kek

[Anonymous No.13388109]

>>13388084
over such a long period i mean

[Anonymous No.13388114]

>>13388071
>The truth is that your imaginary utopia in which humans work together to utilize technology that benefits everyone equally as well as all other species on the planet and discard all other technology and pursuits that do otherwise is pure fucking faggotry that does not hold up to reality in the slightest.
I didn't even say or imply any of this, were you not talking about strawmen not even 10 minutes ago?

>it WILL grow there, and the only way to stop that endless growth is death.
That's exactly what is going to happen, growth dependent on resources that are being rapidly depleted to a point where it costs more to extract and use them will lead to end of said growth to the detriment of everything in that system.

>The "difference" between "small scales" and "large scales" is arbitrary, like the "difference" between "microevolution" and "macroevolution." Your brain is too coarse to see the parallels between the small scale model and the large scale enterprise.
There is a difference between the massive unsustainable infrastructure and systems behind the continued function and production and automobiles and a shovel a smith can make that you're pretending doesn't exist so you can justify the former.

[Anonymous No.13388124]

>>13388078
>being so much of a sperg you lose it over a meme and even overlook the slang definition of the term in the process
The slang for cope is to deal with something you can't fix, usually disingenuously so you feel better about yourself.

[Anonymous No.13388129]

>>13388098
Nothing against his writings but the bombings ended up giving no positive attention and consideration to his manifesto that couldn't have happened with just publishing it normally. Pretty much cucked himself on that one.

[Anonymous No.13388136]

>>13388129
>Pretty much cucked himself on that one.
He was putting his theory into practice (i.e., his theory is terroristic).

[Anonymous No.13388144]

>>13388114
>I didn't even say or imply any of this
It's simply the ultimate conclusion of your suggestion that humans "can live without unsustainable consumption and production." ANY amount of consumption and production can be reasoned as unsustainable. ANY amount of living in such a way is unrealistic utopia.

>That's exactly what is going to happen, growth dependent on resources that are being rapidly depleted to a point where it costs more to extract and use them will lead to end of said growth to the detriment of everything in that system.
>There is a difference between the massive unsustainable infrastructure and systems behind the continued function and production and automobiles and a shovel a smith can make that you're pretending doesn't exist so you can justify the former.
When the current resources are gone, life will procure other resources to replace them, no matter the cost. The resources in use at any present moment are also in use because their usage is part of the current optimal strategy for life's growth. But what exactly is your point, anyway?

[Anonymous No.13388146]

>>13388136
Holy shit this thread is going full circle now
>>13388109
Hypothetically if it were the collapse then access to medicine, medicsl care, sanitation and clean water and food would be very limited and not as it once was. Also obviously crime and fighting between those in the wake of said collapse. You're just not going to go back the conditions before the collapse, at least for most people so comparatively life expectancy and death rate will increase for a while

[Anonymous No.13388148]

>>13388124
Slang is for niggers, your point?

[Anonymous No.13388151]

>>13388148
My point is you have Asperger's.

[Anonymous No.13388160]

>>13388144
>ANY amount of consumption and production can be reasoned as unsustainable. ANY amount of living in such a way is unrealistic utopia.
This is so fucking retarded. I keep saying this to you. You need to just kill yourself or something. There's no other solution. As long as retards like you are allowed to participate in society, we're all going to be fucked. Seriously. You are a detriment to the human race and so are all of your opinions. I'm astounded that you aren't in prison.

[Anonymous No.13388170]

>>13388151
Would gladly take that over melanin.

[Anonymous No.13388187]

he is right about everything.

[Anonymous No.13388198]

>>13388160
The retard here is the one who continues to throw the sludge of morality onto reality to pretend that will to power can be restrained by any means besides death, aka you. Opinions? I'm the only one here talking about anything resembling fact even remotely.

>You need to just kill yourself or something. There's no other solution.
You're finally starting to realize that this is a battle of wills, not a battle of wits. You yourself grow in all directions you are capable of, endlessly until you hit your own limitations; your very existence is a refutation of your dialectical nonsense.

[Anonymous No.13388202]

>>13388144
>ANY amount of consumption and production can be reasoned as unsustainable.
Because the amish, innuits, and other subsistence hunters/farmers are just bleeding the land dry, right? In these cases resources are bring consumped below or st the rate of replishment for the most part, currently society is way beyond the replishment rate for essential resources.

>life will procure other resources to replace them, no matter the cost.
Lol are we going to run the world on coal and wind energy? Perhaps, but at a scale fucking tiny compared to now because it forced to after a collapse. Tell me what resources you think will replace easy to extract and abundant oil consumption today?

>because their usage is part of the current optimal strategy for life's growth.
No. Our usage is due to sustaining continued increase of industrial and economic growth.

[Anonymous No.13388211]

>>13388198
>not a battle of wits
Clearly, at this point you're just spouting whatever to continue this argument, not because you have anything of substance to say

[Anonymous No.13388217]

>read about nietzsche on wikipedia once
>"muh übermensch everything is will to power morality doesn't real"

[Anonymous No.13388224]

>>13388198
Please explain to me what will to power is. I am not as smart as you, as you know.
Have you killed yourself yet btw?

[Anonymous No.13388236]

>>13388144
>current optimal strategy for life's growth
Are you just going to ignore that the "current optimal strategy for life's growth" is leading to the mass death of said life? Are you okay with endless cycles of exponential and unsustainable growth and mass death just because?

[Anonymous No.13388238]

>>13388202
>Because the amish, innuits, and other subsistence hunters/farmers are just bleeding the land dry, right?
The Amish are using computers at this point. Also, they exist only because the government allows them to, like keeping a house mouse around. As for the innuits, they "bled the land dry" to the extent that they were able to, with their fear and laziness (i.e., the limits to their power) prohibiting them from bleeding it any drier.

>Tell me what resources you think will replace easy to extract and abundant oil consumption today?
Why do I need to do this to support my observation? It is how it works in the history of EVERY ecosystem, observably so.

>Our usage is due to sustaining continued increase of industrial and economic growth.
Industrialization and economic growth were part of the current optimal strategy for life's growth (namely, the lives of the more powerful members of civilization, who have the greater influence, and consequently "more life").

[Anonymous No.13388252]

>>13388224
>Please explain to me what will to power is.
"Will" as in the Schopenhauerian "world as will," "power" as in growth-as-vitality, like the Pre-Socratic physis.

[Anonymous No.13388266]

>>13388252
That's not a good explanation. That's just pointing to a bunch of other concepts which I'm supposed to take for granted that you understand. You have not demonstrated an understanding of any of these concepts, nor even a basic understanding of the meaning of the Greek word "physis," which is not synonymous with the Greek word for "power;" nor can you just get away with slapping Schopenhauer and the pre-Socratics together without addressing the actual book (authored by Nietzsche) from which you've stolen this bastardized synthetic concept (which you don't understand).

[Anonymous No.13388267]

>>13385174
>midwit
literally more intelligent than anyone in this thread

[Anonymous No.13388316]

>>13388266
>That's not a good explanation.
But that is what will to power is for Nietzsche. He took the aspect of Schopenhauer's will that made it universal in its prospects and fused it with the Pre-Socratic notion of nature (growth-as-vitality). These are very complex ideas that can't possibly be grasped in a handful of posts on an anonymous image board no matter how damn good of a writer I was. If you want to grasp them in full, you have to do the very extensive reading yourself.

[Anonymous No.13388337]

>>13388238
>The Amish are using computers at this point.
I'm am completely sure their way of life will not end if the fucking internet or electricity went away. Their society is in a position to exist without modern technology and the industry to maintain and produce is the point I am making. I am making this point because you said "ANY" amount of consumption will lead to resource depletion, which is evidently not happening to these people.
>As for the inuits
They don't mindlessly kill everything in the land because if they did they wouldn't exist to do so. They hunt as needed for resources and their population is so small that they won't run out of said resources. If they happen to do so in their local area, they can move another area and let the other one replenish. This cannot happen in modern industrial society because the resources it consumes take too long to replenish(if they even can) and it's consumption rate is well beyond that.

>Why do you need observation.
Because I want to understand how you can even pretend that there are other resources to to replace what we are currently overusing to the point where the cost of extraction and use will be too much to effectively run modern society. There aren't any. You just believe that Elon Musk will magically fix and find new resources and ways to use them ad infinitum.

>Our current strategy is for optimal growth of life for the elite.
This is not a good thing, but given your Elon Musk cock worship I am not surprised that you're okay with having your life at the whim of these people and having your freedom narrowed and resources depleted dangerously towards collapse for their purposes. Let me guess, you're going to say this is okay and inevitable because of "will to power" again?

[Anonymous No.13388345]

>>13388316
Again, that's not a good explanation.

[Anonymous No.13388383]

Get off the internet you fucking losers holy shit.

[Anonymous No.13388499]

>>13385155
What about all the misery caused by technology?

[Anonymous No.13388508]

>>13385081
>anarcho primitive society
you don't even know what he is, Ted has criticized anarcho-primitivism

[Anonymous No.13388575]

>>13384958
he did his part in warning you of the future

[Anonymous No.13388625]

>>13388499
Eggshells and omelets etc.

[Anonymous No.13388731]

>>13385155
Yes, and that comfort was at the cost of the planet. We sacrificed tomorrow for today, and that is Ted's entire fucking point. The moral and spiritual decay of the average person living in an advanced civilization is just a side effect.

Global warming and environmental destruction were the real threats all along, and Mr. Kaczynski is 100% correct in his prediction. We're hurtling towards a mass extinction event at an unprecedented rate thanks to our ceaseless greed and flimsy justifications for abusing technology and bringing on the industrial age.

We're just now getting the hang of researching renewable energy, but it's already too late, the gears are set in motion and we're going to witness the severe decline of humanity within our lifetimes. The rate at which we consume oil continues to rise with our still unchecked overpopulation crisis, but we think installing a few windmills and solar panels is going to fix it. It's not. We're growing out of control and the planet just can't handle it. If we all united under one banner and worked cooperatively towards addressing these problems, the future will still suck, but it won't be too bad. But guess what we're not doing? Guess who's too distracted by stock rates and capital and equities and other made-up economic terms to give a shit about the ground that we walk on and grow our food from?

It's going to take a while, but there is enough evidence to prove that we're already fucked.

That's what Ted was warning us about.

[Anonymous No.13388737]

>>13384979
There is nothing more mentally ill than ASS

[Anonymous No.13389668]

If you never had that plateau in the first place you don't have anyone to destroy it for you.

[Anonymous No.13390037]

>>13385174
>midwit
he was an award-winning mathematician and frankly an excellent writer and insightful person
>wah wah it's unsettling and creepy mods please ban ;_;
t. oversocialized retard

[Anonymous No.13390077]

Ted was objectively correct in many regards, but I think too many people took him at his words regarding the bombings and the people he chose. He admitted it himself (in his journals and a letter to his lawyer, the one he had a crush on) that the bombings were emotional reactions more than anything. He, at least initially, chose bad targets that made it clearly he was just acting out of resentment, possible envy, and pure emotion. Yes, later on some of the targets started to make better sense and fit with his overall vision, but that wasn't the case at the start and it's pointless to defend those early bombings. The airline bombing (a dud) is a good example, as he could have killed a lot of innocent people and did it because he was just triggered by the sound of airplanes; this bombing was especially hypocritical since as the FC he condemned the Oklahoma City bombings for killing a lot of innocents which ruins any social movement or political terrorism (something he also acknowledged and is aware of).

Basically, Tedfags need to acknowledge that a lot of his bombings were stupidly done (in terms of targets, the bombs themselves were clever enough even though most "failed"), especially the earlier ones, and can't really be defended as part of his philosophy no matter how correct said philosophy was.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13390776]

>>13388508
>Ted has criticized anarcho-primitivism
Why though?
Just DLed Anti-Tech after reading this >>13388731

[Anonymous No.13390994]

>>13390776
That a lot of them are naive and idealistic about the amount of work and skills that lifestyle takes and that many see primitive societies as utopias when they aren't (there is abuse, gender inequality, violence, etc).

I only read the manifesto once a while back and haven't read the new book, so my question to those who know his works better: does he ever refer to himself as "leftist"? Some of his ideas/definitions regarding leftism (as he defines it) strike me as unusual and very black/white. He decries oversocialization and distraction from the "real" problem and the fact that leftism tends to be hypocritical and ruins many a movement, but he also seems to agree with many tenets of what he would call leftism. He certainly isn't a conservative/right winger and even goes so far as to call them fools, something I don't recall him doing with leftists, though I recognize that his issues with technology/industrialization are bigger than just left-right politics.

[Anonymous No.13391003]

>>13390994
OBVIOUSLY THE CORRECT ANSWER IS "THE MAN WAS A SOCIOPATH WHOSE POLITICS HAD NO ACTUAL GROUNDING IN ANYTHING BUT HIS DELUSIONS"

[Anonymous No.13391042]

>>13391003
Are you angry about the previous discussion or do you mean this crap?

[Anonymous No.13391046]

>>13390077

[Anonymous No.13391060]

>>13390994
Yes, ted calls himself a "product of modernity" in terms of his general liberal sensibilities. He found things related to the Nazis such an anathema he refused to do any real research into them and focused on communists,taliban,irish nationalists etc when it comes to guide books to organizing a revolution. He's not an anarcho-primitivist, he just sees getting rid of tech as taking priority over everything else mainly because it will make humanity extinct in a blink of time, whether it's a few centuries or few millennia. Although he does obviously have issues with how tech structures life as well.

[Anonymous No.13391074]

>>13391060
>Yes, ted calls himself a "product of modernity" in terms of his general liberal sensibilities.
Does he say that in the new book?
>He found things related to the Nazis such an anathema
Normal Pole.

[Anonymous No.13391098]

When is uncle Ted coming home?

[Anonymous No.13391102]

>>13391074
either in anti-tech (where the nazi stuff happens) or in one of his letters refuting utopia anarcho-prims he goes into being a product of liberal modernity. I think he said it after saying he agrees with some list feminist stuff. He openly admits to not researching the rise of nazis much and goes out of his way to note how he's never going to read mein kampf it's pretty out of left field.

[Anonymous No.13391105]

Ted fags at least know it's best to call a philosophers by their first name to exclude casuals from the conversation.

[Anonymous No.13391117]

>>13391102
Thanks. And yeah his addressing the issues in anarcho-primitivism happens in the previous collection of his writings that contained the original manifesto. He said he agreed with feminism and civil rights type stuff in general.

He also apparently released a letter apologizing to women for anything negative he might have said in the past, which strikes me as amusing as I've read a lot of his stuff in passing and never saw anything misogynistic.

[Anonymous No.13391436]

>>13385174
L O N D O N

[Anonymous No.13391461]

>>13384958
ted is based. indsutrial society and technology has done nothing but enslave us. once we create AI, it is time to return to traditionalism on earth while at the same time explore and develop the galaxy. Horses and spaceships is the motto fo the future.

[Anonymous No.13391462]

>>13391436
L O N D O N
O
N
D
O
N

[Anonymous No.13391494]

>Industrial Society and Its Future consistently uses "we" and "our" throughout
if ted were posting today i bet hed be samefagging all his posts and replies from enemies

[Anonymous No.13391532]

>>13391494
Seemed kind of embarrassing when the FBI immediately said it was a lone individual and he responded (as the "Freedom Club") in the plural mocking the FBI for being wrong publicly when they were actually correct.

And you're right, he'd also spam a lot.

[Anonymous No.13391564]

>>13391046
>hurr durr I'm a nigger that can't read

[Anonymous No.13391793]

>>13388129
>Pretty much cucked himself on that one.
His ideas wouldn't be well known if he didn't bomb people. You claim there was no 'positive attention' but there are more people who read his writing and think he was correct than there would otherwise be. Maybe what you meant was "no social elites publicly declared his anti-technology new world order was desirable because of his bombings". In which case your expectation seems unreasonable and your estimation of cause and effect seems suspect.

What's really happening here is that you're trying to rationalize how violating society's rules in such a massive way could never possibly be beneficial (despite the fact that it was). You can't handle the idea that the rules you want everyone to live by aren't always the objectively optimal way to live. So you jump through mental hoops declaring how the world works exactly according to your standards of justice.

[Anonymous No.13392477]

>>13385716
yep, this is going into my cringe compilation

[Anonymous No.13392492]

>>13385918
based

[Anonymous No.13392511]

>>13388170
kek

[Anonymous No.13392810]

>>13388198
try actually reading nietzsche you fucking retard

[Anonymous No.13392835]

>>13384979
>If someone who champions a certain cause does something bad that means his cause has no value too!

You have to be a special sort of indoctrinated to actually believe this, there are ample examples of precedents that "positive changes" can only be achieved by the end of a sword.

[Anonymous No.13392922]

>>13392810
Try providing a solid argument that illustrates how Nietzsche's idea is being misrepresented there.

[Anonymous No.13392941]

>>13392922
value creators and overmen can't be nepotistic oligarchs

[Anonymous No.13392949]

>>13392941
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.13392955]

>>13392949
trap sprung retard, the overman was never supposed to be human in the first place

[Anonymous No.13392962]

>>13392955
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.13392977]

>>13392962
>All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shal1 be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape.

probably one of the most recognizable lines in the book

read nietzsche you nigger fucking retard

[Anonymous No.13393005]

>>13392977
So from what you're telling me... all forms of nepotism and oligarchy are strictly human activities and the overman isn't a human, and this passage somehow proves these two things. Am I getting this right?

[Anonymous No.13393019]

>>13393005
No i'm telling you you're a fucking idiot whose using a sophomoric reading of nietzsche to tell us a bunch of app programmers and media barons are exemplars of humanity

[Anonymous No.13393024]

>>13393019
>to tell us a bunch of app programmers and media barons are exemplars of humanity
Not sure where you think this happened in the thread, but okay.

[Anonymous No.13393031]

>>13393024
>Although he explicitly denied that any Overmen or Supermen had yet arisen, he mentions several individuals who could serve as models. Among these models he lists Socrates, Jesus, Julius Caesar, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Goethe, and Napoleon.

add elon musk to that ahahahahah OH NO NO NO NO

[Anonymous No.13393038]

>>13385786
I do

[Anonymous No.13393165]

>>13393031
When was Elon Musk ever called an overman in the thread?

[Anonymous No.13393177]

>>13393165
By your calling the tech aristocracy in place today a natural consequence of the Nietzschean will to power

[Anonymous No.13393187]

>>13393177
In Nietzsche's own words, everything is a consequence of will to power. Elon Musk was used as a quick example for what the higher caste looks like today, but higher caste =/= Justice League of Assembled Overmen or some shit.

[Anonymous No.13393206]

>>13393187
The higher castes of today are lower than the lower castes of yesterday, at least in terms of the qualities Nietzsche admired in others. You're a fool and are using Nietzsche to justify a cult of mediocrity

[Anonymous No.13393222]

>>13393206
>The higher castes of today are lower than the lower castes of yesterday, at least in terms of the qualities Nietzsche admired in others.
Absolutely, and on an individual level, that is correct. However, it's a result of the increased complexity of our civilization, not its decline, and that doesn't mean they aren't part of the higher caste of today (the one defined in The Antichrist).

[Anonymous No.13393228]

>>13385655
Thank you, Bill Cosby!

[Anonymous No.13393230]

>>13393222
Then who gives a shit? Stop using Nietzsche to lionize app programmers

[Anonymous No.13393266]

>>13393230
Musk is not an app programmer, retard.