An analysis of a single paragraph in Ted Kaczynski's Manifesto

[Anonymous No.15544225]

Here we go:

>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.
Ted may claim that his activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the Tedist of the hypocritical type who uses technology to post their 'thoughts' on the Internet ("But it's just a communication tool!" Exactly -- as it is for everyone else who uses it, Copernicus.)

>But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism.
But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for Ted's serial murders.

>Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power.
Hostility is too prominent a component of Tedish behavior, specifically: literally mailing bombs to people who engage in WrongThink.

>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?
If one believes that technology is bad for people, does it make sense to demand the abolition of technology in hostile or dogmatic terms? For instance, by sending mail bombs?

>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.
Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to those who think the industrial revolution was not all bad. Like, for example, not sending them a mail bomb.

>But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs.
But Tedist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Their emotional needs, of course, involve using technology to post on the internet about how absolutely evil technology is.

>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.
Helping people is not Ted's real goal. Instead, technological 'problems' serve as an excuse for him to express his 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.
In doing so, Ted actually harms people, because his hostile attitude toward the masses of people comfortable with technology only intensifies their hostility toward, and fear of, eco-terrorists like Uncle Ted.

---------------------------------------

So... any thoughts on the Unabomber... or terrorism in general?

[Anonymous No.15544227]

>>15544225
yes Ted is probably a heartless asshole but he's still right about progs

[Anonymous No.15544230]

didnt read lol

Ted thread? Ted thread.

[Anonymous No.15544240]

>>15544225
You are analyzing the persona not the ideas or the writing. Please, try again. Be less smug this time. You are writing not recording a yt video.

[Anonymous No.15544257]

>>15544227
>he's still right about progs
In other words: himself.

[Anonymous No.15544260]

Sounds like Ted hurt your feefees by making you look in mirror. kys liberal scum

[Anonymous No.15544265]

>>15544257
How?
Did you read the manifesto?

[Anonymous No.15544271]

>>15544257
nope. he was a primitivist.

[Anonymous No.15544275]

>>15544257
I don't doubt his motives for doing what he did are petty but he's still very smart and he's right about a lot of his analysis. He's definitely not a progressive

[Anonymous No.15544280]

>>15544240
>You are analyzing the persona not the ideas
Did you miss the part of his writings/'ideas' where he ad-hom "analyzes" the persona of what he considers 'the leftist'. Turnabout is fair play.

[Anonymous No.15544288]

>>15544225
Ted doesn’t claim what he does is motivated out of compassion for others or that he acts out of pure goodness which doesn’t not derive him great pleasure or moral fulfillment. He’s attacking the progressive as fundamentally disingenuous. That the progressive masquerades his “gratuitous benevolence” as if it is an easily parted gift which bears no significant meaning upon the progs life. Desu.

[Anonymous No.15544293]

>>15544275
>He's definitely not a progressive
How do you define that? Anti-technology basically means anti-white, no?

[Anonymous No.15544302]

Why people are obsessed with this guy in here?

[Anonymous No.15544305]

>>15544288
Why did he engage in targeted killings if he was not interested in producing societal change?

[Anonymous No.15544310]

>>15544293
>Anti-technology basically means anti-white, no?
no, what? Progressives are obsessed with racism, sexism, etc. He explains it he just calls them leftists, which word I don't use because it makes Communists lose their shit and derail the conversation.

[Anonymous No.15544325]

>He fucked at least two dogs to death that we know of, one with a knife and one with a gun.

[Anonymous No.15544326]

>>15544280
Then don't call it an "analysis". Smug cunt.

[Anonymous No.15544331]

>>15544302
Almost every board attracts contrarians. That's what this site is for. /lit/ contrarians tend to be anarchoprimitivists and communists.

[Anonymous No.15544342]

>>15544310
>no, what?
Wait, you think technology was invented in Wakanda? Please tell me you are joking.

>Progressives are obsessed with racism, sexism, etc.
True. But how does that not make Ted exactly what he is rejecting?

>which word I don't use because it makes Communists lose their shit and derail the conversation.
Thank you for that, anon.

[Anonymous No.15544365]

>>15544331
>That's what this site is for. /lit/ contrarians tend to be anarchoprimitivists and communists.
Don't forget that shill for James Macpherson and his pseudo-Ossianist Scotch nationalism.

Johnson. Was. Right.

[Anonymous No.15544377]

>>15544365
Also, /lit/ attracts really mentally ill people like guenon fag.

[Anonymous No.15544392]

>>15544342
Being against technology is a much more radical position than being pro or anti white. It's just an entirely different dimension.

Kaczynski isn't a conservative or rightwing guy, he talks about them a bit, he just considers them irrelevant because Progressives run everything and they're the ones who would co-opt an anti-tech revolution(in his opinion).

[Anonymous No.15544413]

>>15544392
"Non-progressives" (among others) believe that that the industrial revolution originated in northwestern Europe rather than central Africa due to genetics (IQ, etc), rather than happenstance or geography or whatnot.

[Anonymous No.15544427]

>>15544413
Yeah I'm aware but it's not relevant to whether Kaczynski is a progressive or not. I don't really understand what your angle is here, I've never seen Ted say his opinion race but it doesn't matter whether he thinks they're equal or not, it's just not relevant to his anti-tech stuff.

[Anonymous No.15544435]

>>15544305
What are you getting at? Does Ted claim that he’s some benevolent do’er of good that just so happens to have the spare time to “lend a hand” in dismantling a supposed system of oppression like contemporary progs, or do he just do it and say that he’s going to fuck up your whole world because he thinks it’s a giant fucking sham? There’s a fundamental behavioral operant which gives the opposing Ideas of who Ted K is and what a progressive is. If this what not plainly and matter of factory obvious to you in that you somehow thought you could
make an asinine comparison of a man bent on revenge and another dude who’s being patronizing fuckwit, then stop trying to be intellectual. This may come off as harsh but you’re clearly agenda pushing and it’s obnoxious to those who know the know.

[Anonymous No.15544444]

>>15544275
Not about his analysis of technology. It's full of holes.

Our languages are a form of man-made technology. We invent alphabets and grammar and words as tools of communication and they serve as representations of our inner nature; they're also used to exploit and tyrannize over others all the time (i.e., prevent the illiterate's "power process"). Where does he draw the line with good and bad tech? Nowhere, because it can't really be done. If you want to abandon all "bad" tech, tech that blocks someone's "power process," you have to abandon our languages too. But then, aren't you using your ideas to take away these tools and consequently block someone else's "power process" in that process? Ideas too are our inventions, and they'll disappear along with our languages, in which case we pretty much have to abandon human consciousness as well to maintain this endless endeavor. And at that point, what kind of utopia is this? What kind of sick man wants this?

[Anonymous No.15544447]

if your ideology doesn't kill anybody it will always be cucked by ideologies that do kill people like the status quo, literally the only reason anybody gives a shit about anprim is because this mk ultra reject bombed some people. zerzan et al owe him their careers.

face it faggot, nonviolence is just gaslighting by (indirectly extremely violent) neoliberalism and you fell for it.

[Anonymous No.15544454]

>>15544225
>not one (1) refutation listed
seethe

[Anonymous No.15544458]

>>15544447
Based. That's why after May 68' nothing changed.

[Anonymous No.15544462]

>>15544444
checked and I had a similar argument when I read his manifesto but his Anti-Tech Revolution has a different argument. Basically he thinks that the technological system is going to destroy large parts of the world to the point humans won't be able to live in them anymore, so it has to be stopped sooner rather than later as a matter of saving the species.

And I'd guess he doesn't think there is any optimal type of life but that living as hunter-gatherers is what we're psychologically evolved for. Language would be a type of technology we've evolved to be ok with, like spears or something, unlike industrial society.

[Anonymous No.15544463]

>>15544444
>checked
and
>Our languages are a form of man-made technology
Oh no no no no no

[Anonymous No.15544470]

>>15544447
In other words: despite what Ted jokingly says, Leftism is based as fuck.

[Anonymous No.15544493]

>>15544462
There is no way to measure what technology we are "evolved" for because "we" are a very broad group with a variety of physiologies and genealogies. Some are too feeble to handle spears, but they are great at handling ledgers. Some find great beauty in building mechanical or electronic devices and need them to express themselves. Lots of people who satisfy their "power process" in the world today wouldn't be able to if society were to change that drastically. The only way to make this work is if you executed or at least sterilized everyone who thought and tasted differently from you, which would only end in the species' extinction.

[Anonymous No.15544503]

>>15544463
Everything you can say about industrial technology you can also say about our languages.

[Anonymous No.15544505]

>>15544493
do you not get the argument? It's that if you spent tens/hundreds of thousands of years in an environment you're better adapted for it than industrial society which is 200 years old

[Anonymous No.15544511]

>>15544493
>Some are too feeble to handle spears, but they are great at handling ledgers.
Hmmm, I wonder who (((they))) could be.

t. an actual leftist

[Anonymous No.15544513]

>>15544503
This is patently false on the fact that the entire universe communicates without the overt form of man-made phonetics.

[Anonymous No.15544518]

>>15544310
What you're having trouble understanding with anon's argument is the weird headspace he's in. He is one of the people who are so insecure about his race that he has internally equated it with other "good" concepts, without any particular regard to how the two may actually be connected. Apparently for him "technology" is one of these, so when you tell him Ted was against technology he assumes this must mean he's anti-white. You see this a lot in discussions about Christianity or music, but it not infrequently comes up in seemingly random topics.

[Anonymous No.15544521]

>>15544493
>There is no way to measure what technology we are "evolved" for
Stick you finger in a hot cup of coffee and tel me what you’re evolved for.

[Anonymous No.15544527]

>>15544503
Not in the scientific sense of 'language'. But maybe you mean metaphorically...?

[Anonymous No.15544531]

>>15544505
Do you not get mine? It's not all about you. There are a lot of people who fare extremely well with modern technology. Therefore, there is no way to determine which technology at present is bad, unless you slaughter countless millions and severely narrow the gene pool, which isn't possible or desirable for anyone other than very sick people.

[Anonymous No.15544541]

>>15544518
Go back to Wakanda, libfag.

[Anonymous No.15544544]

>>15544513
I'm obviously not talking about universal communication, I'm talking specifically about the way we communicate using complex alphabets and grammar systems.

[Anonymous No.15544546]

>>15544531
Probably an average thing, it would be weird if you were well adapted to an environment that had never existed before. People in industrial societies do seem kind of depressive and unhealthy

[Anonymous No.15544557]

>>15544546
There are millions of people around the world who work jobs that use modern technology who don't feel this way.

[Anonymous No.15544566]

>>15544280
No it isn't.

[Anonymous No.15544567]

>>15544544
...so we just invented an explicit form of verbal behavior which completely excommunicates and averts its natural and unconscious origins? How is this even possible? Do you understand the fundamental properties of intelligence?

[Anonymous No.15544576]

>>15544541
What is that even supposed to mean?

[Anonymous No.15544588]

>>15544567
No? This discussion is built on the English language. It couldn't be had without a language like English allowing us to communicate such complex ideas. The ideas are dependent on these man-made languages, formulated and refined by them, and said languages prevent a lot of people from satisfying their "power process" too! Imagine all the people with a terribly weak command over the language trying to survive today with all the texting and emailing and legal jargon they have to read. Many can't even grasp basic logic, which is another of our inventions.

[Anonymous No.15544589]

>>15544576
A magical mythical place where the Negro race has more advanced technology than the White race:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakanda

[Anonymous No.15544606]

>>15544588
You’re using complexity to justify complexity without explaining the complexity.

[Anonymous No.15544627]

>>15544606
No, I'm just pointing out how there is no way to measure what technology is good (=doesn't interfere with our "power process") or bad (=does interfere with it) while there is any diversity at all. If you want to make sure only the technology YOU consider good is allowed in society, you basically have to reduce the human population down to the size of a small village.

And at that point, you're admitting that you can only grasp life when it is at the complexity of a small village, and no further... which makes it apparent that you really should not be trying to be in charge of things. Those computers that you think tyrannize us? Other human beings, which you obviously have nothing in common with, invented them, and build and use those on a daily basis.

[Anonymous No.15544630]

>>15544392
That's not radical, it's reactionary.

[Anonymous No.15544641]

>no you
sigh... that's the analysis? honestly when I read the title of your thread I thought it would be fun to have a rigorous debate. But this is /lit and I should have known that people can't develop an argument.

[Anonymous No.15544649]

>>15544225
based. the guy is a poor man's nietzsche

[Anonymous No.15544650]

>>15544427
>I've never seen Ted say his opinion [on] race
Read between the lines, mongoloid.

[Anonymous No.15544660]

>>15544447
>zerzan et al owe him their careers.
lol this is not remotely true

[Anonymous No.15544664]

>>15544650
A racist Polack... that's a good one.

[Anonymous No.15544670]

>>15544627
>No, I'm just pointing out how there is no way to measure what technology is good (=doesn't interfere with our "power process") or bad (=does interfere with it) while there is any diversity at all
Is eating scalding hot pizza good or bad for a person?
If you want to make sure only the technology YOU consider good is allowed in society, you basically have to reduce the human population down to the size of a small village.
Actually, we don’t. As long as we can agree upon a set of axioms which render everyday life and the requirements of general human survival then we have effectively arrived at the logical praxis of behavior. Do you live in a big city ? I am getting the vibe that your sense of physical has been clinically warped. You may be experiencing a form of psychosis which has yet to be made personally aware for your self.

[Anonymous No.15544674]

>>15544664
Which, of course, poses the perennial question: are Slavs white?

[Anonymous No.15544675]

>>15544627 #
>No, I'm just pointing out how there is no way to measure what technology is good (=doesn't interfere with our "power process") or bad (=does interfere with it) while there is any diversity at all
Is eating scalding hot pizza good or bad for a person?
>If you want to make sure only the technology YOU consider good is allowed in society, you basically have to reduce the human population down to the size of a small village.
Actually, we don’t. As long as we can agree upon a set of axioms which render everyday life and the requirements of general human survival, the. we have effectively arrived at the logical praxis of behavior. Do you live in a big city ? I am getting the vibe that your sense of physical has been clinically warped. You may be experiencing a form of psychosis which has yet to be made personally aware for your self.

[Anonymous No.15544681]

>>15544650
the point is that it doesn't matter, how dense are you? Whether he thinks blacks are dumb or not is completely irrelevant to the anti-tech arguments

[Anonymous No.15544687]

>>15544674
Ted looks closer to Middle Eastern so I'm going with no in his case.

[Anonymous No.15544698]

>>15544271
>he was a primitivist
No he just wanted a return to pre industrial times. He was an authoritarian Luddite not an anarcho primitivist or anticiv

[Anonymous No.15544700]

>>15544681
What? "Technology" is clearly an invention of northwestern Europeans. Are you just fucking with me or what?

[Anonymous No.15544707]

>>15544675
>Is eating scalding hot pizza good or bad for a person?
Why do you think this is the equivalent to, say, some people having trouble learning how to read, and some people being literal, highly successful nuclear scientists who have written genius level papers?

>As long as we can agree upon a set of axioms
We can't. That's my point. If you can't see it, you have a very, very narrow sample size of human beings as your reference.

[Anonymous No.15544717]

>>15544310
>it makes Communists lose their shit
Well Ted basically said the only two options are liberalism, conservatism, or his thing. So yes communists are mad - he basically only took into account only US neoliberalism and then claimed primitivism was the only alternative. He ignored communism which has extensively developed theory - if he had read which, andnot been an MK ultra victim, he wouldnt have needed primitivism

[Anonymous No.15544718]

>>15544687
Looks can be deceiving, as Ice Cube discovered recently:

https://twitter.com/icecube/status/1269277079914209282

[Anonymous No.15544720]

>>15544700
>Technology" is clearly an invention of northwestern Europeans.
absolutely retarded. You can call the industrial revolution a mostly WE invention but to claim that other races would never have gotten there is dumb, and to claim that technology in general came from there is just idiotic and objectively wrong.

[Anonymous No.15544734]

>>15544707
>We can't. That's my point. If you can't see it, you have a very, very narrow sample size of human beings as your reference.
If we couldn’t, then how are we communicating with any intelligence? The fundamentals of behavior reach further back then the “invention” of modern, spoken phonetics.
>Why do you think this is the equivalent to, say, some people having trouble learning how to read, and some people being literal, highly successful nuclear scientists who have written genius level papers?
It’s important that we establish the basics. You’re putting the cart before the horse and making generalizations without even bothering to explain how other than resorting to the pedantic retort of “we’re just super complex, bro”. Like, the argument you purport is so far detached from reality that I know you have clinical psychosis.

[Anonymous No.15544735]

>>15544720
>to claim that other races would never have gotten there
Which I didn't.

>to claim that technology in general came from there is just idiotic and objectively wrong.
Where did it come from, then? Your engorged anus?

[Anonymous No.15544745]

>>15544717
I just meant the word 'leftist', which I really wish didn't exist. I think he was aware of communism but he wouldn't approve of any communist society that used advance technology, since that's his whole issue. Agrarian or pastoral communism I doubt he'd be opposed to, not that I really know.

[Anonymous No.15544751]

>>15544735
Technology in general? Literally all humans use it. Egypt, India, China, the Middle east, Native americans, all invented complex technology. What are you even asking

[Anonymous No.15544754]

>>15544734
>If we couldn’t, then how are we communicating with any intelligence?
Because communicating doesn't necessarily mean that we're agreeing on any set of axioms regarding what technology is good or bad within the context of the "power process." We are also only two people. There are billions on the planet and they all have different thought patterns and tastes.

You seem confused by big numbers. Do you realize how big a million really is? Ten million? A billion? There are billions of people on the planet. There are millions who work in IT and computer engineering alone. Lots of them are successful. Lots of them have acquired certain tastes that rely on these modern technologies. Tell me, how can you declare these technologies are bad when these people exist and disagree? What's complex and detached from reality about this?

[Anonymous No.15544761]

>>15544751
Have you even read anything written by Theodore J. Kaczynski? Like... ever?

[Anonymous No.15544772]

>>15544761
I've read his manifesto and Anti-Tech Revolution. Do you have literally anything of value to say or are you going to continue shitposting

[Anonymous No.15544792]

>>15544754
>Because communicating doesn't necessarily mean that we're agreeing on any set of axioms regarding what technology is good or bad within the context of the "power process."
So you’re really just saying good and bad are subjective and objectivity does not exist, which means I can entirely disregard whatever you say anyway, because it’s all subjective.
> We are also only two people
...
>we
Idea
>are
an Idea
>also
an Idea
>only
an Idea
>two
Idea
>people
Idea

[Anonymous No.15544793]

>>15544772
What? I replied to your idiotic post that began:

>absolutely retarded. You can call the industrial revolution a mostly WE invention
Is that not factually correct?

>but to claim that other races would never have gotten there is dumb
Where the fuck did I claim that?

>and to claim that technology in general came from there is just idiotic and objectively wrong.
Where did it come from, in your mind?

[Anonymous No.15544806]

>>15544793
I literally fucking told you humans universally use technology and civilization using complex technology was independently invented all over earth. How fucking stupid can you be.

[Anonymous No.15544811]

>>15544806
Read Spengler.

[Anonymous No.15544821]

>>15544811
I've read Spengler as well you have no idea what you're talking about, he has nothing to do with Kaczynski. Do you think you can just say random shit and nobody will call you on it

[Anonymous No.15544822]

>>15544806
So basically, in your mind, all homo sapiens (or, all hominids??) should be exterminated immediately...?

[Anonymous No.15544824]

>>15544821
Read Spengler again.

[Anonymous No.15544827]

>>15544821
Fuck off tourist. You're not fooling anyone.

[Anonymous No.15544955]

>>15544225
Ted said nothing wrong.

[Anonymous No.15545027]

>>15544955
This. The immediate shutdown of all industrial/technological machinery (and the total extermination of the whytes who invent and operate it) is the only path forward for the human race.

[Anonymous No.15545240]

>>15544305
>>15544225
Bruh, there's an interview where Ted literally says he did it for REVENGE, because they built a road on a creek that he loved. He never pretended to be some moral savior of justice, which leftists fancy themselves to be.

[Anonymous No.15546084]

>>15544225

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » mxvabIoSIE No.15546090]

>>15544225
terrorism is always a good thing when committed on US soil

[Anonymous No.15546096]

>>15544225
>Reddit-tier analysis
Nit-picking each sentence and conflating snarky one-liners with a serious refutation. Absolutely cancerous to read, not to mention that it is a recipe for getting lost in the weeds instead of dealing with the big picture.

How about you tackle the crux of his ideas with a paragraph of your own? Or does that escape your intellectual capabilities?

[Anonymous No.15546167]

>>15544225
>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.
This is my main issue with Teddy and people like him. They're good at creating models and noticing behavioral patterns but they get upset instead of calmly noting it. They feel like the human animal is an animal who lies, lies to others and lies to himself. This is true but it is also true of people like Ted, people like Ted just engage in a more advanced form of trickery.

Instead of seeing it as a question of the oversocialized and the rational, see it as a question of the more self-aware and the less self-aware. We don't hate the pig for being a pig, it's just a pig and it does what the pig does. The same thing goes for the human animal; we'll always do what feels good, for "compassion" or for the image of ourselves as "rational agents"

[Anonymous No.15546201]

>>15544225
Gee it's almost as if most people who mention him disavow his early complaints regarding virtue signaling, which themselves are only used by reactionaries to condemn riots Ted himself would have supported (albeit for different reasons I assume).

>Do not use the weapons of your oppressors to rid yourself of them
Now this is an actually bad take. If Ted is copernicus then who are you? Batman?

[Anonymous No.15546229]

>>15546201
>condemn riots Ted himself would have supported (albeit for different reasons I assume).
Ted explicitly talks against riots

Why /lit/ doesn't read?

[Anonymous No.15546244]

>>15546229
>Ted explicitly talks against riots
Where?

[Anonymous No.15546544]

>>15544792
>So you’re really just saying good and bad are subjective and objectivity does not exist, which means I can entirely disregard whatever you say anyway, because it’s all subjective.
Yes, you can. It would make you an idiot with no argument and an inferior perspective to do so, but that's the beauty of perspectivism: it helps the smarter of the two perspectives realize when the other one is losing and coping as a result of its inferiority.

At no point did you ever address the arguments provided to you.

[Anonymous No.15546559]

OP is triggered because corporations are worse than Ted

[Anonymous No.15546570]

>>15546201
>to condemn riots Ted himself would have supported

If you mean current riots, I doubt Ted would support them since their aim isn't against the technological system. The technological and certain corporate systems even back them, which is the antithesis of what Ted endorsed.

Now, if they started looting banks and destroying electrical grids...

[Anonymous No.15546585]

>>15544225
What a shit analysis. I seriously hope you don't go into academia.

[Anonymous No.15546597]

>>15544447
>nonviolence is just gaslighting by (indirectly extremely violent)
So by your own standards nonviolence is more effective and less cucked than violence, because it actually is violent according to you

[Anonymous No.15546613]

>>15546244
Anti tech revolution

[Anonymous No.15546630]

>>15546570
>albeit for different reasons
I mean more that I doubt he would really object to them, he would grump that they're not doing enough or that they're some manner of insincere etc as he does with all things.

>>15546613
A) examples of him condemning motives are not him condemning actions
B) examples of him condemning peaceful protests are not him condemning riots
C) statements of the form "I think we should live in a society where riots do not occur," even, do not operate as the condemnation of any particular riot, as even the rioters themselves can agree with this; I am sure Ted decries all these things as symptomatic of oversocialized society, but we could just as easily say that Marx believes the collapse of capitalism is symptomatic of capitalism without taking Marx FOR a capitalist

[Anonymous No.15546684]

>>15544447
Not wrong.

[Anonymous No.15547135]

>>15544305
He bombed people because he wanted attention drawn to his manifesto. He bombed the people he did because if he was going to kill people, he felt at least he should kill people that he felt were responsible for the world he hated. He did not bomb people thinking it would provoke change, he thought his manifesto might do that. I'm sure a lot of people have his opinion. Actually, my neighbor Bill has been rambling on about what he's been saying for years. Have you read Bill's manifesto? Oh, have you read Ted's? I wonder why Ted's got attention.

[Anonymous No.15547342]

>>15546630
>examples of him condemning motives are not him condemning actions
He condemns the actions, he doesn't care about the motives

>examples of him condemning peaceful protests are not him condemning riots
Riots don't work, read the book again

>statements of the form "I think we should live in a society where riots do not occur," even, do not operate as the condemnation of any particular riot, as even the rioters themselves can agree with this
Not relevant

[Anonymous No.15547357]

>>15546544
The perspective is relatively clear and simple: the wise man not only attains to, but is, the “true” world. The world is the projection of a way of life, which is itself a camouflage of the will of the sage, exemplified by Plato.

In support of Nietzsche’s thesis, one might cite the Philebus, in which Socrates says, “The wise all agree, thereby exalting themselves, that intellect (nous) is king for us of heaven and earth.” This passage comes closer than any other in the platonic corpus to expressing Nietzsche’s interpretation of the origin of the true world. But there is a fundamental difference.

Socrates says that the philosophers exalt themselves by making nous their king; he does not say that they are or that nous is truth; instead, he means that nous apprehend the truth. By “heaven and earth,” Socrates means the cosmos, not “the true world”. The cosmos is the order that is accessible to nous.

One could even says that nous shares in the ordering of the cosmos because the order is disclosed as such only to nous. But this is not to derive the order from the will.

Nous could be called the perspective onto the cosmos, but it is the synoptic perspective that is the sake for all who attain to it. Nous is not the will; there is no independent will in Plato.

This is why Socrates subordinates the desires to the intellect of the soul of the philosopher. And the erotic desire of the philosophical intellect is not the will, that is, not a projection from the intellect outward or the constitution of the world, but a force from above and outside the soul that comes down into it and raises it to the heavens.

In Nietzsche, Empfindung replaces nous; the world is projected from within outward. But this explains the origin of the world as it were from within the perspective of the Schein, that is, the perspective of how the world appears to human beings themselves.

In Heidegger’s interpretation of “Nietzsche’s Chaos”, he associates Chaos with praksis, and says the former is schematized in the acts executed in daily life. The horizon of a perspective, which rules vie schematization, is thus both the mastery of Chaos and the manifestation of Chaos as Chaos. The world shows itself as the securing of duration or existence thanks to this perspective.

Unfortunately, the Nietzschean philosopher cannot emulate thinkers such as Spinoza in understanding the structure of necessity because no such structure exists. In one last formulation; all structures of Chaos are transient if recurring production of that which has no structure.

If the number of fundamental world-epochs is finite, then we might indeed be able to know the structure totality of the production of Chaos. But this is not the structure of Chaos itself. If Chaos possesses a structure, it would no longer be Chaos or Becoming but a quasi-Platonism Being.... (1/?)

[Anonymous No.15547374]

>>15546544
>>15547357
...However, Nietzsche does not say that Chaos is Being; he instead says that Being, that is, what we take for Being, is Chaos. To this one may add the following remark: Chaos is the ancestor of Heidegger’s understanding of Being as a process of emergence.

To attribute a structure to Chaos is equivalent to attributing a structure to Heideggerian Being and thereby rationalizing or reifying it.

[Anonymous No.15547400]

>>15544225
he did literally nothing wrong, not a single thing
except get caught

[Anonymous No.15547433]

>>15544718
>Hey cool it with the antisemitism Ice Cube.

[Anonymous No.15547449]

>>15547400
Was getting caught part of his plan?

[Anonymous No.15547527]

>>15544225
The difference between the leftist is they are trying to continue the "system" (read more Ted for definition of the system) and in some instances add even more to the system. The system can only exist in relatively peaceful compliance. Ted wants to break the system, hence violence. I am not a primitive anarchist but I have read technological slavery.

[Anonymous No.15547670]

>>15544225
discord . gg/mVNUytg

[Anonymous No.15547877]

>>15544240
Ted is analyzing the leftist persona, why can't we do the same to him and his ilk?

[Anonymous No.15547903]

>>15544225
>Tedist activists
No such thing, Tedism didn´t spread past Ted.

[Anonymous No.15547940]

You could have made your post shorter by just writing "no you"

[Anonymous No.15548056]

>>15547342
>Not relevant
Except it's the mistake you've been repeating since the OP. "You want/use A, but you're getting A from B; that makes you B, curious." Read the book again.

[Anonymous No.15548078]

>>15547342
>>15548056
Actually, just fuck off and read a better book. I'm not even replying out of admiration for Ted at this point, I just can't stand these idiotic Shapiro-type criticisms.

[Anonymous No.15548090]

>>15544225
Glowies are really shitting their pants the last few days, all their threads about Ted won't change a thing.

[Anonymous No.15548218]

>>15548056
Don't know what you're talking about.
Let me be particulary explicit: Ted makes an analysis on riots, and explains why in this day and age, whatever the motives behind them, they are bad and lead to nothing.
Let me repeat: whatever the motive behind them, yes, even if they were "anti industrial revolution riots" they would be bad. Why? Read the fucking book
Ps: anti police riots are the worst kind, again, for reasons specified in the book

[Anonymous No.15548233]

>>15548078
>these idiotic Shapiro-type criticisms
Hey Anon I deeply respect you and your work, but this post is profoundly offensive and here’s why. I support the tech-skeptical community in their journey for justice and self-exploration -- but I will NOT subordinate Jewish dignity as a tolerable byproduct of that journey. I will NOT let the dignity of one group come at a cost to my own. Delete this post and your account.

[Anonymous No.15548242]

>>15547449
Of course!
Except not. He literally would have never got caught if it wasn't for the manifesto. His brother recognized some words from it and his wife made him call the feds on him. If his brother didn't snitch he would have never, ever been caught

[Anonymous No.15548251]

>>15548090
This. America is about to be burnt to the ground and there is nothing the pigs can do about it. Light it up and fuck the police.

[Anonymous No.15548275]

>>15548218
>Ps: anti police riots are the worst kind, again, for reasons specified in the book
Ahhh fuck who turned my flashlight app on shit fuck aaaah! Is this the light of me exiting the cave, or--gasp--a glowie!

[Anonymous No.15548291]

>>15547135
>Bill and Ted's Excellent Manifesto

[Anonymous No.15548327]

>>15545240
>Bruh, there's an interview where Ted literally says he did it for REVENGE
Learn to read. "Moral principle does play a role for the Tedist OF THE HYPOCRITICAL TYPE who uses technology to post their 'thoughts' on the Internet"

[Anonymous No.15548354]

>>15544225
This reads like you're seething at Ted's conclusions of leftism, but your response isn't to refute the claims but to point them at Ted. Sure ted and 'tedists' could be everything you claim them to be and you still wouldn't have dis-proven a single thing he said. So, why bother?

[Anonymous No.15548414]

>>15548354
>look ma, I done proved it!

[Anonymous No.15548431]

>>15548354
Believe it or not, there are literally people on 4chan who claim Ted wasn't a leftist, and that those passages weren't about himself.

[Anonymous No.15548483]

>>15548275
Anti police riots are good if want an excuse to have military patrolling the streets for the rest of your life

[Anonymous No.15548501]

>>15548275
Read a book before commenting on it or trying to guess what an author's opinion is

[Anonymous No.15548537]

>>15544225
Faggot.

[Anonymous No.15548569]

>>15548537
TLDR: Ted was a repressed tranny.

[Anonymous No.15548655]

Do people really think Ted wasn't just a mentally unstable, angry, vengeful person that was too smart for his own good?
He brought up good points in his manifesto, but his project is fundamentally flawed. I'm also not convinced he thought his actions were effective means, either.
Classical anarchists discovered this in the early 20th century: propaganda of the deed is not an effective way of bringing about the human conditions required for anarchy to work. Anyone that thinks smashing capitalism will make people want to cooperate in free association and equality in a sustainable way. People must want to be cooperative, and it's the anarchists' job to lead them there.
Luddism, anti-civ, anprim, etc. (that disjointed sphere) are a challenge to civilization on every level. The rejection of the fundamental tenets of civilized society requires an answer: a positive development from pro-civ people. There has been no development; silly ideas like fully-automated-space-communism or the end-of-history are unphysical fantasies with no basis in reality. "Bridging" technologies like nuclear are untenable; scientists at Sandia National Labs even admit that it would require a new reactor to be built every day for the next 40 years to satisfy growing energy demands. Then, what do we do with the waste?
How will civilization evolve to become truly sustainable? Is true sustainability even possible? The current opinion among economists and scientists appears to be: technically no, but we will still pretend as if it is. "Let's develop solar cells, batteries, electric cars, etc., to curb climate change." What of the environmental destruction inherent in economic growth? What of land use, deforestation, nuclear waste, mining, mass extinction?
I personally think industrial society was inevitable just as anarcho-primitivist societies are inevitable (e.g., post nuclear holocaust, asteroid strike, other Armageddon). The challenge to us is to develop a theory that can survive absolute destruction of the environment (artificial or otherwise). The environment will persist no matter what we do.

[Anonymous No.15548662]

>>15548655
>Anyone that thinks smashing capitalism will make people want to cooperate in free association and equality in a sustainable way
is naive or dishonest*
apologies

[Anonymous No.15548678]

>>15544444
>Our languages are a form of man-made technology.

language is literally an innate human capacity determined by genetics and natural human development

[Anonymous No.15548688]

>>15548655
Ted isn't an anarcho-primitivist and hates anarchism

[Anonymous No.15548722]

>>15548688
You know who else he hates? Unbombed people. He's not interested in any specific cause, he just boombs. Somebody should make a meme called "the 78-year-old Boomber".

[Anonymous No.15548729]

>>15544225
>an analysis
>I don' like leftists so i'm going to just talk about the bit where he mentions leftists in the first few paragraphs and ignore the rest of his arguments

[Anonymous No.15549231]

>>15548483
>glowie making threats instead of posting passages

[Anonymous No.15549755]

>>15548688
He's a neo-luddite

[Anonymous No.15549863]

>>15549755
Except when it comes to bombs.

[Anonymous No.15549893]

>>15549863
=^)

[Anonymous No.15549900]

>>15544225
>NO YOU
typical leftie lol

[Anonymous No.15550291]

>>15544444
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Professionalism/Ted_Kaczynski#Small-scale_vs._Organizational_technology

[Anonymous No.15550600]

>>15548678
Why is there variation between people on how strong their command over their native language is?

[Anonymous No.15550700]

>>15548678
Why is there variation between people on how strong their command over their native language is?

I don't think you understand just how unfathomably stupid your assertion is. Are you aware of the concept of evolution? Do you think humans have existed forever? Do you think we've possessed complex verbal and written systems the whole time we've been on the planet as our current species? These systems were created by us. Words had to be invented, and as more words were invented, and people grew accustomed to communicating with them, and then thinking with them, even more words were created, because thoughts became more complex... meanings became more complex. More intelligent members of the species, who mastered the language, discovered that there weren't words that were sufficient for what they wanted to describe, and so they created even more words. How many countless members of our species have been left behind because they weren't intelligent enough to keep up with all these inventions, just like industrial technology? We even see it today: some people have an absolutely terrible command over their own native language, and the meanings of more complex words go over their heads completely.

[Anonymous No.15550745]

>>15550700
Are you high?

[Anonymous No.15550762]

>>15550745
What's wrong with his post? Seems perfectly coherent and interesting to me.

[Anonymous No.15550776]

>>15550762
It's like calling defecation a technology because laxatives exist.

[Anonymous No.15551128]

>>15550745
Have you read any philosophy? I take it you haven't.

[Anonymous No.15551336]

>>15548655
>The challenge to us is to develop a theory that can survive absolute destruction of the environment (artificial or otherwise).
What do you mean a theory? And how absolute is this destruction of environment going to be?
How about a solar powered satellite that broadcasts music into space