is there any point in reading the canon after reading kaczynski?

[Anonymous No.16324668]

just yesterday i was reading Seneca's "on the shortness of life" and it reminded me of line 75 of ISAIF:
>Again, having successfully raised his children, going through the power process by providing them with the physical necessities, the primitive man feels that his work is done and he is prepared to accept old age (if he survives that long) and death. Many modern people, on the other hand, are disturbed by the prospect of physical deterioration and death, as is shown by the amount of effort they expend trying to maintain their physical condition, appearance and health. We argue that this is due to unfulfillment resulting from the fact that they have never put their physical powers to any practical use, have never gone through the power process using their bodies in a serious way. It is not the primitive man, who has used his body daily for practical purposes, who fears the deterioration of age, but the modern man, who has never had a practical use for his body beyond walking from his car to his house. It is the man whose need for the power process has been satisfied during his life who is best prepared to accept the end of that life.
honestly it really seems to me like ted solved philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16324688]

>>16324668
ted was cringegod terrorist who could have avoided it all and become a true revolutionary if he bothered to read lenin

[Anonymous No.16324704]

>>16324688
>true revolutionary
>lenin
and you say TED was the cringegod? big yikes

[Anonymous No.16324711]

>>16324704
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/iv.htm

[Anonymous No.16324723]

>>16324711
Marxists, by definition, can never be revolutionary, as they are a tool of Liberalism to co-opt actual revolution.

>b-b-but
Read Kaczynski before having an opinion on him.

[Anonymous No.16324731]

>>16324704
>>16324723
if only ted and his retarded ecofascist twitter promoters bothered to read this chapter they would abandon their infantile worldview immediately
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/iv.htm

[Anonymous No.16324737]

>>16324731
>t. hasn't read kaczynski
Then your opinion on him doesn't matter.

He actually addresses What Is To Be Done directly, by the way. tl;dr see >>16324723

[Anonymous No.16324738]

Was Ted K. a Christian at heart?

[Anonymous No.16324761]

>>16324738
I don't think so. At least, not in any meaningful sense. The obvious solution to the entire problem of technology is the one Tolkien advocated: we can't ever actually have a real revolution, so why bother? Become a Christian, and get out of this sinful world. There you go, problem solved.

You don't have to be a Christian (this is essentially the Buddhist and Hindu answer to any given largescale problem, and similar ideas obviously crop up in Islam and Judaism) to do this, of course. But then, Ted sort of rejects that route. The time he was writing was when the death of Christianity in the US started, so his rejection of Christianity isn't all that out of line, as there weren't really any Christian intellectuals in the US at the time. I'd argue that there still aren't any Protestant intellectuals in the US, but that's besides the point.

[Anonymous No.16324769]

>>16324737
No he didn't he was btfo pre-emptively by the concept of the vanguard party
>“A dozen wise men can be more easily wiped out than a hundred fools.” This wonderful truth (for which the hundred fools will always applaud you) appears obvious only because in the very midst of the argument you have skipped from one question to another. You began by talking and continued to talk of the unearthing of a “committee”, of the unearthing of an “organisation”, and now you skip to the question of unearthing the movement’s “roots” in their “depths”. The fact is, of course, that our movement cannot be unearthed, for the very reason that it has countless thousands of roots deep down among the masses; but that is not the point at issue. As far as “deep roots” are concerned, we cannot be “unearthed” even now, despite all our amateurism, and yet we all complain, and cannot but complain, that the “organisations” are being unearthed and as a result it is impossible to maintain continuity in the movement. But since you raise the question of organisations being unearthed and persist in your opinion, I assert that it is far more difficult to unearth a dozen wise men than a hundred fools. This position I will defend, no matter how much you instigate the masses against me for my “anti-democratic” views, etc. As I have stated repeatedly, by “wise men”, in connection with organisation, I mean professional revolutionaries, irrespective of whether they have developed from among students or working men. I assert: (1) that no revolutionary movement can endure without a stable organisation of leaders maintaining continuity; (2) that the broader the popular mass drawn spontaneously into the struggle, which forms the basis of the movement and participates in it, the more urgent the need for such an organisation, and the more solid this organisation must be (for it is much easier for all sorts of demagogues to side-track the more backward sections of the masses); (3) that such an organisation must consist chiefly of people professionally engaged in revolutionary activity; (4) that in an autocratic state, the more we confine the membership of such an organisation to people who are professionally engaged in revolutionary activity and who have been professionally trained in the art of combating the political police, the more difficult will it be to unearth the organisation; and (5) the greater will be the number of people from the working class and from the other social classes who will be able to join the movement and perform active work in it.

[Anonymous No.16324782]

>>16324769
Ted addresses this. Tl;dr see >>16324723.

[Anonymous No.16324789]

>>16324782
He makes an incorrect assertion with no evidence because he is an unthinking terrorist that didn't read theory.

[Anonymous No.16324798]

>>16324789
Ted addresses this. Tl;dr see >>16324737

Ted also read more Marxist theory than you, by the way. He addresses this.

[Anonymous No.16324800]

>>16324789
>didn't read theory
you clearly never read marx or grasped any of the radicality in his writings. kaczynski is infinitely closer to marx than your cult leader

[Anonymous No.16324801]

>>16324789
>read theory.
you're such a faggot lol. Lenin was a criminal funded by a banking cartel, you're a useful idiot

[Anonymous No.16324808]

>>16324800
>kaczynski is infinitely closer to marx
[citation needed]
>>16324801
If ted read lenin he wouldn't go on an impotent and misguided terror campaign lol
>Lenin was a criminal funded by a banking cartel
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.16324815]

>>16324801
>useful idiot
back to r/jordanpeterson

[Anonymous No.16324823]

>>16324808
Ted addresses this. Tl;dr see >>16324798.

[Anonymous No.16324826]

>>16324823
told

[Anonymous No.16324834]

>>16324815
Yeah im sure Peterson talks about the heavily Jewish international banking cartel

[Anonymous No.16324845]

You know it was fun when nobody gave a shit -- but all these 14 year olds who've only read one manifesto by one manlet are starting to get old.

[Anonymous No.16324865]

>>16324845
I'm not sure why you have an opinion on the man despite not having read anything by him. Ironically, it is you that needs to read theory.

[Anonymous No.16324875]

>>16324769
Ted addresses all of this in Anti-Tech Revolution, Chapter 3. And he shows why leftist revolutionary movements are bound to fail.

[Anonymous No.16324883]

>>16324800
this.

[Anonymous No.16325056]

>>16324865
Lol nigger I read his manifesto years ago. You're the fag still hung up on him

[Anonymous No.16325133]

>>16324875
This is a very interesting book imo. The beginning is top tier Kaczynski autistic systems analysis; basic idea of nested, branching, and interacting self-propagating subsystems is clear and logical and universally applicable(ie. to biological natural selection as well as history, to anything really). The middle section is an interesting overview of the futility of trying to control the development and structure of society and the unpredictable consequences of various revolutions in history. Then the end is quite a lot weaker since it seems wildly unlikely that the particular subsystem that will gain control will be one that leads to some sort of enduring human prosperity, especially of a luddite nature.

Despite the end being implausible I think it almost works on a meta-level because his own designs, his own wishes for the future, are just as irrelevant as everyone else's and will be subsumed into the systems and subsystems of pure power struggles like everything else. He accidentally makes himself an example of the failure he identifies everywhere else. I know he attempts to create a plausible path forward but I don't buy it, not after reading all those chapters of him explaining clearly how impossible it is to do just that.

[Anonymous No.16325156]

>>16325133
I think credit should be given to Ted for at least realizing shortcomings in his ideas, i.e. it's likely, if not outright, impossible for his vision to come to fruition -- if not for an external force causing it to begin.

At best, I suppose it's up to the individual to escape the system because the technological system has such a stranglehold on the average person that I doubt any notable movement could be had.

[Anonymous No.16325190]

>>16325156
I wouldn't be surprised if he had no hope at all, and was a lot more nihilistic/pessimistic than he pretends to be(the whole mailing people bombs thing sounds a lot more like rage and despair than hope), but that would be reading more into the text than is actually there. Also people would not be as interested in his book if that's all it said, pessimism is forever deeply unpopular, revolutions on the other hand are always fashionable.

As smart as he is though, even smart people are often blinded by their own desires into believing things that don't make much sense. Impossible to say without actually knowing the man, so Im not going to speculate anymore.

[Anonymous No.16325203]

>>16325133
>particular subsystem that will gain control

I think you've completely missed the point. It't not about a subsystem (revolutionary movement) "gaining control." it's simply about a revolutionary movement destroying key aspects of infrastructure such that the whole system collapses. such a movement doesn't need to "gain control" of anything besides it's own cohesion--which would make it a subsystem and by definition capable of existing.

[Anonymous No.16325217]

>>16325203
A revolutionary movement is, as I understood the book, a self-propagating subsystem itself, and it has to 'gain control' enough that it can accomplish this task of destroying key aspects of infrastructure. I simply find it unlikely that exactly such a group/system should come into existence and gain enough power to do exactly that and carry it out. I mean why should this happen? It hasn't happened, there are no signs of it happening, Im not even sure what it would look like for it to happen.

[Anonymous No.16325244]

>>16325217
Your opinion amount to nothing more than defeatism. If enough people came to believe it were possible in theory, then it would be possible in fact. this is the nature of all revolutionary movements which grow out of apathetic and hopeless societies.

As far as practicality, you're welcome to your opinion, but I think it would only take a fraction of a fraction of a number of people, probably less than 200 people, and they wouldn't necessarily have to act within the "advanced" first world societies.

[Anonymous No.16325245]

>>16325217
>I mean why should this happen?
Dialectics
>It hasn't happened
Soviet Union, Anarchist Catalonia, Maoist China
>there are no signs of it happening
Sure there are
>Im not even sure what it would look like for it to happen.
Be a good little emu and keep your head in the dirt then

[Anonymous No.16325264]

>>16325244
I'm not trying to be defeatist, Im just saying what it looks like to me. How could 200 do this? And if they dont do it in the first world won't the first world just come and fuck them up?
>>16325245
Ted points out in that very book that the USSR, China etc. did not turn out how the revolutionaries expected or intended them too, that's like the central feature of the whole middle of the book, looking at revolutions and seeing how they utterly failed at their stated goals. Even then those are anomalies in history those revolutions, and they were caused by a variety of circumstances that don't necessarily apply to an anti-tech revolution.

[Anonymous No.16325272]

>>16325264
>USSR, China etc. did not turn out how the revolutionaries expected or intended them too
*to
This is always the case with any political project, so your point is moot in any case.

[Anonymous No.16325275]

>>16325264
Also
>anti-tech revolution
Oxymoron, another strike against TK.

[Anonymous No.16325281]

>>16325272
Well no my point makes the plausibility of your anti-tech revolution very low, and that's supposing they could even gain control. Lots of people want to change the world but only a minority like the Bolsheviks actually did, and I will point out that the Bolsheviks were funded by people who had an interest in a socialist Russia. Nobody in power today has any interest in funding a movement to wipe out civilization itself.

[Anonymous No.16325282]

>>16324668
Kaczynski is correct in the way that he is logical enough to have a very close perception to objective morality.

This is however meaningless without actual hard data, it is merely novel that he gets so close merely with his own personality.

I wish he was free, the recent breakthroughs in biological determinism and quantum physics would show him the way.

[Anonymous No.16325302]

>>16325264
>unlikely that the particular subsystem that will gain control will be one that leads to some sort of enduring human prosperity

I've re-read your prior post and now it's clear you don't understand Kaczynski's anti-tech position.

To be clear, all you would need to do is force the collapse of the techno-industrial system by damaging a few key infrastructure components such that serious components of the system were disrupted for a long enough time. How long? Less than a few months probably.

The natural selection issue doesn't apply with regard to "first world coming in" etc. The system is increasingly interconnected and tightly coupled such that serious disruption in key aspects of the global techno-system could lead to world-wide breakdown. After breakdown, there are various reasons related to resource exhaustion why the system cant rebuild itself.

Then there are other ways... group of 200 or less could unleash something like COVID but worse, or unleash 1 or multiple EMPs or similar. Disclaimer: This is all theoretical of course and I don't condone illegal activity of any kind.

[Anonymous No.16325303]

>>16325281
>Bolsheviks were funded by people who had an interest in a socialist Russia
You are referring to the debunked german banker conspiritard theory? Even if this was true it obviously didn't work out for them as Stalin revolutionized Soviet industry.

[Anonymous No.16325306]

Human nature is self-overcoming. What then could be more human than phasing out homo sapiens in favour of the superior species to come? Kaczynskism is just your selfish genes screaming stop which is funny because few of you will procreate anyway.

[Anonymous No.16325308]

>>16325306
succinct and based

[Anonymous No.16325314]

>>16325306
You talk as if those genes are not justified in their own fight

[Anonymous No.16325315]

>>16325281
>gain control
you keep harping on this red-herring. I still don;t think you've gotten it in your brain that there is no "gaining control" in other words, there is NO gaining political or economic power over a section of the globe or a culture or nation, there is no controlling a territory or an economy. NO GAINING CONTROL. That is not necessary and not practical for an anti-tech movement. THAT is what Kaczynski is taking great pains to show by example distinguishes an anti-tech movement from all other revolutionary movements.

[Anonymous No.16325324]

>>16325315
>there is NO gaining political or economic power over a section of the globe or a culture or nation
Yes which is why Ted's "revolutionary theory" is childish and impractical. Lenin discredited imbeciles like this in What Is To Be Done.

[Anonymous No.16325336]

>>16325302
>all you would need to do is force the collapse of the techno-industrial system by damaging a few key infrastructure components s
This requires a shitload of institutional power, entire countries find it difficult to do this to enemy nations during years-long wars, how the fuck do you expect to do it? unless the bioweapons/EMP scenario is plausible in which case yes someone will eventually just wipe out humanity probably.
>>16325303
You aren't replying to my point about it making the anti-tech revolution unlikely, since the impact of revolutions is never what the revolutionaries wanted it to be. The Bolshevik thing is an aside, yes they were funded by bankers in England and America, because they wanted a central banking system in Russia and the Tsar didn't. I have no idea why youre showing me a chart of 'industrial output', the Bolsheviks destroyed Russia just as it was modernizing.

[Anonymous No.16325344]

>>16325315
How do you expect to destroy a country's infrastructure without gaining control over that country's(or another country's) military?

[Anonymous No.16325350]

>>16325336
>The Bolshevik thing is an aside, yes they were funded by bankers in England and America, because they wanted a central banking system in Russia and the Tsar didn't
Gonna need a citation here.
>I have no idea why youre showing me a chart of 'industrial output', the Bolsheviks destroyed Russia just as it was modernizing.
Bolsheviks modernized it and you are coping very very hard right now. Also, hilariously ironic:
>This requires a shitload of institutional power, entire countries find it difficult to do this to enemy nations during years-long wars

[Anonymous No.16325359]

>>16325350
Answer my point about the anti-tech revolution, I honestly don't care about the Bolsheviks, if you want to believe they were a real underdog revolution go ahead, it doesn't change what I'm saying, they utterly failed to achieve their stated goals anyway, so they retconned them into ludicrous euphemisms for dictatorship.

[Anonymous No.16325360]

>>16325336
>This requires a shitload of institutional power, entire countries find it difficult to do this to enemy nations during years-long wars


No it doesn't. That's precisely the point. The world's dominant super-systems and their subsystems are dependent on the global techno-industrial infrastructure. this is why there hasn't been a major confrontation between major advanced world-powers: the disruption to the techno-system on which each nation is dependent would be too great (a.k.a. "mutually assured destruction").

An anti-tech revolutionary organization has no such scruples because they (1) are not dependent on the supersystem's infrastructure and (2) are devoted by definition to destruction of said infrastructure.

[Anonymous No.16325365]

>>16325360
The antitech revolutionaries still need enough power to build a nuclear arsenal or however you imagine this destruction of every nation of earth working

[Anonymous No.16325374]

>>16325359
Rapid industrialization, electrification of the Soviet Union, establishment of worker rights, enshrinement of gender equality, and universal education leading to higher literacy rates than America were all socialist goals that were achieved. Incidentally, none of them could have been achieved without technological development- your irrelevant tangent betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of human development.

[Anonymous No.16325382]

>>16324688
Ah yes. The we would have had Ted Pol Pot leading the US and making it hell on earth.

[Anonymous No.16325387]

>>16325374
That was literally all happening in Russia before the revolution, you'll notice countless countries had no problem industrializing and establishing worker rights without any such revolution, which still completely failed to bring about socialism, as in the workers owning the means of production.

and you are still not answering my point, this thread is about antitech revolution, not the Bolsheviks.

[Anonymous No.16325399]

>>16325365

no, absolutely not. The industrial system is far more tightly-coupled, interdependent, and complex and therefore vulnerable to systemic collapse than you give it credit for. All that is needed is disruption in a few very isolated systems to bring about it's world-wide collapse.

[Anonymous No.16325411]

>>16325399
You don't know that whatsoever, if the US was nuked off the map why would the rest of the world just collapse? It would have devastating consequences but the fundamental infrastructure of most countries is not dependent in any way on the US. This very same argument was given before WW1 as an explanation for why the great powers couldn't go to war with each other.

[Anonymous No.16325426]

>>16324688
Fucking yikes my dude. Marxists are the literal opposite of Ted and his ideas in multiple aspects.
The end goal of communism economically is not only for production to be equally distributed but also for production to have overabundance through technology. Ted was a critic of technology and production increase, this is one of his major points. The end goal of communism socially is for people to have free time. Marx wanted people to "pursue their hobbies and genuine interests." Ted calls these pursuits surrogate, empty, artificial and unfulfilling. Moreover, some communists preach the internationalization of socialism before the shift to small settlements AKA communes, which goes against going straight to small, primitive settlements that Ted preached. Lastly, Ted was distrustful of scholars, and Marx, Lenin and so on were scholars who did no real, physical labor in their lives. If Ted had read that shit, he would mock communists and move on.

[Anonymous No.16325429]

why have you guy been spamming ted lately? i mean more than usual.

[Anonymous No.16325453]

>>16324668
Jesus OP, it's just another delineation of energy activation-utilization theory that is assumed and witnessed by modern man. If it wasn't so rote and glaringly intuitive he may have actually served a higher academic purpose. I was reading a dissertation by McClary earlier today over the isomorphism of the mind and body relating the parallelisms of neurons, in a strict and necessarily physiological sense, with psychological manifestations, in dreams or otherwise, which McClary purported to have been inherently flawed based on Freud's own imperfect assumptions corresponding to the inextricably intertwined reversibility of this bio-neurological framework. He attested it simply wasn't compatible. His 'picture' wasn't up to snuff with the 1895 pragmatic illustration of cerebral data transmissions, though, brilliantly cavalier in its endeavor and nearly (nearly, mind you) precise as it was (these are Bohr-Heisenberg level quibblings, that are, admittedly, quite over my head in most regards). My point, OP, is that we've already blasted through solipsism and phenomenology, Kaczynski is merely tossing more intuitive timber on the eternal fire that is philosophy. It seems to me he is saying on the most practical level, "Modern man just isn't tired enough to die". Which he is tacitly commanding and willfully avoiding, not to mention that isn't exactly the most revolutionizing thought to ever cross the philosophical gulf. I'm surprised that the vessel didn't capsize and all the passengers, freed from oppressive captivity and gleefully praising the approaching depths of the Ocean, didn't flail violently for the fertile shores. Did I read Industrial Society and its Future? You're damn right I did. I expected it to be the pyschobabbling of a lunatic. It subverted my expectations by being breezily coherent and punctuated with subtle, well-thought-out qualms of modernity. Did I have a resulting dissonance in my decision to incorporate or excommunicate his brazen sophistry? Yeah, it was harder than I thought. Ultimately, OP, I decided action was the only thing that mattered in life, and Mr. Teddy sure screwed that pooch, though superficially sound, my daemon has no problem relegating him to hell. My gnosis has no mercy for those who exercise malice. From the outside looking in, which is the strange paradox we have found ourselves in with the advent of evolutionism, our ecological modality reaches its extent with repopulation, and we are, in effect, useless after this purpose. And after you've reached that conclusion, much like Nihilism, you accept it and move on, endlessly searching the horizon for other, more divine, more humane, reasons of existence. Science gives us much more than, perhaps, we want to know. Use knowledge wisely and don't blow up universities OP. Feel free to continue to bomb them with dope-ass digs and sick slights, though.
>sorry for blogging, not deleting it.

[Anonymous No.16325459]

>>16324845
You know it was fun when nobody gave a shit -- but all these 14 year olds who've only read one manifesto by one poor, fat, bearded man are starting to get old.
t. Someone from the late 19th century

[Anonymous No.16325462]

>>16325453
adderall or manic episode?

[Anonymous No.16325468]

>>16324668
if you read ted and think it's THAT good you are 100% a midwit

[Anonymous No.16325471]

>>16325462
Yeah, sorry. No more caffeine after 5pm for me.

[Anonymous No.16325475]

>>16325471
>>16325462
dude fuck great idea ima go do some addies

[Anonymous No.16325492]

>>16324688
>become a true revolutionary if he bothered to read lenin
Yikes

[Anonymous No.16325498]

>>16325471
Well it entertained me anyway. What is 'inextricably intertwined reversibility of this bio-neurological framework' in the context of brain/mind isomorphism?

[Anonymous No.16325505]

>>16325382
>implying agrarian socialism is a bad thing

brainlet detected. pol pot was based

[Anonymous No.16325551]

>>16325498
Eh, he was saying that all the resulting views Freud had: Ego, id, excitement, wish fulfillment, dream interpretation, psychoanalytics, yada yada, were all based on the neuron/synapse image that he had concocted (this work was all simultaneously published in the same year) and was subsequently and NECESSARILY a scientific calculation. McClary said he missed some fundamental stages on what he had based the theories on, because he was essentially working in the dark (It doesn't really matter, anymore). So, he went from 'the body' ---> 'the mind' based on the malformed pretense of neuron alignments/pathways, mainly that of "energy" being repressed because there wasn't (according to Freud) a capacity within the networking to deexcite and diffuse the stimulus. Something like that. I was just jumping aisle to aisle in the library. Not a brain surgeon or clinical psychologist.

[Anonymous No.16325657]

>>16325426
>The end goal of communism economically is not only for production to be equally distributed but also for production to have overabundance through technology.
a simple concession that you haven't read marx would have been enough, you didn't have to go full cringe

[Anonymous No.16326530]

[Anonymous No.16327210]

>>16324688
t.

[Anonymous No.16327220]

>>16325657
How is he wrong faggot.

[Anonymous No.16327280]

>>16324668
Pynchon's better

[Anonymous No.16327498]

>>16327210
Cope lol