/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21265036]

was he right about technology?

[Anonymous No.21265043]

>>21265036
He wasn’t wrong but he didn’t propose any workable solutions either. You can’t fight the tide.

[Anonymous No.21265055]

>>21265036
Yeah, but you won't stop fucking zoomer.

Also, you haven't read the manifesto. Read it. It's only 100 pages.

[Anonymous No.21265079]

>>21265036
>>21265043
>>21265055
His "workable solution" was terrorism. He was a bitter eleutheromaniac and deranged loner, so anti-social he forgot that his own brother would recognize his writing.

[Anonymous No.21265083]

yes, it's over

[Anonymous No.21265090]

>>21265036
He was right about libtards being hypocrites.

But there was one thing he said that stuck to me: the day will come when technology will be beyond our control. And I don't think we can uninvent atomic bombs, we can't uninvent Bitcoin, we can't uninvent smartphones, we can't uninvent facial recognition technology

[Anonymous No.21265102]

>>21265090
This kills the eleutheromaniac. Unfortunately, not literally.

[Anonymous No.21265186]

>>21265036
He wasn’t wrong but he didn’t propose any workable solutions either. You can’t fight the tide.

[Anonymous No.21265290]

>>21265079
That’s what I mean. Blowing up randos to sow terror and discord is not a viable solution. You can’t kill human nature.

[Anonymous No.21265520]

>>21265290
>You can’t kill human nature
Exactly. The human ability to organize itself into the superorganism that is society is unwavering and unstoppable, no matter what various eleutheromaniacs might tell you.

[Anonymous No.21265550]

>>21265036
Nigga you are posting this retarded idea with the help of technology.

[Anonymous No.21265552]

Largely.

[Anonymous No.21265608]

>>21265552
In what way?

[Anonymous No.21265653]

>>21265036
Read Civilization and its Discontents. The book is just Ted’s sublimated autogynephilia and thwarted sexual longing. Tale as old as time, frankly.

[Anonymous No.21265702]

>>21265079
>>21265079
>>21265290

>His "workable solution" was terrorism.
>193. The kind of revolution we have in mind will not necessarily involve an armed uprising against any
government. It may or may not involve physical violence, but it will not be a POLITICAL revolution.
Its focus will be on technology and economics, not politics. [32]
>[96] [...] Take us (FC) for example. If we had never done anything violent and had submitted the present writings to a publisher, they probably would not have been accepted. If they had been been accepted and published, they probably would not have attracted many readers, because it's more fun to watch the entertainment put out by the media than to read a sober essay. Even ff these writings had had many readers, most of these readers would soon have forgotten what they had read as their minds were flooded by the mass of material to which the media expose them. In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we've had to kill people.

>>21265550
>Nigga you are posting this retarded idea with the help of technology.
>202. It would be hopeless for revolutionaries to try to attack the system without using SOME modern
technology. If nothing else they must use the communications media to spread their message. But they
should use modern technology for only ONE purpose: to attack the technological system.
>I.E. OP using this as a method of spreading propaganda or Dr. Kaczynski using IEDs to gain publicity and a typewriter to attempt to convey and popularize his ideology.

Why doesn't /lit/ read?

[Anonymous No.21265719]

>>21265702
What if I like living as a slave to the technological system ?

[Anonymous No.21265726]

>>21265719
Then you're not the target audience.

[Anonymous No.21265846]

>>21265702
>If we had never done anything violent and had submitted the present writings to a publisher, they probably would not have been accepted
Translation: even he knew his gutter fire of a philosophy wasn't fit to print.
>In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we've had to kill people.
This is just about end-stage eleutheromania. The only stage after this is replacing your hormones and surgically altering your genitals.

[Anonymous No.21265979]

>>21265846
You're pretty humorous when you put your seethe to it.

[Anonymous No.21266036]

>>21265979
It's even funnier when all you can say is "seethe."

[Anonymous No.21266309]

>>21265702
Him justifying/rationalizing his decision to commit violence against innocents (ends justifying means) doesn’t make him correct in taking those actions. Sadly, that makes him the baddie.

[Anonymous No.21266323]

>>21265846
>>21265079
>>21265102
Stop trying to make “eleutheromania” happen. It’s not going to happen.

[Anonymous No.21266348]

>>21266309
It doesn't matter whether he's good or bad, it just refutes the flawed point that the anons made. Unfortunately /lit/ really doesn't read.

[Anonymous No.21266352]

>>21266323
It already "happened" by virtue of me not coining the term.

[Anonymous No.21266671]

>>21266348
It doesn’t refute shit.
> It may or may not involve physical violence
It did at its inception. You need to work on your reading comprehension friendo.

[Anonymous No.21266696]

>>21266671
It's not from lack of comprehension, it's typical eleutheromaniac hand-waving to reduce the severity of terrorists and others they consider "based." The same thing happened with the Branch Davidians.

[Anonymous No.21266700]

>>21266671
>His "workable solution" was terrorism.
That's not the solution, it was his means of launching the ideology into the public conscience. That's a solution to the problem of "how is it possible to obtain the greatest reach", not "how do I directly destroy industrial society."
The solution to the destruction of industrial society is open ended: It could be an armed uprising, or it could merely mean supporting the destabilization of the world's economic and industrial infrastructure.
You either have the mind of a 14 year old or you have some serious emotional baggage. Either way you make yourself look dumber with every post. (I'm not saying you're stupid, I get the feeling that you're above average at least, but this is just a hill that's not worth dying on.)
If you want a better critique of Dr. Kaczynski, you could look into the difficulty of actually meaningfully destabilizing the industrial system. Anything short of a charismatic world leader going nuclear holocaust on the earth is almost guaranteed to fail at this point.

[Anonymous No.21266723]

>>21265036
lmao no

[Anonymous No.21266728]

>>21266700
>no, see, those people HAD to blow up, or no one would read my drivel!

[Anonymous No.21266745]

>>21266728

[Anonymous No.21266761]

>>21266745
Yes, this is what happened to "Uncle Ted" after his brother recognized one of his catchphrases used in his terrorist manifesto. And?

[Anonymous No.21266771]

>>21265653
This, for real.
Political science is a mental illness.

[Anonymous No.21266950]

Yes.

posted from my iphone using tapatalk

[Anonymous No.21267335]

>>21266728
Is his book even worth reading?

[Anonymous No.21267351]

>>21267335
Read the post you replied to again, slower this time.

[Anonymous No.21267511]

>>21265036
No

[Anonymous No.21267555]

>>21265036
>https://www.lulu.com/shop/ted-kaczynski/the-unabombers-manifesto/paperback/product-1g2pppw5.html?q=unabomber&page=1&pageSize=4

[Anonymous No.21267634]

>>21265036
The Power Process which is unrelated to technology is the best thing to come out of his book. The man was a psychologist he explained human nature in simple terms so every retarded goyslop sharter in America could understand it.
Yet they were still too brain dead to figure it out. "Surrogate activity" was equivalent to "cope" 30 years before it became mainstream.

[Anonymouṡ No.21268055]

>>21265036
Hopefully not, because if he was, we're really doomed. The technology path is the only path. If you reject that you're back to Eastern "wisdom" where you sit naked and emaciated in your own filth with a begging-bowl in front of you and feel smug that you've achieved inner peace or something.

For what it's worth, I think he was wrong to blame technology for as much as he did. I think it's possible to have high-speed internet without Clown World. Sadly, if I tell you how, you'll just tell me to go back to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.21268101]

>>21265036
Yes

[Anonymous No.21268404]

>>21265036

[Anonymous No.21268411]

>>21268404
>forget image like a dumbass

[Anonymous No.21269691]

>>21268411
I'm almost done reading this (pic related, currently on the part about Human Technique and propaganda) and its remarkable how relevant it is today, being a book written over seventy years ago. I manage to draw direct parallels to the book pretty much without fail when reading the news or going on the internet.

[Anonymous No.21269812]

>>21269691
Yeah this was great. A little turgid in terms of prose but there is almost nothing he wasn't right about.

[Anonymous No.21269890]

>>21268055
If you mean a white ethnostate, I highly doubt that would solve the problems of technological advancement, you would still have increasing violation of behavioural and bodily autonomy because any organisation (white or not) that didn't pursue invasive technologies would lose out to organisations that do pursue them. And any white ethnostate would still be competing on the global scale with non-white countries.

Ted actually directly addressed ecofascism recently, he doesn't think much of it: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-ecofascism-an-aberrant-branch-of-leftism

[Anonymous No.21269909]

>>21265036
i heard he's mostly a paraphraser of al gore

[Anonymous No.21270912]

>>21265036
Most of his schtick only makes sense when you look at the post-9/11 world and the rise of social media.

[Anonymous No.21270928]

People like Ted view culture not as a mode of emergent transformation that discloses deeper and wider worlds, but primarily a distorting force that conceals and contorts both a pure nature and their truly pristine selves. Culture is not a transformative emergence of greater differentiation/integration that can go too far into dissociation/alienation. No, culture is primarily an alienating force that necessarily and nastily separates humans from nature and them from themselves.

And so above all, they must get away from culture and get back to nature, back to a wilderness that expresses a pure nature and their own most authentic impulses. Culture is fundamentally a crime of distortion, and they must seek behind this distortion for the truth of pure nature and the truth of their pure selves.

That culture (and the rational-ego) can indeed repress and dissociate natural/libidinal impulses is true enough, and those alienated impulses need to be recontacted, freed from the cultural repressions, and reintegrated into the psyche (regression in service of the ego). But when culture is seen as only or primarily a repressive force, then the cure is regression, period, and this is the self-defeating and self-contradictory stance that Ted and his acolytes embrace.

They claim that for our salvation, we are to retreat, not prior to the dissociation, but prior to the differentiation that had allowed the dissociation: not simply prior to the disease, but prior to the depth itself!—which amounts to: cure the disease by becoming more shallow.

The Ego-Enlightenment set out to free Eros from its heteronomy, its immersion in conformist and herd mentalities; and it sought this autonomy with such force that it went too far into alienation, and ended up with Eros degenerating into Phobos: seeking freedom, it found only fear and alienation, which bound it even more tightly to that which it wished to transcend.

And the Eco camp, so intensely desiring insertion into a Larger Life, an Agape that embraces the depth of the Kosmos with joyful Love and Care, ends up scraping layers and layers of depth off the universe in search of the primal ground where this insertion can occur: it reduces the deeper and higher to the lower and shallower, a reduction and regression and leveling that, by any other name, is Thanatos. In search of a larger life, it finds only a morbid death (i.e., a lesser depth), a rancid leveling of just those differentiations that allowed the search in the first place.

[Anonymous No.21270933]

>>21266309
You must have some feeling of inferiority lol
The people he attacked were people specifically working tech type jobs
And he did it out of self-defense.
The system was attacking his well being and security so he defended himself

The best part is some techie that got blown up made a statement about having a degree and Ted says something like "a college degree does not mean shit and if you were smarter you wouldnt of opened a random package from an unknown sender"

[Anonymous No.21270940]

>>21266700
Ted provides no solutions, no paths forward in any of his other works. His thoughts can be summarised with "it'll be difficult but just figure out a way to do irrevocably destroy technology somehow I dunno lol".

[Anonymous No.21271106]

>>21269691
so what you feel like you have protection from the news and internet after reading that

[Anonymous No.21271442]

>>21271106
Not at all. Ellul makes it abundantly clear that there is no choice other than the technical one. Anyone who tries to avoid utilizing technique (be that a state, company, or even an individual) will inevitable fail and/or be dominated by their rival actors. I haven't read Industrial Society but Kaczynski was a fool to think sending bombs to important people would lead anywhere. Even the act of living in isolation is a choice made by technique, its the best way to avoid the human techniques of propaganda. I, and all other people in society, am a slave to techique. But I'd rather know why than live in ignorance.

[Anonymous No.21271520]

>>21271442
He explicitly stated that the purpose was to guarantee his works publicity in the public conscience, and explicitly not to destabilize or attack the industrial system.
>But it made him look extremist!
He acknowledged that.
>But he could have done it without attacks!
It was the best plan to gain the largest amount of publicity as quickly as possible.
>Even the act of living in isolation is a choice made by technique
Kaczynski and Ellul are very different. Conflating the two men, their ideologies, and their values is not going to work, as it didn't here with this example.

[Anonymous No.21271726]

>>21265090
>the day will come when technology will be beyond our control.
Facebook, instagram, and twitter data has been used to manipulate elections. No matter how rife they are with pedophiles, terrorists, people traffickers, they will keep these services running for as long as there are rich people wanting a certain result.

[Anonymous No.21271743]

>>21265036
He just copy Ellun nothing more also there were like 1000 authors who were right about tech Ted was just angry person who wanted to kill and use his anti tech revolution as excuse

[Anonymous No.21271761]

>>21265036
>lets live in the woods and eventually be wiped out due to some cataclysmic event we could prevent with advanced technology
amazing. he was a math genius but thats all he was. were going through a disgusting time period true, but when we cure cancer, engineer babies to be superhealthy and regrow lost limbs, itll be a good time for humanity.

[Anonymous No.21271766]

>>21271761
I dunno if uncle Ted realize not everyone want to shit in hole in cabin or hunt some food 24/7 whole life

[Anonymous No.21272109]

>>21271761
>but when we cure cancer, engineer babies to be superhealthy and regrow lost limbs, itll be a good time for humanity
hows that going? uncle ted has predicted these things will never come true because it's not in the system's direct interest to do these things for you plebs
he calls them technology worshippers naive beliefs

[Anonymous No.21272111]

>>21272109
no wait he calls it the techies wet dream
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-techies-wet-dreams

[Anonymous No.21272120]

>It is an index of the techies' self-deception that they habitually assume that anything they consider desirable will actually be done when it becomes technically feasible. Of course, there are lots of wonderful things that already are and for a long time have been technically feasible, but don't get done. Intelligent people have said again and again: "How easily men could make things much better than they are—if they only all tried together!" But people never do "all try together," because the principle of natural selection guarantees that self-propagating systems will act mainly for their own survival and propagation in competition with other self-propagating systems, and will not sacrifice competitive advantages for the achievement of philanthropic goals.

[Anonymous No.21272146]

Ted K. wasn't a great writer, and I read more angst than philosophy. Ellul, Mumford, Heidegger, and the Junger brothers are better writers on technology in my opinion. Somewhere out there is a writer who has written at length about the relationship between technology, money, and energy, the latter being probably the most important, but I haven't found them yet.

[Anonymous No.21272155]

>>21272146
Ernst Junger was one of the most interesting writers in the 20th century in my opinion.
https://youtu.be/ud01b4QJuWg

[Anonymous No.21272240]

>>21271520
As I said I haven't read Kaczynski but that their ideologies are very different is as far as I know not the case.
>When I read the book for the first time, I was delighted, because I thought, 'Here is someone who is saying what I have already been thinking.
-Kaczynski on "The Technological Society"

[Anonymous No.21272874]

>>21270933
In a post-industrial society, who isn’t working in a tech related job? Why not blow up the clerk at GameStop? That’ll surely reverse the tide. You’re a retard.

[Anonymous No.21272915]

>>21270940
Partly he's constrained by writing from jail so he can't mention violence or sabotage. But I agree that he's too vague about the specifics of how to organise a revolutionary movement. He intelligently points out a lot of the potential pitfalls but doesn't say how anyone should actually structure such a group, it ends up saying "work it out yourself" as you described.

[Anonymous No.21274853]

>>21265036
No, he was wrong, and his actions prove him wrong.

[Anonymous No.21274900]

>>21265043
He has some good points but I agree he has no actual idea on how to solve anything. The best this mf proposes is "unironically let's go back to monke", or more a stage in civilization where we can stay indefinitely instead of becoming dynamic like Europe. Which he himself admits no one knows why this happened in Europe and not in other advanced civilizations. Basically, there's no solution to the problem.

>>21265079
>His "workable solution" was terrorism.
His killing spree was so that his ideas would become actually visible. There is no "solution" that he proposes in those actions, they have nothing to do with his actual point.

>>21267634
I particularly liked that idea too. It's clearly spot on.

[Anonymous No.21274904]

>>21271761
Nah, you're not gonna get your cancer cured, you're gonna eat bugs, own nothing and fuck government controlled robots.

[Anonymous No.21274952]

>>21265036
He was right in a sense. The destruction of way of life, that technology power creeps its way into everything, eventually no longer becoming avoidable. As stated by this anon, >>21265043 he poses no tangible solution, nor one that is really balanced. So.

[Anonymous No.21275931]

>>21272240
>Ignores his disagreements
>Ignores the fact that Ellulian concept of Technique is not a part of Kaczynskiïsm
>>21271761
He considers the extinction of the human race better than what you describe as a "good time for humanity."
I agree with him.