/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15160412]

was his manifesto based?

[Anonymous No.15160437]

>>15160412
The part describing what he called leftists was the most interesting.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.15160441]

It’s a surface level reactionary screed by a sociopathic numbers guy. He has his points, he’s just not much beyond anger and vengeance
From what I’ve gathered.

[Anonymous No.15160453]

>>15160441
So you've never read it? Why did you even open your mouth you stupid attention whore?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.15160478]

>>15160453
Not an argument.
Go on.

[Anonymous No.15160534]

>>15160478
That wasn't an argument, that was a question.

[Anonymous No.15160546]

>>15160441
not really, I think you just dont understand his points and thinking to begin with

[Anonymous No.15160549]

>>15160412
Yeah it was basically, I wanted to read his critique of anarchoprimitivism but the anarchist library link is dead

[Anonymous No.15160555]

>>15160441
this

[Anonymous No.15160557]

>>15160478
I got a Harvard argument right here saying im gonna rape ya in the pooper

[Anonymous No.15160633]

I see a lot of people criticizing him, calling him an eco-fascist, this being the most stupid thing that someone could ever say about him.

He literally just analyzed the leftist mentality, saying that he criticized it is not wrong, but he spent most of the time just talking of how the leftist mentality works. He just talks about the hyper sensitivity of leftists on these topics.

"11. ...(We do not mean to implythat primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merelypoint out the hyper sensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)"

"13. ...(We do not mean to suggestthat women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only ma-king a point about leftist psychology.)"

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.15160653]

>>15160546
Over socializing?
Condensed city life tends to deaden people, but that too can be blamed on the deadening hours we spend at work.
He just as hard on capitalism as people and “lefties”?

[Anonymous No.15160717]

>>15160478
Imagine copying Stefan molyjew

This faggot has no taste

[Anonymous No.15161126]

>>15160441
I agree, it is better to just read Linkola and Næss.

[Anonymous No.15161509]

>>15160441
>>15160478
So you didn't read it, right?

[Anonymous No.15161550]

>>15160412
He fucked male dogs with a knife.
He has nothing to say worth paying any attention to.
He should be fucked with a knife.

[Anonymous No.15161593]

>>15160412
I found it immensely informative even where I didn't agree simply because the exposition of his thought process is valuable even if you disagree with a specific point or two on the way towards the conclusion.

[Anonymous No.15162093]

>>15160412
based on what?

[Anonymous No.15162169]

>>15161550
source?

[Anonymous No.15162173]

>>15160412
It’s a great introduction, but the final step in the journey is to discover Ellul and realize that Ted’s agitating for a revolution is far too idealistic. It’s either perpetual technical dystopia in our future or total societal collapse at some point.

[Anonymous No.15162181]

>>15160549
The whole site seems to be down. Plug the link into archive.fo and you can read it

[Anonymous No.15162208]

>>15160412
From the parts I read, no, it was self-righteous tripe written by a very nihilistic and narcissistic person who really has no clue about history and consequently no clue how the present world operates. His entire body of work seems to me like a cope for his inability to integrate socially.

[Anonymous No.15162227]

>>15162208
>it was self-righteous tripe written by a very nihilistic and narcissistic person who really has no clue about history and consequently no clue how the present world operates. His entire body of work seems to me like a cope for his inability to integrate socially.

[Anonymous No.15162228]

>>15162227
>nothing but a wojak image for an argument
Yeah, that's about the level of discourse I'd expect from one of his defenders.

[Anonymous No.15162242]

>>15162228

[Anonymous No.15162247]

>>15162242
Go back

[Anonymous No.15162255]

>>15162247
>thinking this insulting

[Anonymous No.15162267]

>>15162255
It exists because the more powerful society surrounding it allows it to. It is a consequence of all the "crime, suicide, welfarism, homelessness, family breakdown, unemployment, illegitimacy, drug dependency, social class conflict, illiteracy, etc." Otherwise, these people would get fucked sideways and obliterated in short time.

[Anonymous No.15162441]

>>15161126
Pdf?

[Anonymous No.15162589]

>>15160653
Maybe try actually reading a book before you pass on your opinion on it.

>>15160412
Yes, and redpilled. I'd recommend reading the collection of most of his writings called "Technological Slavery". He clarified & advanced his position a lot there.

[Anonymous No.15162596]

>>15162441
It's up on libgen

[Anonymous No.15162618]

>>15160441
You will never be a woman

[Anonymous No.15162638]

>>15162596
Thanks.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.15162656]

>>15162589
>>15161509
WHAT PART OF “From what I gathered.” DONT YOU UNDERSTAND?
And look at the people agreeing!
And look at this prompt >>15160478
>Go on
NO ONE HAS GONE ON.
You are substanceless

[Anonymous No.15163123]

>>15161126
hi friend, what naess would you recommend? i'm thinking about buying can life prevail alongside a collection of teddy's writings and just need a push to do so - is it that much better/different?

[Anonymous No.15163138]

>>15162169
not who you're replying to. a book came out written by people that used to live near teddy's cabin, they owned a bunch of dogs and ted hated them and used to kill them with poison etc.

apparently one of their dogs came home with his colon/anus/hips all shredded up from a knife.

https://missoulian.com/ted-the-menace-and-killer/article_36a3e5b2-10b1-5e01-9edc-9047d68c658e.html

who's to say what is sensationalism and what isn't, but it wouldn't surprise me if animal cruelty was a part of teddy's schtick. it's a trait found in a lot of people willing to do harm.

not sure why it would detract from what he has to say.

[Anonymous No.15163142]

>>15162656
Oh I understand. You need constant attention, so you couldn't resist making a pointless comment that not only added nothing, but actually detracted from the thread.

>Go on

Go on what? Give you a complete summary of it? Maybe I'm just being smallbrained, but I'm not sure what you want. An argument in defense of it, when you don't even know what it is anyone would be defending?

[Anonymous No.15163146]

>>15160412
A sad story of a man who was right about clown world long before the term clown world was coined. But, he snapped and lost his sanity, instead of limiting the clown ness and promoting a healthy mind.

[Anonymous No.15163151]

>>15163142
stop feeding the troll retard

[Anonymous No.15163173]

>>15163138
Why would a guy that was a nature lover do that? That doesn't fit his character at all. Sounds like propaganda, like Hitler being a one-testicle half-jew closet homosexual or something.

>B...but he's a psycho

I would beat to death every animal abuser on the planet with a hammer & lose no sleep. Morality & cruelty isn't as simple as you seem to think. All humans have the capability of doing harm, there isn't some magical "psychopath" switch that draws a sharp line psychologically. He valued nature far, far more than people. That hardly means he's torturing dogs or something.

[Anonymous No.15163180]

>>15163151
No. I'm bored.

[Anonymous No.15163200]

>>15163173
>Morality & cruelty isn't as simple as you seem to think.
i'd prefer it if you didn't make preconceptions about my positions on those two things.

i was simply pointing out that animal cruelty is a trait found in people willing to do harm. it's also been linked in males that have family issues (i believe ted had a strained relationship with his father) so that may also be a factor.

i think you're conflating his philosophy with his ethics, i don't believe he acted in accordance to his own philosophy 100% all the time. i think that's an unreasonable assumption to make of anyone.

i think it's a stretch to say it "doesn't fit his character" because of the above reasons and because i don't know what your conceptualisation of "his character" is but i presume it to be inaccurate because you probably just know him through secondary sources.

like i said in the post, i don't know if it's sensationalism or not, but if the authors presented evidence of the knifing it wouldn't surprise me. the article also states that the feds found strychnine oats in amongst teddy's belongings. i think it would nullify further discussion to say "they were planted".

>>15163180
okay well that's dumb and you're just as bad as he is then

[cunt !OvNqHWMOSk No.15163212]

>>15160412
He was an incel that saw capitalism was bad but went in the exact wrong direction with his reaction against it.

>>15160441
once again butterfly is right

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.15163216]

>>15163151
I was asking for actual feedback.
Some people agreed with my post. No one’s countered it. I freely admitted to not knowing it in full but no one seems able to defend it in any real way. This isn’t a troll, this is an attempt at communication.

[Anonymous No.15163219]

>>15160412
I see his face everywhere

I can't stop seeing him

[Anonymous No.15163235]

>>15163216
you didn't clarify if you had read it or not, "from what i gathered" could be inferred as "from the text" or "from my assumptions about the book that i haven't read".
this will be my last response to you in this thread

[Anonymous No.15163243]

>>15163138
I live in rural kentucky and shit like this could be done by anybody within 100 miles of me

Killing animals is kind of a regular thing if you live in the middle of nowhere

[Anonymous No.15163256]

>>15163243
i don't see anything wrong with that observation. i grew up in a small town as well. but then you have to say "why" and you can probably find commonalities amongst the people that would do that. like i said above, it has been linked to family issues, internalised anger etc. all of these things can be found in the middle of nowhere.
my point was that teddy was just a person and despite his level of intellect or his philosophy he could still have been affected by such things.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.15163263]

>>15163235
So you haven’t read it either. Gotchya

[Anonymous No.15163357]

>>15160441
Shut your fucking cock-holster you dumb cunt.

[Anonymous No.15163391]

>>15163173
I've read his nonsense rant. He's a man who never travelled far from home and didn't read deeply into any subject.
A co-worker pretended to menace him with a box-cutter once, he tells about that incident, the fact the co-worker was Arabic and goes on from there to detail how Arabic people don't value life.
He's a sheltered idiot willing to hurt people because of his opinions and say it's 'for the environment' or 'for cultural purity' or to 'save the world'. But really, anyone with a vague and sweeping cause like those is going to do some petty, cowardly shit before they get taken down.
I completely believe he'd jab a neighbor's dog in the asshole with a knife, that sounds very /pol/, except acted out, not just shitposted.

[Anonymous No.15163402]

>>15163391
Jesus Christ ATFnigger you're embarassing yourself

[Anonymous No.15163403]

>>15163391
where does it mention the arab, i can't find it

[Anonymous No.15163407]

>>15160412
If a burger kills a few people he has to write a big stupid essay rationalizing the violence otherwise nobody will remember him.
Three counts of murder, golf fucking clap, there's schizophrenic junkies who've killed more by accident.

[Anonymous No.15163408]

>>15163263

giant cocksucking faggot.

on a side note, reminder that ted was an MKultra test subject. It's possible the ungodly amounts of acid fried the parts of his brain that would normally inhibit such violent tendencies.

[Anonymous No.15163434]

>>15163391
i don't think that's true, i can't find any record of it and it itsn't in the manifesto as far as i can see.

[Anonymous No.15163450]

>never had a relationship with a woman, was hostile to women whom he considered "manipulative", but considered sex change surgery

based af

[Anonymous No.15163532]

>>15163200
Fair enough. I just don't think given no evidence to support it that it'd be fair to make that assumption & repeat it as if it were fact.

>secondary sources

Which is all you know as well.

>>15163216
Feedback on you reducing his entire thesis of the loss of participation in the power process experienced by people in a post-industrial revolution society, when compared to their evolutionary history in paleolithic tribes to "people work too much"? I mean, the NEET in me certainly agrees, but that's such a gross oversimplification & misrepresentation that there's nothing to give you feedback on outside of "read it".

[Anonymous No.15163548]

>>15163532
i've made no assumptions about his particular character so i'm not sure what you're pointing out here.

but yeah, i agree insofar as lack of evidence, but i'm not sure if that exists or not. still, at the end of the day, i'm not sure what it has to do with his philosophy. you can be a misanthrope and point out the things he did in ISAIF

[Anonymous No.15163566]

>>15163450
The funny thing is that he got married in jail and had hundreds of female admirers sending him nudes
The same thing happened with every "incel", once they kill someone they receive a lot of positive female attention.
Anyway to go back on topic, he thinks he was mentally ill durint his autogenyphilitic period

[Anonymous No.15163590]

>>15162173
Different anon here, where do I start with Ellul?

[Anonymous No.15163622]

>>15160412
If you read his journal as well, you will see that he had extreme violent urges (which to be fair didn't come from nothing, he was horribly mistreated for years in an experiment in university) and really his whole anti-tech crusade was just an outlet for them. He really was just a more intelligent and in control serial killer.

The manifesto itself has some very good ideas, the observations about the power process and surrogate activities is spot on. But the premise that human freedom could be realized only if technology is destroyed is wrong, it only makes sense if we go by a very narrow definition of freedom (basically the lifestyle Ted wanted to have).

[Anonymous No.15163628]

>>15163622
What is human freedom if not what Ted pescribed?

[Anonymous No.15163682]

>>15163628
Freedom of choice, movement and activities, which is in some ways expanded by technology and would be restricted without it (of course the other way around is true as well).

Basically it just means whether or not you can pursue your desires, which Ted obviously was not able to because loggers kept cutting down his forest and so on. Now it could be argued that living a primitive lifestyle is just better and everyone should do it for their own sake, but not because you have more freedom.

Btw I can respect Ted for actually living the lifestyle he preached. But his acolytes who praise his ideas on the fucking internet are just baffling. They just want to fantasize about living primitively as a way to escapism but would actually be horrified if they actually had to go a week without the internet.

[Anonymous No.15163717]

>>15160441

ok tranny

[Anonymous No.15163734]

Yes.

[Anonymous No.15163742]

Test

[Anonymous No.15163793]

>>15163622
Violent fantasies are pretty normal with people with schizoid personality disorder. Ted looks like he fits the bill.

Schizoids never act out their fantasies though.

[Anonymous No.15163846]

His ideas are worth reading about but he seems kind of a luddite to me.

A better alternative would be drastically reducing the population ( kill 99% of all humans ).

[Anonymous No.15164018]

>>15162441
kek

[Anonymous No.15164160]

>>15160441
show me your tits

[Anonymous No.15164205]

>>15160412
You tell me.
>Manifesto Incoming
1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have
been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly
increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in
“advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society,
have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings
to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and
have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The
continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human being to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world,
it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical
suffering even in “advanced” countries.
2. The industrial-technological system may survive or it
may break down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve
a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but
only after passing through a long and very painful period
of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to
engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine.
Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will
be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying
the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of
dignity and autonomy.
3. If the system breaks down the consequences will still
be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more
disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is
to break down it had best break down sooner rather than
later.
4. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system. This revolution may or may not make use
of violence; it may be sudden or it may be a relatively
gradual process spanning a few decades. We can’t predict
any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the
measures that those who hate the industrial system should
take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against
that form of society. This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object will be to overthrow not governments
but the economic and technological basis of the present
society.
5. In this article we give attention to only some of
the negative developments that have grown out of the
industrial-technological system. Other such developments
we mention only briefly or ignore altogether. This does not
mean that we regard these other developments as unimportant. For practical reasons we have to confine our discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which we have something new to say. For
example, since there are well-developed environmental
and wilderness movements, we have written very little
about environmental degradation or the destruction of
wild nature, even though we consider these to be highly
important.
1/?

[Anonymous No.15164208]

>>15164205
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM
6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply
troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society
in general.
7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th
century leftism could have been practically identified with
socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not
clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak
of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists,
collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and
disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But
not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a
psychological type, or rather a collection of related types.
Thus, what we mean by “leftism” will emerge more clearly
in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. (Also,
see paragraphs 227-230.)
8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good
deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn’t seem
to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do here is
indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving
force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our
discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We
leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early
20th centuries.
9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization”. Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of
modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism;
but this segment is highly influential.
2/?

[Anonymous No.15164214]

>>15164208
FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY
10. By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum
of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred,
etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such
feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these
feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.
11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom
he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings
or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among
minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the
minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities
and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The
terms “negro”, “oriental”, “handicapped” or “chick” for an
African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick”
were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy”, “dude” or
“fellow”. The negative connotations have been attached
to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal
rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word
“pet” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion”. Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid
saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the
word “primitive” by “nonliterate”. They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive
culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply
that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely
point out the hyper sensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)
12. Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the average black ghettodweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not
even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from
privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its
stronghold among university professors, who have secure
employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority
of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to
upper-middle-class families.
13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the
problems of groups that have an image of being weak
(women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel
that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to
themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they
identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest
that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)

[Anonymous No.15164219]

>>15164214
14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are
nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and
as capable as men.
15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image
of being strong, good and successful. They hate America,
they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they
hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating
the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real
motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but
where these same faults appear in socialist countries or
in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them,
or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly
exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western
civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the
leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He
hates America and the West because they are strong and
successful.
16. Words like “self-confidence”, “self-reliance”, “initiative”, “enterprise”, “optimism”, etc., play little role
in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is antiindividualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve
every one’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs
for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person
who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve
his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is
antagohistic to the concept of competition because, deep
inside, he feels like a loser.
17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or
else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational
control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was
to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.
>4/?

[Anonymous No.15164221]

>>15164219
18. Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason,
science, objective reality and to insist that everything is
culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and
about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can
be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically
analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply
involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality.
They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for
hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates
science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs
as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false
(i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority
run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of
some things as successful or superior and other things as
failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many
leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of
IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations
of human abilities or behavior because such explanations
tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to
others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame
for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is
“inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has
not been brought up properly.
19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose
feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a
bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of
person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still
conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong,
and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for
that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel
strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass
movement with which he identifies himself.
20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics.
Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they
intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc.
These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use
them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER
masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.
>5/?

[Anonymous No.15164225]

>>15163590
The Technological Society - its his first proper book which breaks down the metaphysics of technique and how it has an irrational and uncontrollable need to expand

[Anonymous No.15164226]

>>15160412
>>15164205
nope

[Anonymous No.15164231]

>>15164221
21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated
by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle
does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type.
But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main
motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a
component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power.
Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim
to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make
sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic
terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a
diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at
least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who
think that affirmative action discriminates against them.
But leftist activists do not take such an approach because
it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black
people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve
as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and
frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm
black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward
the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.
22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide
themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.
23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend
to be an accurate description of everyone who might be
considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.
>6/?
Seriously, it's only 29 pages. Fucking read it yourself.

[Anonymous No.15164241]

>>15160441
>butterfly
This opinion seems important

[Anonymous No.15164245]

>>15164231
OVERSOCIALIZATION
24. Psychologists use the term “socialization” to designate the process by which children are trained to think
and act as society demands. A person is said to be well
socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of
his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that
society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are
over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are
not such rebels as they seem.
25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that
no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way.
For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet
almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other,
whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are
so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and
act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order
to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive
themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a
nonmoral origin. We use the term “oversocialized” to describe such people. [2]
26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a
sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the
most important means by which our society socializes
children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or
speech that is contrary to society’s expectations. If this is
overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible
to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF.
Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society’s expectations
than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty
behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break
traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they
say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to
get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates
in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt,
thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think “unclean” thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to
conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under
the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is
kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running
on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and
powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest
that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties
that human being inflict on one another.
>7/?
I'm getting kind of tired of posting this. The manifesto is public domain.
http://editions-hache.com/essais/pdf/kaczynski2.pdf

[Anonymous No.15164286]

>>15163408
thats how it works guys!!

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.15165511]

>>15163532
>it’s too simplified! I can’t give feedback to that
That’s pretty absurd. Your simplification is helpful though. Thanks. Should have come much sooner.

>>15164241
Naw. Just one of many.

[Anonymous No.15165687]

>>15165511
You're insufferable.

[Anonymous No.15165922]

>>15162173
Extremely Based. I love Ellul

[Anonymous No.15165956]

>>15163123
For Næss, Ecology, Community and Lifestyle. You can also read Ecology of Wisdom which is a collection of selected writings.

TK is good to read as an introduction but he is more surface and reactionary than other ecologist writers. I doubt you will read anything in his work that you will find substantive.

[Anonymous No.15165973]

>>15160412
He had a point. Something everyone should check out and consider. But the murder stuff forever tarnishes its reputation.

[Anonymous No.15166508]

>>15163357

^cock-holster, lulz

[Anonymous No.15166588]

>>15163846
why not, instead of kill 99%, slow the birthrate globally (through a means unspecified here) and as generations grow, age, expire, the population naturally, albeit slowly, reaches an optimum and more sustainable level..

make sense to me anyway fully understanding the scope of 'slowing/mitigating birthrates esp. tird-world, etc...' probably would involve some conspiratorial bill-g-sterilization agenda.

[Anonymous No.15166620]

>>15162173
>>15165922
Based Ellul posters. Why doesn't he get more recognition here? He should at least feature more prominently in charts.

[Anonymous No.15166690]

>>15160412
It was pretty decent, basically like we're amazed at human consumption, the rapidly expanding scale of technology and community, and the exponential growth of technology which would have been seen as basically magic in history, so like
>It's a wonder man can eat it all
>When things are big that should be small
>Who can tell what magic spells we'll be doing for us

[Anonymous No.15166762]

>>15163682
>Freedom of choice, movement and activities, which is in some ways expanded by technology and would be restricted without it (of course the other way around is true as well).
All made completely impossible by technology

>Now it could be argued that living a primitive lifestyle is just better and everyone should do it for their own sake, but not because you have more freedom.

Ted is against primitivism.

>Btw I can respect Ted for actually living the lifestyle he preached. But his acolytes who praise his ideas on the fucking internet are just baffling. They just want to fantasize about living primitively as a way to escapism but would actually be horrified if they actually had to go a week without the internet.
Ted is against primitivism.

[Anonymous No.15166775]

>>15160412
indigenous peoples have lived/existed for thousands of years w/o the need for tech advancement and in more harmonic balance w/ nature and their surroundings.

tech-dependent societies have little chance of ever achieving this level of sustainability due to fragility of tech and its co-dependence on other equally-fragile networks (oil, energy, satellites, bandwidths, etc..)

i have an adoration for people like the inuit and many of the remaining tribal peoples throughout the world that continue to thrive w/out the
having become reliant on tech innovation, etc..

btw this is not a crib note manifesto, jst an (perhaps redundant) observation

[Anonymous No.15166809]

>>15163548
Fucking no evidence retard

[Anonymous No.15166842]

>>15166775
Fuck indigenous peoples bro, fucking millions of humans all over the world lived for the vast majority of our existence as a species before the invention of agriculture.
Your fascination with natives is fuckin creepy bro go meet some of them they're normal dudes and chicks, the only discernable difference between natives and run of the mill whiskey tango trailer trash is that natives tend to have less access to running water and some of them turn out to become academics or whatever.
Reminds me of a story I was hanging with a friend of mine on the Navajo land in AZ, he's a lawyer for the tribe. Basically his job is get his client (some dumbass kid whose life the fuzz are trying to absolutely ruin for like smoking weed or fighting) off the hook by convincing the AZ police that the case isn't in their jurisdiction, then he goes over to the tribal police and convinces them that the case isn't in their jurisdiction. Fun guy. Anyway we're hanging with some dudes who came out from my school with me to do some hiking and a gaggle of korean exchange girls and he drives us out to this spot in the middle of the desert to make a fire and have some drinks and me and him are on the same page in terms of "we are going to try and fuck these korean chicks" so he brought a chainsaw and I'm over showing those girls how to cut up some shrubby trees with the chain saw, they're all like squealing and impressed with my forearms acting super cute, and one of the fucking dudes I brought along from school goes up to this native lawyer guy and is like "can you tell us any legends?"
Almost fell into the blade of the chainsaw from laughing so hard
Korean chicks were not down to fuck but we had fun flirting and having them sit on our laps and shit

[Anonymous No.15166943]

>>15160412
Why did you post a picture of Weird Al next to some bearded guy?

[Anonymous No.15167316]

Just started Technological Slavery. So far he has addressed all of the mainstream arguments I have heard against his position in Inustrial Society. Basically quantity of population an years lived does not justify taking away freedoms and thos natural endorphins you get over living in nature. Expecting it to fall apart due to secularism not being able provide a solid foundation for halting technological advancement

[Anonymous No.15167830]

>>15166762
>All made completely impossible by technology
Not for the wealthy.

[Anonymous No.15167917]

Love him but Anti Tech Revolution is way better

[lyndon larouche No.15168335]

>>15166943
holy moly, i'm busted.

[Anonymous No.15168455]

>>15163146
Ironic given he is a tranny incel sperglord himself

[Anonymous No.15168504]

>>15160412
At some point, I came to realize that he was right and based, but that you can't put the technology genie back in the bottle, so the only thing you can do is try and mitigate the negativities of technology in your own life

[Anonymous No.15168509]

Someone should tell him to read Guenon.

[Anonymous No.15169558]

>>15166842
all-consuming stream of consciousness.

based.

[Anonymous No.15169580]

>>15160441
I love you butterfly

[Anonymous No.15169636]

Theodore Kaczynski's library.

https://imgur.com/a/2DWnyf8

[Anonymous No.15169660]

>>15162656
>"you are substanceless'' instead of ''you / your arguments have no substance!''

Imagine unironically writing like that.