Industrial Society and Its Future

[Anonymous No.21366119]

Have you read it? What are your thoughts about it? What are your favorite paragraphs or chapters?

I personally liked "The Power Process" and "Surrogate Activities" chapters; they're on point.

[Anonymous No.21366211]

>>21366119
Everything in it was on point because he was literally right. Kaczynski remains unrefuted to this day. Besides the fact that it would be almost impossible to stop the industrial system,; though he acknowledges this, too, and simply believes the chance is worth it.

[Anonymous No.21366332]

Was Uncle Ted also the Zodiac Killer?
Video segment on theory: https://youtu.be/KsKf8Xy97K4?t=140

[Anonymous No.21366344]

>>21366332
No. Different MO/motivations plus no actual links at all. If there was even a hint they were related the feds would be all over it as it would further discredit Ted.

[Anonymous No.21366354]

>>21366344
>feds would be all over it as it would further discredit Ted.
That's probably why he posts that in every single thread whenever Kaczynski is mentioned, even unrelated threads. The dude is "obsessed" "for some reason."

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.21366443]

The practical writing about revolutionary action and critiques of anarcho primitive writing is decent.

The logic by which he thinks technology cannot be constrained as a self-organizing system is the exact logic by which it would necessarily reappear even in the pre-technological world he wants. Power tends to do that.

Anyway, this is all more elegantly and succinctly explained by all 3 of the Mass Effect 3 endings

[Anonymous No.21366471]

>>21366443
>The logic by which he thinks technology cannot be constrained as a self-organizing system is the exact logic by which it would necessarily reappear even in the pre-technological world he wants. Power tends to do that.
He mentions this in a couple of chapters.
>207. An argument likely to be raised against our proposed revolution is that it is bound to fail, because (it is claimed) throughout history technology has always progressed, never regressed, hence technological regression is impossible. But this claim is false.
>208. His reason for this is here, redacted because there isn't enough room and you can read it yourself.
>209.
>210.
>211.
>212. Would society EVENTUALLY develop again toward an industrial-technological form? Maybe, but there is no use in worrying about it, since we can’t predict or control events 500 or 1,000 years in the future. Those problems must be dealt with by the people who will live at that time.

[Anonymous No.21366485]

>>21366119
It's retarded to try and separate the technical from the natural. Kaczynski should have read some real natural philosophy and not just pop-Darwinism. I suggest starting with the German Romantics, then Hegel and Schelling, and finally Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.21366491]

>>21366485
Based absolute fucking retard

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.21366507]

>>21366471
>throughout history technology has always progressed, never regressed, hence technological regression is impossible.
Not what I said. Like, whatsoever.

The arguments of those passages essentially amount to saying: it would take a shit-ton of time for progress to reemerge if it did, and certain technologies would not reemerge.

All of which is fair, but not really watertight, and he admits as much by saying "Fuck it, it's someone else's problem".

This is why you can only get so far with this stuff, there are no significant structural or "metaphysical" discussions like you would find with most philosophies. So when this issue of structural power cones up, or issues over whether things like language is technology, he has not much of value to say. Which is fine, it's clear he doesn't want to be a philosopher, it's just unrewarding to read.

[Anonymous No.21366513]

>>21366491
filtered

"nature is freedom, technology is slavery" is a stupid take even by like 18th century standards anon

[Anonymous No.21366521]

>>21366507
>Not what I said. Like, whatsoever.
I included that for reference because it was the start of the chapter. (I didn't really think about how it would be taken)
>This is why you can only get so far with this stuff, there are no significant structural or "metaphysical" discussions like you would find with most philosophies. So when this issue of structural power cones up, or issues over whether things like language is technology, he has not much of value to say. Which is fine, it's clear he doesn't want to be a philosopher, it's just unrewarding to read.
That's absolutely true and your critique is reasonable. He admits all of this, along with the fact that no solution will ever be permanent. He is extremely practical in his aims. To him, humanity is dealing with the biggest problem (perhaps even possible) and he really only cares about creating an ideological movement to "reset the clock" so to speak.

[Anonymous No.21366523]

>>21366513
Technology as slavery is simply that systems become built around and reliant on technologies and easily fall into dismay if that technology fails for even a short spell.

Not that other poster, btw.

[Anonymous No.21366524]

>>21366513
>"nature is freedom, technology is slavery" is a stupid take even by like 18th century standards anon
If you actually read ISaiF then I feel bad for you because such a dogshit take implies you don't have many avenues for improvement. If you didn't read it, promptly do so and pretend you never posted this.

[Anonymous No.21366535]

What about Kaczynski's critique of Leftism?

>15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good
and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate
white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating
the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They say
they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric
and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in
primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he
grudgingly admits that they exist; whereas he enthusiastically points out
(and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western
civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist's real motive
for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because
they are strong and successful.

>16. Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance," "initiative," "enterprise,"
"optimism," etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The
leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve
everyone's problems for them, satisfy everyone's needs for them, take care
of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence
in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The
leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he
feels like a loser.

>19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of
inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a
ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself.
He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still
conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to
make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is
too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he
cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the
collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large
organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

[Anonymous No.21366543]

>>21366535
Hey anon I made text file version of that so you can copy and paste without formatting issues.
https://pastebin.com/Ar3d6idk
You can easily turn it into a properly formatted epub as well.

[Anonymous No.21366546]

>>21366543
Thanks famalam, appreciated.

[Anonymous No.21366610]

>>21366524
>93. We are going to argue that industrial-technological society cannot be reformed in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing the sphere of human freedom.

all his social commentary is truly kindergarten tier, his only interesting position is on the relationship of freedom to technology

but even that is like a watered down mix of smith, locke, and malthus

kaczynski would have been blown away by marx, it's a shame he never read kapital

>>21366523
yes and also that the comforts of technology interrupt the "power process," forcing us to direct our energy to "surrogate activities" like further scientific development etc

his argument axiomatically relies on a notion of an a priori human nature that is corrupted by technical culture - something which, again, is hardly an original or interesting thought

[Anonymous No.21366665]

>>21366610
Just read the book and you'll see why you're wrong, retard.
Kaczynski doesn't have the same conception of freedom, he doesn't give a shit. I've even heard people saying retarded shit likw "But muh technology gives us more freedom because we aren't forced to work 24/7 just to avoid starving and freezing to death and can pursue self actualization!", but that IS freedom to Kaczynski.
Literally just read faggot. I don't know what kind of retarded critical commentary of Kaczynski you watched to come to these conclusions but they can be dispelled by a single reading of the book.

[Anonymous No.21366715]

>>21366665
pretty sure you need to read it again

>178. Whatever else may be the case, it is certain that technology is creating for human beings a new physical and social environment radically different from the spectrum of environments to which natural selection has adapted the human race physically and psychologically.

it's a very basic thesis he makes throughout - freedom is natural, technology is unnatural, therefore technology is bad because it inhibits natural freedom

yes, I know, power process, over socialization, surrogate activities etc. but these are just the theoretical scaffolding for his central philosophy of natural rights and freedom

everything else is examples, qualifications, extrapolations etc. which just give context and "evidence" for the thesis

seriously, I've probably read more kaczynski than you, I've read his letters and journals extensively, but if you think I'm wrong, how would you summarize the important points of ISAIF?

[Anonymous No.21366760]

>>21366211
>Besides the fact that it would be almost impossible to stop the industrial system,; though he acknowledges this, too, and simply believes the chance is worth it.
It's gonna end eventually, fossil fuels are a finite resource, especially conventional oil which is super scarce now (last fields in middle east). Without fossil fuels there is no more industry. Hold your horses though, pre 80s peak oil theorists didn't take unconventional oil into account like shale and deep sea. That said those are much more expensive and just as finite.
I reckon our children and grandchildren will still live like us more or less (probably less) but the generation after will live kinda like it was 18th century again tech wise (with some occasional electricity use)

[Anonymous No.21366768]

ChatGPT is going to make humans obsolete

[Anonymous No.21366843]

>>21366715
Then unfortunately you're about as sharp as a sack of wet dildos if you misunderstood the way he views freedom, autonomy, nature, and its relation to technology.
I feel bad for you because you may be autistic, but I'll lay down the basics. Remember that this is an anonymous imageboard and you don't have to get upset or frustrated when someone challenges you, and there is no need to feel embarrassment if you were wrong because your identity is not visible to any of the posters here. You can hold one belief in one post, and another with the very next.

Now, to understand how Kaczynski views technology, you must first understand that he doesn't see technology as "inherently bad." That's a poor reading.
>121. A further reason why industrial society cannot be reformed in favor of freedom is that modern technology is a unified system in which all parts are dependent on one another. You can’t get rid of the “bad” parts of technology and retain only the “good” parts. Take modern medicine, for example. Progress in medical science depends on progress in chemistry, physics, biology, computer science and other fields. Advanced medical treatments require expensive, high-tech equipment that can be made available only by a technologically progressive, economically rich society. Clearly you can’t have much Progress in medicine without the whole technological system and everything that goes with it.
It's important to keep in mind that he does NOT believe that ALL the problems of Industrial Society are SOLELY found in Industrial Society(although some are). What he states is that Industrial Society increases the power of society to such a degree that the individual becomes "worthless" and his freedom (again, not the concept of freedom that someone like Marx would have) and autonomy CAN be severely restricted in ways that he is powerless to prevent. Take this example:
continued

[Anonymous No.21366845]

>>21366715
>>21366843
>127. A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at his own pace without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of technological support-systems. When motor vehicles were introduced they appeared to increase man’s freedom. They took no freedom away from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn’t want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel much faster and farther than a walking man. But the introduction of motorized transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly man’s freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became numerous, it became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car, especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one likes at one’s own pace; one’s movement is governed by the flow of traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration, insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on purchase price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport the arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they must use public transportation, in which case they have even less control over their own movement than when driving a car. Even the walker’s freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually has to stop to wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous and unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note this important point that we have just illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new item of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.)
He acknowledges several times that technologies, on their own, can be GOOD. In fact, a single technology may have no "bad" component. The issue is NOT technology. The issue is Industrial Society. Now, why is Industrial Society "bad"?

[Anonymous No.21366850]

>>21366715
>>21366845
It's important to keep in mind that he does NOT believe that ALL the problems of Industrial Society are SOLELY found in Industrial Society(although some are). What he states is that Industrial Society increases the power of humankind to such a degree that the individual becomes "worthless" and his freedom (again, not the concept of freedom that someone like Marx would have) and autonomy CAN be severely restricted in ways that he is powerless to prevent:
197. Some people take the line that modern man has too much power, too much control over nature; they argue for a more passive attitude on the part of the human race. At best these people are expressing themselves unclearly because they fail to distinguish between power for LARGE ORGANIZATIONS and power for INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS. It is a mistake to argue for powerlessness and passivity, because people NEED power. Modern man as a collective entity — that is, the industrial system — has immense power over nature, and we (FC) regard this as evil. But modern INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS OP INDIVIDUALS have far less power than primitive man ever did. Generally speaking, the vast power of “modern man” over nature is exercised not by individuals or small groups but by large organizations. To the extent that the average modern INDIVIDUAL can wield the power of technology, he is permitted to do so only within narrow limits and only under the supervision and control of the system. (You need a license for everything and with the license come rules and regulations.) The individual has only those technological powers with which the system chooses to provide him. His PERSONAL power over nature is slight.
>198. Primitive INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS actually had considerable power over nature; or maybe it would be better to say power WITHIN nature. When primitive man needed food he knew how to find and prepare edible roots, how to track game and take it with homemade weapons. He knew how to protect himself from heat cold, rain, dangerous animals, etc. But primitive man did relatively little damage to nature because the COLLECTIVE power of primitive society was negligible compared to the COLLECTIVE power of industrial society.
(continued)

[Anonymous No.21366851]

>>21366715
>>21366850
In other words, modern industrial technology allows humans AS A COLLECTIVE far greater power, and with that increase in power, a FAR greater capacity to restrict individuals and cause damage. The individual is effectively POWERLESS in modern society. Take the example of voting:
>117. In any technologically advanced society the individual’s fate MUST depend on decisions that he personally cannot influence to any great extent. A technological society cannot be broken down into small, autonomous communities, because production depends on the cooperation of very large numbers of people and machines. Such a society MUST be highly organized and decisions HAVE TO be made that affect very large numbers of people. When a decision affects, say, a million people, then each of the affected individuals has, on the average, only a one-millionth share in making the decision. What usually happens in practice is that decisions are made by public officials or corporation executives, or by technical specialists, but even when the public votes on a decision the number of voters ordinarily is too large for the vote of any one individual to be significant.[19] Thus most individuals are unable to influence measurably the major decisions that affect their lives. There is no conceivable way to remedy this in a technologically advanced society. The system tries to “solve” this problem by using propaganda to make people WANT the decisions that have been made for them, but even if this “solution” were completely successful in making people feel better, it would be demeaning.
So what, then, distinguishes the "modern industrial technology" that constitutes industrial society? (continued)

[Anonymous No.21366852]

>>21366715
>>21366851
>208. We distinguish between two kinds of technology, which we will call small-scale technology and organization-dependent technology. Small-scale technology is technology that can be used by small-scale communities without outside assistance. Organization-dependent technology is technology that depends on large-scale social organization. We are aware of no significant cases of regression in small-scale technology. But organization-dependent technology DOES regress when the social organization on which it depends breaks down. Example: When the Roman Empire fell apart the Romans’ small-scale technology survived because any clever village craftsman could build, for instance, a water wheel, any skilled smith could make steel by Roman methods, and so forth. But the Romans’ organization-dependent technology DID regress. Their aqueducts fell into disrepair and were never rebuilt. Their techniques of road construction were lost. The Roman system of urban sanitation was forgotten, so that not until rather recent times did the sanitation of European cities equal that of Ancient Rome.
This is the sort of technology that Kaczynski sees as a problem. Over time, as a society develops ORGANIZATION-DEPENDENT technology, it will become impossible to avoid the restriction of AUTONOMY and freedom caused.
(continued)

[Anonymous No.21366869]

>>21366715
>>21366852
In conclusion, technology is NOT BAD. Freedom and autonomy NOT NECESSARILY RESTRICTED BY TECHNOLOGY. Kaczynski's problem is the inability for an individual to exert power and autonomy in a meaningful way when IN INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY. The issue, is, of course, INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY, hence the name of his book was not "Technology and its Future" or "Technology and its Effects."
I've put way more effort into this than I should have, and I hope you just read it and go along. You can feel free to point out things I didn't address, or points I haven't elaborated enough on, and you can certainly try to devise quick "gotchas" with misappropriated quotations. I could play the game, rebutting each poorly constructed critique, but it is far easier for one to point to some supposed "oversight" and say "whatabout" ad infinitum; at that point, you might as well just read the book. If there is a specific topic you want to address, I'm more than willing to make a final post, as long as it isn't something obvious from the quotations already listed.
Finally, it is OK to disagree with Kaczynski on a value basis. If you don't care about how Industrial Society affects the dynamic of autonomy and freedom of the individual, then that's OK. You are not stupid or wrong for that. It means that you're not the kind of person Kaczynski wrote for.

[Anonymous No.21366918]

>>21366869
>Freedom and autonomy are* NOT NECESSARILY RESTRICTED BY TECHNOLOGY.

[Anonymous No.21367458]

if the psychometricians are right, g-factor plummeting, room temperature races breeding like rabbits, and the long awaited next Carrington event comes in time, I guess it's not that hard to imagine industrial society receiving a really bad blow; its beginning lies heavily also on easy accessibility of energetic resources next to the surface, even without mentioning the human conditions that favored it, next time around thermodynamics is really going to make it harder for primitive men to start again
and I think we are relatively close in time to this key phase, this century and the next I think could really determine whether technics triumphs over man and in particular manages to shield itself against external blows from the solar system as well as beat thermodynamics on the earthly scale, or a massive collapse will set it back so much that a return to it will be outside of relevant time scales

[Anonymous No.21367663]

>>21366869
first off, just want to say that I appreciate you taking the time to lay out a thesis with quotations - if more posters on here were like you we might actually have some interesting discussions

and also I basically don't disagree with your reading of kaczynski at all, he takes pains in everything he writes to be very explicit and leave little room for interpretation

what I do think you've misunderstood is MY reading/critique - which is fair, because I posted it in a pithy, insulting way, without really elaborating my positions

first off, in >>21366843 when you seem to quote "inherently bad" - this is not something I ever said, nor is it something I think is true of ISAIF, as, again, I am familiar with the rigor he takes to distinguish types of technology and its social distribution

>therefore technology is bad because it inhibits natural freedom
is what I actually said, and I guess a more accurate statement would have been
>therefore technological progress is bad *for society* because it inhibits natural freedom

I know that Kaczynski's focus is basically a kind of socio-political commentary but honestly, I find that to be the most boring part and wholly unoriginal, little more than a watered down version of civilization and its discontents mixed with ellul - this is, of course, just my opinion, and a value judgement, not a refutation

to reiterate a point I made earlier: the axioms which his social commentary revolve around are about the nature of freedom and technics i.e. the first as natural and chaotic, the second as unnatural and control-oriented

none of his socio-political reflections would have a leg to stand on if this dialectic were to fall apart

from aristotle to heidegger, philosophers have been trying to understand the role of humans vis-a-vis nature, and while there is no final answer, I think even a limited familiarity with natural philosophy gets us pretty far beyond basic social darwinist fantasies like,
>Whatever else may be the case, it is certain that technology is creating for human beings a new physical and social environment radically different from the spectrum of environments to which natural selection has adapted the human race physically and psychologically.

[Anonymous No.21367783]

>>21366443
>all 3 of the Mass Effect 3 endings
You'll have to explain. I could get the Deux Ex endings, but I'm not making the connections to Mass Effect.

[Anonymous No.21368477]

>>21366535
His idea that people are becoming engineered products through the process of socialization is based. Most of his other ideas seem like something a crazy person came up with in the woods.

[Anonymous No.21368506]

>>21366665
Kaczynski's definition of freedom is comically specific. It's doubly comedic because he provides no justification for his definition, just throws it out there. To accept any of the conclusions in ISaiF you need to accept extreme premises.

[Anonymous No.21368510]

>>21366119
No. The idea that technological progress can be stopped or even meaningfully slowed is just too silly.

[Anonymous No.21368511]

>>21367663
I understand. Now that you put your critiques that way, I see what you're trying to say. You make some good points and it's utterly based that your would make a genuine reply despite my previous insults.
I agree that the nature/technology distinction is not well enough defined, though I do believe there to be a genuine distinction even if we cannot be rigorous about it. Thanks for the post, anon. Have a good day.

[Anonymous No.21368520]

>>21368510
>207. An argument likely to be raised against our proposed revolution is that it is bound to fail, because (it is claimed) throughout history technology has always progressed, never regressed, hence technological regression is impossible. But this claim is false.

>208. We distinguish between two kinds of technology, which we will call small-scale technology and organization-dependent technology. Small-scale technology is technology that can be used by small-scale communities without outside assistance. Organization-dependent technology is technology that depends on large-scale social organization. We are aware of no significant cases of regression in small-scale technology. But organization-dependent technology DOES regress when the social organization on which it depends breaks down. Example: When the Roman Empire fell apart the Romans’ small-scale technology survived because any clever village craftsman could build, for instance, a water wheel, any skilled smith could make steel by Roman methods, and so forth. But the Romans’ organization-dependent technology DID regress. Their aqueducts fell into disrepair and were never rebuilt. Their techniques of road construction were lost. The Roman system of urban sanitation was forgotten, so that not until rather recent times did the sanitation of European cities equal that of Ancient Rome.

>...

>212. Would society EVENTUALLY develop again toward an industrial-technological form? Maybe, but there is no use in worrying about it, since we can’t predict or control events 500 or 1,000 years in the future. Those problems must be dealt with by the people who will live at that time.

Pls read book. he has a few chapters on this. He acknowledges that there is only a slim chance of defeating the industrial society, but he thinks it's worth it nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.21368525]

>>21366535
>Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good
>and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate
>white males, they hate rationality.
absolutely retarded

[Anonymous No.21368751]

He was right about everything. His critics arguments are all extremely feeble and silly.

[Anonymous No.21368753]

>>21366535
Absolutely dead on, more relevant than ever

[Anonymous No.21369295]

bump for based uncle ted

[Anonymous No.21369322]

>>21366869
I apreciate this attempt of conveyance if nothing else. Never read, didnt comment in this thread, and alwyas thought it was some throw away an-prim stuff, but the increasing collective power of the modern life and its reprocussions on effective individual autonomy is interesting and something ive thought of in passing in the past.

thank you.

[Anonymous No.21369334]

>>21368525
All true though. Its part of a revolutionary mindset.

[Anonymous No.21369366]

>>21368525
explain.

[Anonymous No.21369530]

>>21366119
Everything in it was on point because he was literally right. Kaczynski remains unrefuted to this day.

[Anonymous No.21370089]

>>21366119
Everything he wrote is utter gibberish. If you follow what he says you're a lost cause. But you follow nothing he said. In fact, not only do you participate in industrial society, but you probably got some ultra elaborate job in IT, the industrial sector he loathed the most.

[Anonymous No.21370297]

>>21366119
If he didn't kill people, not a single person would have read his book. Ever.

[Anonymous No.21370333]

We can at least agree that people are to blame for pollution, deforestation and decimation of entire species? I only hope we can save nature before its too late. I can't blame the average person who is trying to make ends meet for being indifferent.

[Anonymous No.21370345]

>>21370297
We will never know that now. I mean people read Can Life Prevail and Linkola didn't murder anybody.

[Anonymous No.21370405]

>>21369334
>>21369366
First we have to ask ourselves what is "successful" here
The USA have both the largest share and number of inmates of every country on earth
Literal legal corruption to fund elections
Periodic economic crisis that involve the whole world
High crime stats for a 1st world country (inb4 ITS DA NIGGERS! - it doesn't matter. If "white men" were "strong, good and successful" they would surely invent a solution that isn't "just throw all the niggers in for-profit jails", right?
At this point, we would probably question the claim that the West is good strong and succesful, and then the claim that "the leftists" hate "the GS&S" because they hate America.
Maybe, just maybe, the left hates the failures that are called successes, not the so called "wins". How is America "winning" if half of its population barely knows how to read?

[Anonymous No.21370429]

>>21370405
ISAIF was published in 1995 not 2020
and he essentially predicted the bioleninist phenomenon/phenotype rather spot on, in its own words

[Anonymous No.21370488]

>>21370429
>ISAIF was published in 1995 not 2020
Doesn't matter
especially when people say stuff like >>21368753
>Absolutely dead on, more relevant than ever
>>21369334
>All true though. Its part of a revolutionary mindset.
>and he essentially predicted the bioleninist phenomenon/phenotype rather spot on, in its own words
There are two major mistakes here:
What you're thinking about 1)it's not leftism 2)it's essentially non-existent withing leftism
The American mindset has such a warped and twisted definition and image of "leftism" that the media CEOs are able to present you with a rotten toenail and tell you it's an apple.
It used to be different here in Europe, but of course, being a colony, this cancer is spreading fast here too.

[Anonymous No.21370498]

>>21370089
>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. ...
>206. With regard to revolutionary strategy, the only points on which we absolutely insist are that the single overriding goal must be the elimination of modern technology, and that no other goal can be allowed to compete with this one. For the rest, revolutionaries should take an empirical approach. If experience indicates that some of the recommendations made in the foregoing paragraphs are not going to give good results, then those recommendations should be discarded.
Not to mention he actually calls for revolutionaries to become proficient with industrial technology so that they are better able to revolt. You're braindead desu

[Anonymous No.21370507]

>>21366760
If you think the machine isn't working on a solution for the oil crisis then you don't understand the machine

[Anonymous No.21371710]

>>21370345
not who you're responding to, but kaczynski and linkola couldn't be more different - linkola is very authoritarian and an extreme advocate of protecting the biosphere at the expense of human lives/happiness whereas kaczynski is pretty much a libertarian anarchist whose main issue with industrialization are its socio-cultural effects (while kaczynski was personally interested in survival skills, politically he rarely associates himself with ecological causes)

[Anonymous No.21372919]

>>21366119
it reads like a rightist pretending to be a leftist. which when you consider his dubious choice of targets and that he all but killed off earthfirst by way of association, makes him highly suspicious

[Anonymous No.21373079]

I disagree with his definition of freedom, there are several things in it thought that I do agree with it. I will try to break it down here.

>94. By “freedom” we mean the opportunity to go through the power process, with real goals not the artificial goals of surrogate activities, and without interference, manipulation or supervision from anyone, especially from any large organization
Not everybody wishes to enter through the power process, as he himself says, most people do not. They are NPCs in nature, they enjoy or need on their life to push them down a path or they become confused and disoriented and suffer the same illnesses that modern society causes. The real goals he mentions do not alleviate this, only prevent them from thinking on them for any length of time being occupied with simply staying alive.

This is the curse of him having such a high intelligence, he is far removed from how the average man or woman operates and can not comprehend a lesser consciousness operating in the same manner.


>Freedom means being in control (either as an individual or as a member of a SMALL group) of the life-and-death issues of one’s existence; food, clothing, shelter and defense against whatever threats there may be in one’s environment
This overlaps too much with Peterson's cult of the individual, you should remain alone and not rely on others, you should be an island in archipelago of his own design. When everyone is left in command of these situations they quickly become incapable of looking after themselves, then they prey on those who sustain themselves.

Look at niggers and spics now, they take from others because they can not fend for themselves.


>Freedom means having power; not the power to control other people but the power to control the circumstances of one’s own life. One does not have freedom if anyone else (especially a large organization) has power over one, no matter how benevolently, tolerantly and permissively that power may be exercised.

I agree with this, freedom means having power over your own decisions and the responsibilities that come with it. But he neglects to mention any that freedoms need to be clad in responsibilities. Namely in loyalty to a benevolent local hierarchy. Without one, you will be subject to a hostile one.

>It is important not to confuse freedom with mere permissiveness.
Freedom is the same as permissiveness. What happens when the women can only make ends meet by whoring out their bodies, or what if they chose to do so over good, honest labor? This is the biggest problem I have with any kind of anarcho-libertarian ideas. Things are fine when people have the same values, beliefs and abilities as yourself, but the second there begins a disparity it all falls to shit. Permissiveness is needed to overlook all the things you don't personal agree with but must permit because that is how they engage in the power-process.

Still have yet to read all his manifesto, I'm halfway through.

[Anonymous No.21373158]

>>21373079
Very good points.
>They are NPCs in nature, they enjoy or need on their life to push them down a path or they become confused and disoriented and suffer the same illnesses that modern society causes. The real goals he mentions do not alleviate this, only prevent them from thinking on them for any length of time being occupied with simply staying alive.
>Freedom is the same as permissiveness. What happens when the women can only make ends meet by whoring out their bodies, or what if they chose to do so over good, honest labor? This is the biggest problem I have with any kind of anarcho-libertarian ideas
In a non-industrial society, people organize around families and tribes in small communities. There is a generally autocratic leadership centered around a head of household that gives the NPCs direction. If we want to talk a sort of "realpolitik" for anti-industrialism, the ultimate extension of the family and tribe(group of families) is Monarchy. These are all entirely compatible with primitivism and anti-industrialism, even Kaczynski's form of it.
>anarcho-libertarian ideas.
Kaczynski idealizes true hunter-gatherer primitivism, but the intended goal of his "movement" is simply worldwide de-industrialization by force.
It's very important to note that the aim of the Anti-Tech Revolution is not an anarchic society, but a de-industrialization of the the entire Earth. Monarchies, democracies, republics, and any other form of governance is tolerable as long as governments do not have the powers of tech to enforce their wills.

[Anonymous No.21373188]

>>21373158
Thank you.

>In a non-industrial society, people organize around families and tribes in small communities.
This is how it is in the countryside and rural areas, even with the advent of industrial technology. This is how it was throughout history, great, no disagreements here.

>There is a generally autocratic leadership centered around a head of household that gives the NPCs direction.
You imply that there is only one or two per household, we're talking about whole swathes of the population are like this. They have, and always will, need clear direction. A party goal for example or a set of values imposed on them for them to follow. Without them, conflict is inevitable as the only real goal is to compete with the other.

>If we want to talk a sort of "realpolitik" for anti-industrialism, the ultimate extension of the family and tribe(group of families) is Monarchy. These are all entirely compatible with primitivism and anti-industrialism, even Kaczynski's form of it.
I would disagree with this in the strongest terms, the closest realpolitk came to this was the National-Socialist movement of Germany. I strongly encourage you to read picrel.

[Anonymous No.21373230]

>>21373188
As it turns out, I support "fascism" loosely as an alternative to a de-industrialized(globally, just de-industrializing your own country is suicide) monarchic society. If the world is to leap into the great unknown of technology, it will need to be unified under some form of homogeneous autocratic society.
Downloading the Blood and Soil now, but it'll be a while before I get to it.

[Anonymous No.21373434]

>>21366760
>>21370507
For most it will be at or below the Early Industrial Revolution. I have no doubt that austerity will be implemented to save the lifestyles of the elite. Unless a miracle wipes the slate clean, it will be a long, painful, and sad decent over a few centuries as each generation forgets how much better things had been and could be.

[Anonymous No.21373974]

>>21366760
>>21373434
Worry not, gentlemen: nuclear fusion will save the industrial society:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1708307/nuclear-fusion-breakthrough-energy-lawrence-livermore-national-laboratory-us