Nuclear blackpill

[Anonymous No.21403329]

[Anonymous No.21403386]

>>21403329
Answers for the retards:
>No, you aren't supposed to stop using tech. How the fuck else would you revolt? Spears? Word of Mouth propaganda?
>Yes, he knows. The revolution has to be global or Industrial Society will recover.
>No, living in a cabin in the woods won't let you escape Industrial Society, that's why Ted didn't just fuck off
>No, you don't have to commit crimes to revolt against industrial society
>Yes Kaczynski is aware that industrial society will recover some time if it is destroyed. Why still destroy it? Because it's a fucking problem. You'd still destroy tranny groomers even if you knew they'd just come back after another 100 years. With industrial society it will take 500-1000+ years because almost all surface metal and all shallow oil has been extracted.
>No "just put down your phone broooo" is not a solution when you're still huffing toxic chemicals 24/7 and your aquifers and rivers are so full of xeno-estrogens and heavy metals that drinking it will fuck you up and destroy your children
>No, the problem is NOT technology, it's the industrial system that supports the development and manufacture of technology and that's why putting down your phone does JACK SHIT
>Yes there is a fairly well defined difference between "bad" technology and "good" technology. If it can be conceivable produced by an isolated village or town without outside help, it doesn't require THE INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM and therefore isn't bad
You fuckers need a complimentary text to not get filtered by something he said he EXPLICITLY WROTE TO BE EASY FOR THE UNEDUCATED MASSES TO UNDERSTAND. He wrote DOWN to you and you still get filtered. Lmao

[Anonymous No.21403395]

>>21403386
Id say technology is bad

[Anonymous No.21403400]

>>21403395
The problem of technology being an inherent problem or not reduces ideological purity, so getting into that is unproductive.

[Anonymous No.21403421]

>>21403386
before the inevitable "gotcha":
>Yes there is a fairly well defined difference between "bad" technology and "good" technology. If it can be conceivable produced by an isolated village or town without outside help, it doesn't require THE INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM and therefore isn't bad
Bad in this context meaning technology that contributes to an industrial system. A stick that someone bends and puts a string on is not a relevant technology. The amount of retards filtered by this is unreal. Holy shit! A 143 IQ mathematician didn't think of a STICK! WAOAW I IS A SO SMORT!

[Anonymous No.21403458]

>>21403386
That's just literally Kropotkin's anarchism, but with a more autistic description and implementation.

[Anonymous No.21403594]

>>21403386
>Okay so here's the plan: a simultaneous worldwide destruction of the entire industrial system.
>Don't worry the lemmings won't get in your way, look at this heckin example of someone being self sacrificing in ww2!!
lmfao

[Anonymous No.21403603]

The industrial system is a good thing and I'll fight defending it from primitivo-retards.

[Anonymous No.21404196]

I wonder if there are modern Ted K's sending out logic bombs over the internet to peoples online mail boxes.

[Anonymous No.21404207]

>>21403329
Uncle Ted is getting a steady cult following. I don't remember seeing much of him being posted here in the early to mid new tens.

[Anonymous No.21404209]

>>21403386
Ted says to use technology to overthrow the technological system.

I won't even bother with the rest if you fuck up this massively from the start.

[Anonymous No.21404224]

>>21404209
Those are answers. It means that you are supposed to use tech. The quote form makes it look like it's criticizing people who say that tho

[Anonymous No.21404422]

Does he ever address the agricultural revolution? The industrial revolution is nothing compared to that. I want to return to caveman or monke but non-ironically.
>but you'd die at the ripe old age of around 35 as a result of physical trauma
So? It'd be better than a long life of quiet desperation and bondage to postmodern societies extreme restrictions, rules, and policing.

[Anonymous No.21404589]

>>21403329
Aliens will destroy us if we stop advancing. All of your arguments are now invalid

[Anonymous No.21404606]

>>21403386
Delusional fantasy

[Anonymous No.21404619]

>>21404422
He idealizes true hunter-gatherer primtivism but acknowledges that unlike an industrial system, agriculture is not practical to reverse because all it requires is someone grabbing a seed and putting it into the ground. The industrial system can reasonable fall apart and take another 500 years to rebuild- possibly far longer or even millions of years into the future because all near-surface oil and coal have been extracted and nearly all surface metals. It wouldn't be like the first time around.

[Anonymous No.21404623]

>>21404606
A single black swan event can conceivably topple industrial society, especially if there are people that "take advantage" of it.

[Anonymous No.21404663]

Do self-propagating structures mean that entropy propagates too?

[Anonymous No.21404669]

burn it all down

[Anonymous No.21404683]

>>21403386
>No, you don't have to commit crimes to revolt against industrial society
How? An anti-tech revolution would inherently involve the destruction of infrastructure, which is a crime. More specifically, it would involve a culling of 99.9% of the world population to starvation and disease. The Earth cannot nearly sustain our current numbers without industrial agriculture. In fact, we can sustain even less than we could in the Middle Ages, if there were to be a crash, since all farmland that used to be self-sustained subsistence farms is now industrial and would be left untended since the necessary skills and tools for pre-industrial agriculture doesn't exist anymore. This is not to mention the billions that wouldn't exist if it weren't for modern medecine. This is inherently an consequentialist ideology of misanthropy and death. Within the atheist frame, it is correct, but Kaczynski melts away in the face of Infinity.

[Anonymous No.21404697]

>>21404683
The countless billions of the future that await the pure suffering or artificial medication induced "pleasure" inflicted by industrial society outweigh the eight billion alive today.
>An anti-tech revolution would inherently involve the destruction of infrastructure, which is a crime.
It is possible for this to happen without a single crime being committed. In some cases mass workers strikes are not illegal. Anyway, individuals must come up with their own solutions to industrial society and must be willing to disregard any advice that anyone has given at any point if they deem that it will hinder the end of industrial society.

[Anonymous No.21404869]

>>21404697
>The countless billions of the future that await the pure suffering or artificial medication induced "pleasure" inflicted by industrial society outweigh the eight billion alive today.
I understand the argument. You are still advocating for indirectly killing almost everyone alive today because the alternative is worse. This would most likely include yourself and your family. Everyone you know would either die of starvation, disease, or murder. And if the ends justify the means, this is truly the right option. It allows men to go to that extremity, thinking it is moral. That spirit of bitter disgust at the world that leads you to wish death upon virtually all the human race, it is so tiresome and at this point, my spirit recoils from it. Nothing Kaczynski says has to be wrong, as such, but he takes it as a given that there is no God and that the religious worldview has already been disproven. He might have good reason for this, but it is never brought up. If you disagree with him on this presupposition, however, none of it really matters anymore. This world is rotten to its core. Alienated from its original design. Men will never be content, even in primitivist bliss. There can be no salvation in the workings of men, it isn't to be found amongst bands of hunter-gatherers in deep forests. All joy of that life is but a foretaste of Heaven. Civilization, wilderness, these are temporal affairs, yet we are immortal souls merely embodied in the temporal. Our ultimate aim is not that. Our existence here is for the ultimate purpose of unifiction with the Divine, by allowing us to ascend the ladder of spiritual ascent. In the face of this, even if everything Kaczynski says is right, ceases to be important. In fact, it is to be expected, as degeneration, decay and entropy are all inherent in the Fallen Creation, as gold turns into silver and silver into bronze.

In the view of the infinite life, I no longer care. Yes, I have given up, I am an anti-revolutionary element. I do, I suppose, what the Techno-Industrial System would want me to. Though, it's not like there is a movement, in the first place, or even any potential seed for a movement. Kaczynski has entierly failed to inspire one, and even if one were to be created, the question of if and Anti-Tech Revolution would even be possible remains unanswered, and I think there is reason to be pessimistic. As of now, I am resigned to a life of minimizing technology to the greatest extent I am capable of. I do not care to extending this life to the masses. Neither did Kaczynski, but I also accept that total liberation from the Machine isn't possible. I suppose you could put it that this age, being so far removed from the Primeval state, doesn't allow even its hermits the freedom the previous ages allowed theirs. As for the present situation, it will resolve perhaps with Providence making the system collapse naturally, or perhaps these are the last days. Only then will there be apocastasis.

[Anonymous No.21404897]

>>21404589
>aliens care about big apes in suits
too optimistic for my taste desu

[Anonymous No.21405006]

>>21404869
Every man passes in his time; it makes no difference if it is at once or sequentially. This is not advocacy for death, but of "reform," as many have done in the past and will continue to do so in the future. If the industrial system is instrumental to the divine plan then it will survive, but if not, there is no reason to accept the greatest facilitator of modern evils. The industrial society is incompatible with with the theological order and bestows upon man capacity for evil unlike any other. I'm sure it needn't be explained the surgical monstrosities, lobotomies, chemical horrors, and of course, the coming integration of technology with the nervous system that are made possible by industrial technology. These are simply the things we can imagine in our lifetimes; there is no telling the evils the future holds. You already see the effects; men and women remove their sexual organs in mental disturbances unlike anything in the past, suicide continues to rise where before industrialism it was nigh unheard of, atrocities of torture greater than anything our forefathers could ever have imagined are made possible by technological invention.

But that is to say nothing exclusive to the spiritual. Death, of course, is nothing, for the righteous will ascend to heaven and the reprobate will meet his just end. The great sufferings that can be wrought, and are being wrought by the technological world are a tragedy like no other; and the powers offered to temporal leaders are used to constrict and destroy the capacity for the masses to achieve spiritual enlightenment and salvation. You see this with declining religiosity in the industrialized world. It is undeniable.
But lastly, remember that you will not only be judged for what you did do, but also for what you did not; turning a blind eye on the suffering of your brothers- closing your ears to the blood that cries out from the ground; can you really say that you love your brother as you love yourself? There is no reason to throw your life away or bring harm even for a greater purpose to anyone. But to make no effort to stop the single greatest evil that mankind has ever been faced with simply because you are content with leaving it "all to God," is that not the greatest expression of selfishness?

[Anonymous No.21405026]

>>21404697
workers strike to improve their material conditions, not to enable their own extinction.
Kaczynski's analysis is reasonable even if it's hardly groundbreaking. But the idea that industrial society is a problem that can be solved is laughable, and his bombings are the perfect punchline to that particular joke.

[Anonymous No.21405038]

>>21405026
>96. As for our constitutional rights, consider for example that of freedom of the press. We certainly don’t mean to knock that right; it is very important tool for limiting concentration of political power and for keeping those who do have political power in line by publicly exposing any misbehavior on their part. But freedom of the press is of very little use to the average citizen as an individual. The mass media are mostly under the control of large organizations that are integrated into the system. Anyone who has a little money can have something printed, or can distribute it on the Internet or in some such way, but what he has to say will be swamped by the vast volume of material put out by the media, hence it will have no practical effect. To make an impression on society with words is therefore almost impossible for most individuals and small groups. 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 if 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.
Your braindeath is showing. And if you still don't understand, he stated multiple times, even before being caught, that the purpose of the bombings was to gain lasting public attention.

[Anonymous No.21405095]

>>21403386
>You'd still destroy tranny groomers
For a period of several weeks in 1966, Kaczynski experienced intense sexual fantasies of being a female and decided to undergo gender transition. He arranged to meet with a psychiatrist, but changed his mind in the waiting room and did not disclose his reason for making the appointment. Afterwards, enraged, he considered killing the psychiatrist and other people whom he hated. Kaczynski described this episode as a "major turning point" in his life:[27][28][29] "I felt disgusted about what my uncontrolled sexual cravings had almost led me to do. And I felt humiliated, and I violently hated the psychiatrist. Just then there came a major turning point in my life. Like a Phoenix, I burst from the ashes of my despair to a glorious new hope."[28]

[Anonymous No.21405111]

>>21403386
>>No, living in a cabin in the woods won't let you escape Industrial Society, that's why Ted didn't just fuck off
I agree mostly with the other points. But it can be argued that moving toward simpler life (i.e living in the woods) is inherent to finish industrial system. Also the man would be literally living in the woods rn havent been ratted out by his stupid brother

[Anonymous No.21405113]

>>21405095
There is no telling if that is propaganda, regardless, he didn't become a tranny and he didn't become a groomer. He fought against both in the industrial society.
I don't know what kind of mentally ill faggot you are but someone overcoming degeneracy and rising above the unnatural is infinitely based.

[Anonymous No.21405129]

>>21405111
Yeah, learning practical survival skills and distancing yourself from tech as much as one can (without sacrificing the ability to combat it) is good. That part is to refute those that say "well if tech is so bad why don't you go live innawoods?"
Problem is, being forced to pay taxes(hence work industrial jobs) being subjected to industrial pollution, the risk of the government appropriating your land for a superhighway, or a political revolution deeming your land too bourgeoisie guarantees it's just a risky way to temporarily alleviate the effect of industrialism on oneself.

[Anonymous No.21405170]

>>21405113
>mentally ill faggot
rent free
I wonder why does this happen...

[Anonymous No.21405176]

>>21405038
You're making my point. Sure, if all he wanted was to become a meme, the whacky "industrial society and its consequences have been a disaster teehee" guy, he won. But industrial society is stronger than ever, because his solutions are unpalatable to almost everyone who read them now that they are out in the open.

[Anonymous No.21405192]

>>21405176
He even said that if someone got repulsed by his actions then they wouldn't be worth having as revolutionaries. They'd just be lemmings that seek only comfort. You got filtered so hard I honestly feel bad for you. If there was a way to confirm that it was really you I'd ask for a crypto wallet to give you a little cash for coffee. Keep it up anon, you might make it still.

[Anonymous No.21405197]

>>21403594
>Don't worry the lemmings won't get in your way
The Turner Diaries unironically addresses this problem, you only need a minority and even a small minority will do if they're sufficiently dedicated

[Anonymous No.21405199]

>>21403386
>Yes there is a fairly well defined difference between "bad" technology and "good" technology. If it can be conceivable produced by an isolated village or town without outside help, it doesn't require THE INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM and therefore isn't bad
It is interesting that you would mention this as future productive base will be based on nanotechnology, instead of large complex factories and machines. Rather than pulling the brake, you should be stepping on the accelerator.

[Anonymous No.21405213]

>>21403329
His worldview is a dead end of species. Eventually Earth won't be able to sustain life and humanity or whatever we turn into will need to fuck off and find another place. That or find a away to adapt and that will likely also need technological progress.
Technology might indeed destroy humanity, but it's not a certainty.
People like Ted should be allowed to have a plot of land of their own and live there and go monkes.

[Anonymous No.21405231]

>>21405199
>It is interesting that you would mention this as future productive base will be based on nanotechnology,
That's even worse. An incomprehensible nightmare mode.

[Anonymous No.21405264]

>>21405192
thanks, but I'm not involved in any ponzis anyways.
>if you disagree with me you got filtered
A convenient argument and often a sign of someone mentally unwell: if only you had all the facts you would have to agree with me! The lack of self-awareness prevents them from realizing that some of those facts are just their personal opinions.
With that said, yes, people generally prefer pleasure over pain and comfort over toil. If he'd actually understood that he wouldn't have blundered so badly with all the embarassing talk of revolution and focused on the descriptive parts.

[Anonymous No.21405279]

So does brain surgery just not exist in Ted K's fantasy world? If you're a person who's in need of invasive, delicate procedure, you just die? Sorry bro you village couldn't produce a multi-million dollar precision device to carefully extract the tumor from your brain. Guess you have to die. It's for the good of nature.

[Anonymous No.21405288]

>>21405264
Yes, no one ever has had a revolution because the people prefer comfort. Oh boy, the masses sure would have been more interested with more description. You try to refute him using points he addressed in his first major work lmao
>>21405279
He addresses that in the chapter on freedom and the other on "good and bad technology."

[Anonymous No.21405313]

>>21405288
Revolutions naturally happen when material conditions are bad with the aim to increase the people's level of comfort. The revolution he wants to have happen is explicitly aimed at decreasing it, it's a non-starter.
And obviously "the masses" don't care either way, it just would have made his work more intellectually pleasing and less embarassing to read.

[Anonymous No.21405342]

>>21403329
idk I'd rather life in neuralink Matrix then suffer for literally 0 reason other than being in control / free will which doesn't even exist and I kinda doubt that there is an emotion or aesthetic AI will miss, not with all this data and variety of archived information

[Anonymous No.21405442]

>>21405231
Going the other way won't make things more comprehensible. When I was a kid, the world made more sense, but that was just my naivete.

Also it is not fair to call it a nightmare. If you look at how nature works, it is pretty much hell. At least in the future we'll be able to control our own evolution.

[Anonymous No.21405469]

>>21405313
>189. Prior to that final struggle, the revolutionaries should not expect to have a majority of people on their side. History is made by active, determined minorities, not by the majority, which seldom has a clear and consistent idea of what it really wants. Until the time comes for the final push toward revolution[35], the task of revolutionaries will be less to win the shallow support of the majority than to build a small core of deeply committed people. As for the majority, it will be enough to make them aware of the existence of the new ideology and remind them of it frequently; though of course it will be desirable to get majority support to the extent that this can be done without weakening the core of seriously committed people.
>194. Probably the revolutionaries should even AVOID assuming political power, whether by legal or illegal means, until the industrial system is stressed to the danger point and has proved itself to be a failure in the eyes of most people. Suppose for example that some “green” party should win control of the United States Congress in an election. In order to avoid betraying or watering down their own ideology they would have to take vigorous measures to turn economic growth into economic shrinkage. To the average man the results would appear disastrous: There would be massive unemployment, shortages of commodities, etc. Even if the grosser ill effects could be avoided through superhumanly skillful management, still people would have to begin giving up the luxuries to which they have become addicted. Dissatisfaction would grow, the “green” party would be voted out of office and the revolutionaries would have suffered a severe setback. For this reason the revolutionaries should not try to acquire political power until the system has gotten itself into such a mess that any hardships will be seen as resulting from the failures of the industrial system itself and not from the policies of the revolutionaries. The revolution against technology will probably have to be a revolution by outsiders, a revolution from below and not from above.
You couldn't even remember my previous post where I mention this. For the love of God if you're not retarded just stop posting, read the book, and then come back some other time. It's clear you haven't even read it because all of your gripes were directly addressed. There's no reason to be embarrassed because this place is anonymous; nobody can laugh at you, just the post. You don't need to feel as if being shown you're wrong is an existential threat to your identity.

[Anonymous No.21405500]

>>21405442
>123. If you think that big government interferes in your life too much NOW, just wait till the government starts regulating the genetic constitution of your children. Such regulation will inevitably follow the introduction of genetic engineering of human beings, because the consequences of unregulated genetic engineering would be disastrous.[21]

?124. The usual response to such concerns is to talk about “medical ethics.” But a code of ethics would not serve to protect freedom in the face of medical progress; it would only make matters worse. A code of ethics applicable to genetic engineering would be in effect a means of regulating the genetic constitution of human beings. Somebody (probably the upper-middle class, mostly) would decide that such and such applications of genetic engineering were “ethical”, and others were not, so that in effect they would be imposing their own values on the genetic constitution of the population at large. Even if a code of ethics were chosen on a completely democratic basis, the majority would be imposing their own values on any minorities who might have a different idea of what constituted an “ethical” use of genetic engineering. The only code of ethics that would truly protect freedom would be one that prohibited ANY genetic engineering of human beings, and you can be sure that no such code will ever be applied in a technological society. No code that reduced genetic engineering to a minor role could stand up for long, because the temptation presented by the immense power of biotechnology would be irresistible, especially since to the majority of people many of its applications will seem obviously and unequivocally good (eliminating physical and mental diseases, giving people the abilities they need to get along in today’s world). Inevitably, genetic engineering will be used extensively, but only in ways consistent with the needs of the industrial-technological system.[22]
>[some more but I'm keeping this short. Please read the book, it's pretty interesting and he addresses every single thing that every single anon in this thread has tried to use to BTFO. Not kidding.]
>>21405342
That's fair. Keep in mind that your mindset and the idea that you would "suffer" without technology may simply be because you were raised in a technological society. Of course, on the individual basis it's true. Almost everyone is guaranteed to die simply because we need industrial agriculture; but if industrialism was never a thing you wouldn't "suffer for literally 0 reason."
>>21405199

[Anonymous No.21405509]

>>21405199
>2. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy.
>3. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than later.
>180. The technophiles are taking us all on an utterly reckless ride into the unknown. Many people understand something of what technological progress is doing to us yet take a passive attitude toward it because they think it is inevitable. But we (FC) don’t think it is inevitable. We think it can be stopped, and we will give here some indications of how to go about stopping it.
>133. No social arrangements, whether laws, institutions, customs or ethical codes, can provide permanent protection against technology. History shows that all social arrangements are transitory; they all change or break down eventually. But technological advances are permanent within the context of a given civilization. Suppose for example that it were possible to arrive at some social arrangements that would prevent genetic engineering from being applied to human beings, or prevent it from being applied in such a way as to threaten freedom and dignity. Still, the technology would remain waiting. Sooner or later the social arrangement would break down. Probably sooner, given the pace of change in our society. Then genetic engineering would begin to invade our sphere of freedom, and this invasion would be irreversible (short of a breakdown of technological civilization itself). Any illusions about achieving anything permanent through social arrangements should be dispelled by what is currently happening with environmental legislation. A few years ago its seemed that there were secure legal barriers preventing at least SOME of the worst forms of environmental degradation. A change in the political wind, and those barriers begin to crumble.
Eventually those "good technologies" could be used for terrible things, or a simple unforseen accident could result in a level of suffering for worse than death. He addresses the fact that it's too risky to allow future developments to occur because, for example, with a chemical like PCBs we weren't aware of their immense danger and almost total resistance to decomposition until after it had spread everywhere all over the earth, even in antarctic ice.

[Anonymous No.21405562]

>>21405026
>181. As we stated in paragraph 166, the two main tasks for the present are to promote social stress and instability in industrial society and to develop and propagate an ideology that opposes technology and the industrial system. When the system becomes sufficiently stressed and unstable, a revolution against technology may be possible. The pattern would be similar to that of the French and Russian Revolutions. French society and Russian society, for several decades prior to their respective revolutions, showed increasing signs of stress and weakness. Meanwhile, ideologies were being developed that offered a new world view that was quite different from the old one. In the Russian case, revolutionaries were actively working to undermine the old order. Then, when the old system was put under sufficient additional stress (by financial crisis in France, by military defeat in Russia) it was swept away by revolution. What we propose is something along the same lines.
>182. It will be objected that the French and Russian Revolutions were failures. But most revolutions have two goals. One is to destroy an old form of society and the other is to set up the new form of society envisioned by the revolutionaries. The French and Russian revolutionaries failed (fortunately!) to create the new kind of society of which they dreamed, but they were quite successful in destroying the old society. We have no illusions about the feasibility of creating a new, ideal form of society. Our goal is only to destroy the existing form of society.

Every single complaint was addressed directly in his most simple work. The book is designed to be a practical explanation of what is happening and what will happen should things continue, as well as a manual to best increase the probability that things won't turn out as described. It is not a philosophical text. It is not supposed to be "MUH EBIN BTFO TECHNOLOGY" like Ellul. It is an intentionally simple and practical explanation of the effects of industrial society. If you get filtered by something that was written to be easy for anyone to consume, then I don't know what to tell you. Try manga? Maybe webcomics?
There are legitimate complaints against anti-industrialism(which is preferred over the highly inaccurate term "primitivism" which can be understood above with paragraph 182) but you guys pick the lowest hanging fruits. Kaczynski was a literal, unironic mathematical genius. You jerk off to anime tiddies. If you can think of it after seeing a few memes, I guarantee he thought of it twenty times over. Read the book and then come back with a genuine critique(like one that questions the nature of individual and collective and their relations to freedom).
This isn't to suck his dick. Don't ever worship a figure such as Kaczynski. People are fallible, and if your values rest on an individual you are an NPC and invariably fucked. I just give credit where it's due: Kaczynski knew what he was talking about.

[Anonymous No.21405583]

>>21405562
Huh?

[Anonymous No.21405695]

>>21405469
That was a reply to your post, not his writings. And he doesn't even address my point, he writes
>the majority, which seldom has a clear and consistent idea of what it really wants
which isn't true, I assert that they want comfort and pleasure, bread and circuses if you will. They don't generally have a clear and consistent idea of how to achieve that, but that's beside the point. The idea that something as abstract as nature could serve as a rallying cry for revolutionaries is idealistic at best, he assumes that everyone has the same priorities he does.
I also would not dare to criticize his mathematical theories but I don't see how being a mathematical genius helps when discussing society and the people who shape it.

[Anonymous No.21405721]

>>21405695
>the majority, which seldom has a clear and consistent idea of what it really wants
What he means is the common "the people don't know what's best for them."
>The idea that something as abstract as nature could serve as a rallying cry for revolutionaries is idealistic at best, he assumes that everyone has the same priorities he does.
A lot of other abstract ideals have inflamed the people. Besides,
>183. But an ideology, in order to gain enthusiastic support, must have a positive ideal as well as a negative one; it must be FOR something as well as AGAINST something. The positive ideal that we propose is Nature. That is, WILD nature: those aspects of the functioning of the Earth and its living things that are independent of human management and free of human interference and control. And with wild nature we include human nature, by which we mean those aspects of the functioning of the human individual that are not subject to regulation by organized society but are products of chance, or free will, or God (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions).
He addressed the complain you have of an abstract ideal, and from the inane bullshit people are rioting in the streets for it's obvious that propaganda is the only necessary component to making "proles" fight.
>188. On a second level, the ideology should be propagated in a simplified form that will enable the unthinking majority to see the conflict of technology vs. nature in unambiguous terms. But even on this second level the ideology should not be expressed in language that is so cheap, intemperate or irrational that it alienates people of the thoughtful and rational type. Cheap, intemperate propaganda sometimes achieves impressive short-term gains, but it will be more advantageous in the long run to keep the loyalty of a small number of intelligently committed people than to arouse the passions of an unthinking, fickle mob who will change their attitude as soon as someone comes along with a better propaganda gimmick. However, propaganda of the rabble-rousing type may be necessary when the system is nearing the point of collapse and there is a final struggle between rival ideologies to determine which will become dominant when the old worldview goes under.
His plans don't even rely on the mob, although your autistic attempt to "refute" this portion was already considered 40 years ago.

[Anonymous No.21405741]

>>21404207
Because he has got completely vindicated with the rise of social media

[Anonymous No.21405786]

>>21403329
>Nuclear blackpill

[Anonymous No.21405831]

>>21405213
>People like Ted should be allowed to have a plot of land of their own and live there and go monkes.
Already exists, it's called a prison and it's exactly where he belongs. Humanity will spread across the stars and this retard will be a footnote in an obscure history book about luddites.

[Anonymous No.21405855]

>>21405831
Already exists, it's called a prison and it's exactly where he belongs. Humanity will spread across the stars and this retard will be a footnote in an obscure history book about luddites.

[Anonymous No.21405878]

>>21403329

Anti-technology would be a nightmare

ted was bored as fuck in that cabin which is why he sent those bombs to people. That anti-tech lifestyle didn't work for him. why should work for us?

[Anonymous No.21405879]

>>21405855
Yes, that's what I said. What are you going to do about it?

[Anonymous No.21405884]

>>21405878

why should it*

[Anonymous No.21405886]

if you are anti-tech stop using a computer and the internet

[Anonymous No.21405890]

>>21405831
Nah, they don't need to be in prisons. Well Ted yes because he bombed people, but otherwise people who would like to live as hunter gatherers have a hard time doing it in most modern societies, unless you live in Amazon or in few other places. So I say that part of some jungle should be given to people like that and they can go and be monke there.

[Anonymous No.21405891]

>>21405213

>People like Ted should be allowed to have a plot of land of their own and live there and go monkes.

he already tried this. he got bored. he would eventually try to send bombs to people again

[Anonymous No.21405902]

>>21405890
That or maybe they should just become ascetic monks.

[Anonymous No.21405920]

I am pro-technology. life is boring without it. i would kill myself if i had to go back to living like a pre-internet person


only normalfags who socialize a lot would find such a life satisfying. i would hate it as an autistic person

[Anonymous No.21405922]

>>21405890
>Nah, they don't
>Well Ted yes
I specifically said people like Ted. If you want to go live in the wilderness, nothing will stop you. Many people go die like that every year. You might get rescued and forced into a hospital for your own good, since you'd be a shriveled wreck surviving on raiding cabins.

There's nothing stopping you from finding people with similar ideas, but the thing is that such ideas are held by anti-social luddites that do not work well with other people. I personally blame their parents.

[Anonymous No.21405928]

>>21405890
>>21405902
>177. Needless to say, the scenarios outlined above do not exhaust all the possibilities. They only indicate the kinds of outcomes that seem to us most likely. But we can envision no plausible scenarios that are any more palatable than the ones we’ve just described. It is overwhelmingly probable that if the industrial-technological system survives the next 40 to 100 years, it will by that time have developed certain general characteristics: Individuals (at least those of the “bourgeois” type, who are integrated into the system and make it run, and who therefore have all the power) will be more dependent than ever on large organizations; they will be more “socialized” than ever and their physical and mental qualities to a significant extent (possibly to a very great extent) will be those that are engineered into them rather than being the results of chance (or of God’s will, or whatever); and whatever may be left of wild nature will be reduced to remnants preserved for scientific study and kept under the supervision and management of scientists (hence it will no longer be truly wild). In the long run (say a few centuries from now) it is likely that neither the human race nor any other important organisms will exist as we know them today, because once you start modifying organisms through genetic engineering there is no reason to stop at any particular point, so that the modifications will probably continue until man and other organisms have been utterly transformed.
He tried to live in the wilderness and didn't want to become an adversarial agent. The problem is that he realized eventually industrial society would reach such a point that it was inescapable, or that nature itself would no longer exist.
Earlier in the thread I mention this topic. A guy near my grandfather's forest lost his home and his farm because the government used eminent domain and evicted him. He could likely have fought it in court and won, but he simply didn't have the money. This could happen to anyone trying to live innawoods. Kaczynski's land was regularly encroached upon by bulldozers, logging companies, and government power infrastructure workers. He knew that living in isolation wouldn't work; even the Amazon rainforest is disappearing before our very eyes. Even if such a government appears that is truly willing to defend the right of people to live primitive lives, there's nothing stopping a shift in the "political winds" from changing the government itself:
>quote continued in the next post

[Anonymous No.21405934]

>>21405890
>>21405902
>133. No social arrangements, whether laws, institutions, customs or ethical codes, can provide permanent protection against technology. History shows that all social arrangements are transitory; they all change or break down eventually. But technological advances are permanent within the context of a given civilization. Suppose for example that it were possible to arrive at some social arrangements that would prevent genetic engineering from being applied to human beings, or prevent it from being applied in such a way as to threaten freedom and dignity. Still, the technology would remain waiting. Sooner or later the social arrangement would break down. Probably sooner, given the pace of change in our society. Then genetic engineering would begin to invade our sphere of freedom, and this invasion would be irreversible (short of a breakdown of technological civilization itself). Any illusions about achieving anything permanent through social arrangements should be dispelled by what is currently happening with environmental legislation. A few years ago its seemed that there were secure legal barriers preventing at least SOME of the worst forms of environmental degradation. A change in the political wind, and those barriers begin to crumble.
This applies to anything the government does that might be beneficial or that might limit the negative effects of technology. Anything could change, and because the industrial system is so powerful, the ramifications could be huge.

[Anonymous No.21405939]

>>21405928
Take a look this prime /x/ specimen, a complete retard incapable of even structuring a simple 4chan(nel) post. Thank Andraste that you're kind is stupid.

[Anonymous No.21405948]

>>21405886
Braindead poster didn't even read the first post
>No, you aren't supposed to stop using tech. How the fuck else would you revolt? Spears? Word of Mouth propaganda?
>>No "just put down your phone broooo" is not a solution when you're still huffing toxic chemicals 24/7 and your aquifers and rivers are so full of xeno-estrogens and heavy metals that drinking it will fuck you up and destroy your children
>>21405920
You've been destroyed and oversocialized by the industrial system.
>>21405922
You're pretty retarded because that isn't the point. It's addressed by Jacques Ellul and by three of Kaczynski's works (who also wrote about it in numerous letters).
>>21405939
Your*

[Anonymous No.21405951]

>>21405922
I didn't say that I want it, I said that people should be allowed to do it. And if they do it in special location there should be rules that they won't leave that place and that they should understand that no rescue would come.

[Anonymous No.21405966]

Read Bacon

[Anonymous No.21405977]

>>21405948
I hole-hardedly agree, but allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness.

[Anonymous No.21405978]

>>21405948

>You've been destroyed and oversocialized by the industrial system.
says the guy who is using a computer right now. Go live in a cabin out in the woods without technology. you would get bored really fast

[Anonymous No.21405981]

>>21405977
based

[Anonymous No.21405996]

>>21405978
During the time that I lived on a farmstead I was happier than I've ever been and I didn't use tech. I currently live in an industrial shithole. Humans weren't meant to stay indoors all day or walk shitstained streets around gang niggers. Here, you either sit down and stare at a wall or go outside and smell shitsmog. In a pre-industrial society you could go outside for a walk in the woods without seeing piles of trash and empty cans everywhere, or getting arrested for loitering after "park curfew." As stated earlier in this thread, you cannot disconnect from industrial society. You have to use technology to make money, pay taxes, or simply travel. You need to interact with technology to get an ID, or show your vaxxie card.
Kaczynski himself said it wasn't reasonable to stop using technology until industrial society was destroyed; that's why he decided not to "live peacefully" in a cabin in the woods. He would get fucked sooner or later.

[Anonymous No.21405998]

anti-technology fags(primitivists) want everyone to live by the lifestyle that they don't even adhere to.

no one is forcing you to use technology, you weak bitch

[Anonymous No.21406003]

>>21405996

>During the time that I lived on a farmstead I was happier than I've ever been and I didn't use tech. I currently live in an industrial shithole.

then go back to living on a farmstead

nothing is preventing you from doing that. deep down you know that the farmstead lifestyle was horrrible which is why you don't go back to it

[Anonymous No.21406004]

>>21405996
What

[Anonymous No.21406006]

>>21405998
first post:
>No, you aren't supposed to stop using tech. How the fuck else would you revolt? Spears? Word of Mouth propaganda?
>No "just put down your phone broooo" is not a solution when you're still huffing toxic chemicals 24/7 and your aquifers and rivers are so full of xeno-estrogens and heavy metals that drinking it will fuck you up and destroy your children
post right above yours:
>As stated earlier in this thread, you cannot disconnect from industrial society. You have to use technology to make money, pay taxes, or simply travel. You need to interact with technology to get an ID, or show your vaxxie card.
lmao. The fact that you can even pilot your retarded dribbling body to the keyboard and stroke out a few barely coherent sentences is a testament to the unknowable mercy of God.

[Anonymous No.21406012]

>>21406003
Sorry, you have to make money to buy property. After purchasing the property you need to do regular work to make enough money to pay the taxes. Even if you sell items from your farm or homestead exclusively, you will still need to set up accounts with banks and fill out tax forms. You'll still have to physically transport yourself to a post-office that could be tens of miles away; typically, you'd have to have a car. To have a car you'd need to afford hundreds of dollars per month in insurance and other expenses, and you'd need to keep an updated drivers license, so on and so forth. You're just retarded. Keep coping.

[Anonymous No.21406017]

>>21406006

> You have to use technology to make money, pay taxes

not true. my mother doesn't own any technology(because he's retarded) and she is able to make it

>travel

if you are anti-technology you shouldn't be traveling since technology is required to do it


i have never been on a plane. i don't even think i have traveled out of state. i am probably more anti-technology than anti-techology fags

traveling is kind of gay

[Anonymous No.21406019]

>>21405996
>During the time that I lived on a farmstead I was happier than I've ever been
Motherfucker is incapable of planning his time to go hiking so he wants everyone to force his dumb ass. LOL you need help.

Seriously Anon, get help you're suffering and becoming anti-social.

[Anonymous No.21406021]

>>21406003
>Earlier in the thread I mention this topic. A guy near my grandfather's forest lost his home and his farm because the government used eminent domain and evicted him. He could likely have fought it in court and won, but he simply didn't have the money. This could happen to anyone trying to live innawoods. Kaczynski's land was regularly encroached upon by bulldozers, logging companies, and government power infrastructure workers. He knew that living in isolation wouldn't work; even the Amazon rainforest is disappearing before our very eyes. Even if such a government appears that is truly willing to defend the right of people to live primitive lives, there's nothing stopping a shift in the "political winds" from changing the government itself:
Just a few posts above yours. You technophiles have serious mental deficits.

[Anonymous No.21406024]

>>21405129
still better than submit to technocracy in cities.
there are not easy solutions at this point, not even at individual level

[Anonymous No.21406027]

>>21406017

she's retarded*

[Anonymous No.21406034]

>>21406012

>Sorry, you have to make money to buy property.

says who?

go into the woods with a tent, and no one will know you are there

ever heard of christopher thomas knight?

[Anonymous No.21406037]

>>21406034
>no one will know you are there
The animals will know, and they don't like weak bitches that cry about button machines.

[Anonymous No.21406039]

>>21406021

>You technophiles have serious mental deficits

if i have mental deficits it has to do with not socializing, not technology

[Anonymous No.21406051]

>>21406017
Anon, I don't think you understand. Even if you put down all technology and never use it again, you are still under the influence of industrial society. You cannot escape. Your mother lives in a home right? Who pays for it? You? A retirement account? Pension? She isn't living independently and what she has can go at any moment. The issue is not technology, but technological society and the force multiplier that it is for large organizations and governments.
>>21406019
lmao
>>21406034
Yes, until feds arrest him for loitering on public land, or a subdivision is built where he is. Or better yet, a mining company dumps a hundred thousand metric tonnes of chemical waste in the river he drinks from. The point of anti-industrialism is that the power of large organizations over individual freedoms is inescapable when it is aided by technology. You as an individual can't do shit about Monsanto deciding to spray the forest with Super-Cancer-X.
>>21406039
Pretty sad but not my problem

[Anonymous No.21406058]

>>21406051

>Yes, until feds arrest him for loitering on public land, or a subdivision is built where he is

no one is going to know you are there. There are plenty of homeless people who live in the woods

[Anonymous No.21406080]

you go where there aren't people around for miles

only downside to this is you will most likely starve to death like chris mccandless did or you will get bored(with no people to talk to and no hobbies)

[Anonymous No.21406082]

>>21406058
Okay, don't act like living a completely illegal life as a person who is subject to having his life overturned at any moment with no recourse whatsoever is a solution that is in any way rational. Yes, fighting against the biggest leviathan in history is also not such a promising affair, but at least one of them has more hope than "you'll be able to sleep on a pile of dirty syringes with a bunch of smelly schizophrenics until World Realty Ltd. wants a new subdivision."
Regardless the original critiques, like:
>Well Ted yes because he bombed people, but otherwise people who would like to live as hunter gatherers have a hard time doing it in most modern societies, unless you live in Amazon or in few other places. So I say that part of some jungle should be given to people like that and they can go and be monke there.
>If you want to go live in the wilderness, nothing will stop you.
>no one is forcing you to use technology, you weak bitch
have proven indefensible and the goalposts have shifted significantly.'m sure that your critiques are mostly founded on the shitty memes that retarded Kaczynski-posters made. Your critiques work for the retarded kaczynski-memes about "tech bad" "phone bad", but the genuine anti-industrial ideology is more robust than that. I recommend you read, as you may not be retarded, just misinformed by terrible representation. I'd love to be proven wrong, anyway.

[Anonymous No.21406093]

>>21406082

>Okay, don't act like living a completely illegal life as a person who is subject to having his life overturned at any moment with no recourse whatsoever is a solution that is in any way rational.


living homeless in the woods is more realistic than society giving up their technology

[Anonymous No.21406107]

>>21406093
No one said anything about convincing. The industrial system should be outright destroyed. That much is more realistic than it seems, and no, it doesn't involve retarded illegal shit like bombing people. All that's really necessary is a significant black swan event or nuclear war. If the system is destabilized to the point that only necessary upkeep functions are possible (like repairing oil pipelines and power infrastructure) then industrial society really only needs a single kick to throw it off the edge.

[Anonymous No.21406112]

>>21406107

technology is fun. no one is going to give that up

you think people will give up playing video games and browsing the internet?

[Anonymous No.21406118]

>>21406112
Society will never give tech up. They can't give it up because all of our lives depend on it. We all (you and me both) depend on industrial agriculture. NO one is going to give it up. The point is not to convince niggers to stop using tech, it's not even to convince them to destroy tech. It's to convince them to become adversarial towards industrial society.

[Anonymous No.21406750]

>>21406118
Different anon here
Now, I'm not a big fan of "if you can't beat it join them", but I'm also not sure how "not stopping using tech" can make me "adversarial toward industrial society"
I say this as someone who doesn't own a car, got his first smartphone in 2015 (because my sis gave it to me for christmas), my newest vidya console is an xbox (gift from a friend, he didn't use it anymore)...

[Anonymous No.21406765]

>>21406750
Because whether you use tech or not doesn't change industrial society. In fact, you need to be skilled with technology and sciences to have the best bet at doing some really effective "adversarial work." (Kaczynski had quite a bit to say about this. A specific example would be the fact that he wouldn't have been able to get his message out at all if he didn't use any industrial tech) For the time being it is necessary to use tech. Of course, you should not RELY on tech and you should build the skills and psychology to be able to survive without it especially because you should hope to survive after the collapse of industrial society.

[Anonymous No.21406776]

>>21406750
To make it clear, Anti-Industrialism isn't about lifestyle or politics or governance. It is strictly and exclusively about one single thing: The destruction of industrial society no matter what. If using technology increases the probability of you being able to achieve, or assist in achieving this end, then it is necessary.
The "positive" goal of Nature as an ideal is secondary. There are no lifestyle or idealistic descriptions whatsoever except as propaganda. The single only issue and goal is destruction of industrial society, with the motivations being the clearly observable results of industrial society.

[Anonymous No.21406851]

>>21404207
Uncle ted is the one who awoke me from dogmatic prog slumber in the ancients mists of 2013

[Anonymous No.21408087]

>>21404663
aren't positive feedback loops supposed to work against entropy?

[Anonymous No.21408098]

>>21405095
wow, he's just like me

[Anonymous No.21408104]

>>21408098
Kaczynski was such a hot hunk of man. Why did it have to turn out like this bros? In an alternate universe he's surrounded by a harem of femboys...

[Anonymous No.21408119]

>>21404207
Uncle Ted has had a cult following for over a decade

“Television is for niggers”
-Faulkner le basedboi

[Anonymous No.21408655]

>>21404683
The face of infinity doesn't care for any particular number of humans, you obvious mental dwarf

[Anonymous No.21408667]

>>21405213
>>21405831
memento mori you fucking animals
one day this society will collapse from petrochemical pollution and elite overproduction without having ever established a base on any other solar system body. Screencap this and print off a hard copy

[Anonymous No.21409221]

>>21408667
>elite overproduction
What does that even mean, I bet you think elites control the world and everything is conspiracy. World doesn't end just because your limited life is shit. Instead of being a miserable pile of hate, try educating yourself from reliable sources. Not from some nutcase ramblings.

[Anonymous No.21410108]

This book cheered me up because it cuts through the BS solutions to our problems.

[Anonymous No.21410173]

>>21409221
what

[Anonymous No.21410224]

>>21409221
>He hasn't read Peter Turchin

[Anonymous No.21410760]

>>21409221
Take your meds tranny

[Anonymous No.21411895]

>>21403329
The Hiroshima to your Nagasaki.

[Anonymous No.21411916]

>>21409221
You are cattle

[Anonymous No.21411993]

>>21409221
>some nutcase ramblings

congrats, you're a complete idiot.

[Anonymous No.21412026]

>>21405469
What exactly is this group of committed people doing?

[Anonymous No.21412030]

>>21412026
Whatever it wants. It's up for the individual and his associates to decide what is appropriate. I recommend not committing crimes, I certainly wouldn't.

[Anonymous No.21412032]

Eh, pynchon's better

[Anonymous No.21412036]

>>21412030
How does doing whatever you want differentiate them from the majority?

[Anonymous No.21412045]

It's amusing when eleutheromaniacs can only communicate the perils of technology through the lingering threat of a reduction of freedom.

[Anonymous No.21412050]

>>21412036
Differentiation arises from intent.

[Anonymous No.21412056]

>>21412045
who are you referring to?

[Anonymous No.21412058]

>>21412056
"Uncle Ted" cultists, who you'll find many of in this thread.

[Anonymous No.21412059]

>>21412045
There is no lingering threat of it; freedom has already been reduced and it will continue. But 'freedom' is ill-defined here. You have your own definition where, no doubt, technology has no effect or "increases" freedom by allowing people more time to pursue pleasures.
That is not the way an anti-industrialist should see freedom.

[Anonymous No.21412063]

>blackpill
But isn't this one supposed to be where he lays out a plan?

[Anonymous No.21412065]

>>21412059
>'freedom' is ill-defined
By design, yes.

[Anonymous No.21412099]

Feels good being justified as a NEET. Everyone says you're a worthless leech if you don't get a job and contribute to society. But not working is contributing more to the benefit of humanity than anyone who works. Thank you, Ted.

[Anonymous No.21412106]

>>21403329
I've read most of his shit and have concluded that he's deeply, deeply autistic. None of his shit holds up in the slightest. Go outside.

[Anonymous No.21412115]

>>21404619
Humans are 200,000 times better at picking up the scent of rain than sharks are at picking up the scent of blood. We very well may have evolved around and adapted to agriculture.

[Anonymous No.21412124]

>>21412065
To you, freedom is likely defined by the amount of pleasures you can pursue. I assume you think work limits freedom because it reduces your ability to pursue pleasure and "self-actualize." Technology would serve to increase this "freedom" because it should (in theory) reduce the amount of work required to survive and increase the amount of time you can pursue pleasure.
This is not the way that an anti-industrialist or primitivist would define freedom. If a man has to work every day of his life from dawn to dusk he may still have the greatest level of freedom possible.
Just read you retarded p-zombie.

[Anonymous No.21412146]

>>21412124
>To you, freedom is
A meaningless chant to mobilize an army against your betters, yes.

[Anonymous No.21412153]

>>21412146
It would be a miracle if you even read a single book in your entire life.

[Anonymous No.21412185]

>>21412153
Everyone who claims to support freedom, when pushed on the subject, only means "... for me, not for thee," in they're not woefully naïve. I'm not woefully naïve, so I make no claim to support freedom.

[Anonymous No.21412193]

>>21412185
>It's amusing when eleutheromaniacs can only communicate the perils of technology through the lingering threat of a reduction of freedom.
Then shut the fuck up retard. Kaczynski lists three chapters worth of problems with industrialism and freedom only takes the plurality share of it. You're hilariously edgy and pretentious about things you don't understand so unless you're teenager you have some serious thinking to do.

[Anonymous No.21412207]

>>21412185
lmao I thought you were making a genuine critique of kaczynski's concept of freedom. Just that? the motive of freedom as an ideal? kek

[Anonymous No.21412208]

>>21412146
The lament of the bootlicker

[Anonymous No.21412232]

>>21412193
>the lingering threat of a reduction of freedom
Yes, just like the lingering threat of nuclear war, or that of climate change, or peak oil, or however many other lingering threats we live under on a daily basis.
>teenager
I fail to see the adolescence of understanding how man has evolved since the first hunter-gatherer tribe was founded, if not sooner.
>>21412207
>freedom as an ideal
Freedom is only an ideal for the woefully naïve and a cudgel for everyone else.
>>21412208
>look! I said the thing!
Good for you.

[Anonymous No.21412245]

>>21412232
You're immensely ignorant and philosophically broken. Slip down a flight of stairs. Nobody needs you passing this infection around

[Anonymous No.21412250]

>>21412232
lmao

[Anonymous No.21412270]

>>21412245
>you're broken
>die
>your ideas are worthless
I'm still waiting for a substantive rebuttal.
>>21412250
See above.

[Anonymous No.21412280]

>>21412099
So what does Kaczynski think of NEETs?

[Anonymous No.21412285]

>>21412058
>can only communicate the perils of technology through the lingering threat of a reduction of freedom.

there are many other perils aside from loss of human freedom that come with technological progress. Ted Kaczynski also focuses a lot on these. So I don't understand where you're coming from.

[Anonymous No.21412288]

>>21412270
>substantive
You don't value freedom. You yourself have no substance. Dismissed.

[Anonymous No.21412289]

>>21412280
They don't contribute much to anti-industrialism but at least they aren't acting in support of it. Unfortunately they depend on industrial society as that is what keeps them alive and allows them to live work-free, and they would almost certainly perish of industrialism were to fall apart.

[Anonymous No.21412302]

>>21412288
Better yet he's not making a substantive criticism himself. It's just an anime edge tier comment.

[Anonymous No.21412311]

>>21412285
It's certainly the aspect the cultists focus on the most.
>>21412288
>>21412302
>You yourself have no substance
>he's not making a substantive criticism himself
Then it should be trivially easy to explain why I'm wrong, yet you never do.

[Anonymous No.21412312]

>>21412289
99% of people would perish. Industrial society is why population skyrocketed in the first place.

[Anonymous No.21412319]

>>21412311
>Go on explain your core values so I can just deny they exist again
You dumb. Dumb as rocks.

[Anonymous No.21412321]

>>21412312
>the ideals of the figure I worship would lead to an unfathomable genocide if met in the real world
It's called eleutheromania.

[Anonymous No.21412325]

>>21412319
I don't deny it exists; I just deny its designation as a "core value."

[Anonymous No.21412327]

>>21412311
Because you are a retard that thinks he's a super-rational being above petty idealism and 'spooks'. Your criticism:
>Everyone who claims to support freedom, when pushed on the subject, only means "... for me, not for thee," ... Freedom is only an ideal for the woefully naïve and a cudgel for everyone else. ... A meaningless chant to mobilize an army against your betters
Is an argument from your own morality(or in your perspective, lack thereof). There's nothing to say besides "fuck off nigger." It's qualitatively the same as any moral argument, you just make disingenuous quips until you finally say "heh, that's all subjective. Give me one reason I should care."
Yeah, so fuck off and wait till your balls drop before posting again.

[Anonymous No.21412336]

>>21412311
I just flipped open one of TK's books, Technological Slavery...pages 198-99 of the 2022 edition. I'd love to get your response to it:

>Of all our technologically induced problems, the problem of nuclear weapons should be the easiest to solve through reform: The danger presented by these weapons is in no way subtle—it is obvious to anyone with a normal IQ. While such things as genetic engineering and superintelligent computers promise benefits that may seem to offset their menace, nuclear weapons offer no benefits whatever—only death and destruction. With the exception only of a tiny minority of dictators, military men, and politicians who see nuclear weapons as enhancing their own power, virtually every thinking person agrees that the world would be better off without nuclear weapons. Yet nuclear weapons have been around since 1945, and almost no progress has been made toward eliminating them. On the contrary, they proliferate: The U.S., Russia, Britain, France; then China, Israel, India, Pakistan; now North Korea, and in a few years probably Iran…
If reform can’t solve the problem of nuclear weapons, then how can it solve the far more subtle and difficult problems among those that modern technology has created?


That's just ONE random point I pulled. The book is filled with tons of sharp points against tech. I doubt you have the ability to rationally refute them.

[Anonymous No.21412339]

>>21412312
That much is obvious. NEETs though usually have no life skills and no chance at all of making it past the empty pantry period.
Someone that goes outside from time to time might have a 0.1% chance of survival(statistically speaking).

[Anonymous No.21412394]

>>21412327
>thinks he's a super-rational being above petty idealism
No one is above petty idealism, I just quash my own whenever I can.
>Is an argument from your own morality(or in your perspective, lack thereof)
Freedom is the lack thereof.
>you just make disingenuous quips until you finally say "heh, that's all subjective
Try me, until the end of this thread or one of us passes out from exhaustion or faces a ban. I'll bet you---in a gentleman's fashion---that I'll never reach that point.
>wait till your balls drop before posting
By God, I've been ready for fourteen years, then.
>>21412336
Seeing the title of the book, he doubtlessly sees nuclear weapons as a Sword of Damocles the Powers The Be™ dangle over the heads of the masses, and thus, a threat to freedom. Not dissimilar from Eric Blair's "You and the Atom Bomb," come to think of it.
It is, of course, just a natural evolution in leadership by the State that they should develop weapons or other technology that no mere civilian has a prayer in deposing.

[Anonymous No.21412398]

>>21412394
He's not talking about a threat to freedom you idiot, he's talking about the obvious dangers of nuclear weapons: the threat to all life on earth!

[Anonymous No.21412405]

>>21412398
Yes, that's the Sword of Damocles I alluded to. The State and its enemies hold the apocalypse over our heads, giving them the ultimate authority over our lives.
See it however you wish, I simply see it for what it is: a fact of life.

[Anonymous No.21412420]

>>21412405
It's a fact of INDUSTRIAL life. Simply calling it a "fact of life" is pessimistic apathy. If you want to wallow in pessimism and apathy good luck with that. If you wan't to do something about it to save humanity and the biosphere then you're going to have to adopt a different approach.

[Anonymous No.21412426]

>>21412420
>inb4 but muh asteroids

[Anonymous No.21412441]

>>21412405
And you're still not getting it. There are other dangers to nuclear proliferation aside from strengthening states at the expense of individual freedom (your supposed sword of Damocles). There's the danger of accidental or misguided nuclear exchange or accident. The cuban missile crisis had nothing to do with the sword of Damocles of holding apocalypse over citizens heads. It had to do with inadvertently slipping into a nuclear war as a result of mistaken policy and negotiation breakdown.

[Anonymous No.21412450]

>>21412405
There are a fuck huge number of problems. We still don't know if certain degenerated forms of microplastics can ever break down under nornal earth conditions; they may last forever, and the xeno-estrogenic effect that they have will affect organisms for tens of thousands of years. Technology has increased the power of largw organizations to the point that a single mistake could mean instant annihilation or chemical poisoning that could last (effectively) forever.

[Anonymous No.21412463]

>>21412441
>>21412450
And if any of that were to happen, (You) would still be powerless to stop it. Call it pessimism, a la >>21412420, I still call it a fact of life.

[Anonymous No.21412468]

>>21412463
Holy shit you really are retarded.

[Anonymous No.21412471]

>>21412468
Oof! Ouch! The magic bullet! You got me! I'm dissolving! Oh, such a world, such a world...

[Anonymous No.21412474]

>>21412463
Fine. But in my opinion you're no better than a conformist peasant in pre-reformation Germany who considers the authority of the Pope a "fact of life", or a pre-revolutionary Frenchman who considered rule by kings a "fact of life."

in other words, an apathetic, conformist, narrow-minded normie. I'm glad Kaczynski's ideas are repellent to you. you're not the kind of person to ever be a revolutionary, and it's a good thing you stay in your bubble and don't interfere with revolutionaries.

My only regret is that I won't be there to see your shocked and shameful face when the system inevitably breaks down (whether naturally or through the actions of revolutionaries to force its collapse).

[Anonymous No.21412479]

>>21412463
>68. It may be objected that primitive man is physically less secure than modern man, as is shown by his shorter life expectancy; hence modern man suffers from less, not more than the amount of insecurity that is normal for human beings. But psychological security does not closely correspond with physical security. What makes us FEEL secure is not so much objective security as a sense of confidence in our ability to take care of ourselves. Primitive man, threatened by a fierce animal or by hunger, can fight in self-defense or travel in search of food. He has no certainty of success in these efforts, but he is by no means helpless against the things that threaten him. The modern individual on the other hand is threatened by many things against which he is helpless: nuclear accidents, carcinogens in food, environmental pollution, war, increasing taxes, invasion of his privacy by large organizations, nationwide social or economic phenomena that may disrupt his way of life.
>69. It is true that primitive man is powerless against some of the things that threaten him; disease for example. But he can accept the risk of disease stoically. It is part of the nature of things, it is no one’s fault, unless it is the fault of some imaginary, impersonal demon. But threats to the modern individual tend to be MAN-MADE. They are not the results of chance but are IMPOSED on him by other persons whose decisions he, as an individual, is unable to influence. Consequently he feels frustrated, humiliated and angry.
>70. Thus primitive man for the most part has his security in his own hands (either as an individual or as a member of a SMALL group) whereas the security of modern man is in the hands of persons or organizations that are too remote or too large for him to be able personally to influence them. So modern man’s drive for security tends to fall into groups 1 and 3; in some areas (food, shelter etc.) his security is assured at the cost of only trivial effort, whereas in other areas he CANNOT attain security. (The foregoing greatly simplifies the real situation, but it does indicate in a rough, general way how the condition of modern man differs from that of primitive man.)
Bruh
Why are you even posting
Read the chapter "DISRUPTION OF THE POWER PROCESS IN MODERN SOCIETY"
I feel bad for you dude, honestly. After today remember not to beat yourself up too badly for your extreme cringe. Just read the source material before acting like you know what you're talking about. You could have just said "I just don't like the freedom he speaks of" and left it at that. Instead you had to say this honestly embarrasing crap.

[Anonymous No.21412480]

>>21412474
>the Revolutionaries™
Oh my, oh my God, the entertainment's here...

[Anonymous No.21412483]

>>21412479
kek. this.

[Anonymous No.21412485]

>>21412479
this.

[Anonymous No.21412484]

>>21412463
>>21412471
He examines the issue of man-made threats (like nuclear bombs) and their relationship to freedom and autonomy. Where the individual has no control over a bomb falling within 5 miles of you and blowing you off the face of the earth, a group of primitives attempting to kill you(even if you are hopelessly outmatched) still offers an object for the projection of onexs autonomy.

[Anonymous No.21412487]

>>21412480
I unironically pity you now

[Anonymous No.21412493]

>>21412479
>he can accept the risk of disease stoically
As I stoically accept the risks of Authority. Excellent passage.
>>21412487
The feeling is mutual, Mr. Robespierre.

[Anonymous No.21412494]

>>21412493
>As I stoically accept the risks of Authority. Excellent passage.
lmfao
literal goldmine

[Anonymous No.21412499]

>>21412494
>literal goldmine
I'm sorry to be the one to tell you, but your shiny rocks won't do you a speck of good in real societal collapse.

[Anonymous No.21412509]

Can someone tell me how Ted managed to create an itemized list of refutations to every critique before ever going through a peer review process? Every time someone tries to BTFO Ted there is a 1:1 match with a paragraph from his manifesto.

[Anonymous No.21412525]

>>21412509
And yet, Lewis' law is a logical fallacy...
I'm not saying it isn't, by the way.

[Anonymous No.21412529]

>>21403329
Look up the names of his victims and who they were. You will find that he killed or maimed absolutely nobody influential who could be considered “part of the problem” and only served to injure regular people like you and me. He killed a computer repair shop clerk, and a teachers assistant. He maimed secretaries and college professors for the sin of researching microwave radiation.

[Anonymous No.21412552]

>>21412529
>96 ... 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 if 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.
He stated that the attacks were not intended to strike at the industrial system, but for publicity. He also stated that he knew it would turn most people away, but that it didn't matter because those people wouldn't have given a shit anyway.

[Anonymous No.21412554]

>>21412529
Tech workers and academics aren't "part of the problem" of technological society?
As a biologist I can directly tell you that academia - the self-important faux-empirical pit of arrogant petty careerists that it is - is the moral center & dark reflection of modern society

[Anonymous No.21412556]

>>21412554
This. He also didn't come to the delusion that these strikes would destroy industrial society, only that it might have a chance to slow it down while also achieving his primary goal >>21412552

[Anonymous No.21412588]

>>21412552
>>21412556
>no, see, he HAD to maim the innocent because no one would read his work otherwise!
Appreciate the tacit admission that your cult figure's writings are worthless.

[Anonymous No.21412592]

>>21412529
They were all involved in promoting the technological system in some way. They were intended to be diverse so that his anti-tech message couldn't;t be coopted by people who would blame "corporations" or "government" etc. with the target of the revolution, but rather technology itself.

Also, if he were to have targeted bigger people, such as CEOs or politicians etc., there would be an even greater chance of injuring truly innocent people, like security guards and personal secretaries etc.

His only mistake was targeting that airliner. He admitted he made a mistake there.

Now I'm speculating: I think he assumed that the passengers would all be higher level businessmen since, at the time, and given the particular route and time of that flight, it would be. But he learned latter that he was wrong about those assumptions.

[Anonymous No.21412598]

>>21412588
No, he is just playing a more long-term game with them.

[Anonymous No.21412603]

>>21412552
So he's just a narcissist who wanted attention. He didn't have confidence that his work would be interesting enough on it's own so he needed the gimmick of being a mass murdering terrorist. Meh.

[Anonymous No.21412607]

>>21412598
>>21412603

[Anonymous No.21412610]

>>21412588
>>21412603
Or maybe he knew that the vast majority of books got 500 sales each and figured out how to bypass the 15 minutes of fame. It's not easy to get an obscure philosophical work any sort of readership, so he relied on controversy. Now, even in spite of his reputation, his work has been read hundreds of thousands of times.
He's fighting against what he considers the single greatest threat to humanity ever; he's going to use whatever means necessary to get the word out.

[Anonymous No.21412617]

>>21412603
No, he didn't;t have the confidence that, as one person, he could overcome the overwhelming propaganda and education of contemporary society which would be opposed to revolution to collapse industrial society. So he used the spectacle of terrorism to outflank the system and leverage its own mass-entertainment system against itself. pretty brilliant really, and extremely effective. Personally I don't think he would have reached even 0.1% of the audience he has for his ideas if he just published it traditionally.

[Anonymous No.21412621]

>>21412610
>by any means necessary
Ah, that old chestnut...

[Anonymous No.21412627]

>>21412617
>I don't think he would have reached even 0.1% of the audience he has for his ideas if he just published it traditionally
Again, love the tacit admission.

[Anonymous No.21412628]

>>21412610
>>21412617
basically these

[Anonymous No.21412630]

>>21412610
Ah, so he's in the same company as people like The Supreme Gentleman. I see.

[Anonymous No.21412639]

>>21412627
Alright retard. Write a refutation of Kaczynski and see if you get more than two sales on amazon. Better yet, write anything at all and see if it gets more than 500. Success =/= good.

[Anonymous No.21412640]

>>21412627
I don't see your point. Are you assuming that the quality or importance of a work is directly related to and self-generating of its popularity? If so you're incredibly ignorant and foolish. An understanding of markets 101 would dispel you of this notion.

[Anonymous No.21412643]

>>21403329
Theodore John Kacynski,

I understand the world has changed drastically since you were a young man, and I can appreciate your concerns about the potential for technology to be used for manipulation and control. However, I would like to point out that technology can also be used to empower individuals and create a more equitable society.

t. chat ai

[Anonymous No.21412645]

>>21412639
this.

[Anonymous No.21412647]

>>21412617
>>21412630
This is literally the tactic of incel, self deluded loners who want their name immortalized so they write a manifesto and go on a killing spree or shoot up a school. It's the last resort of an utter failure of a man.

[Anonymous No.21412656]

>>21412647
lmao

[Anonymous No.21412658]

>>21412647
I doubt you'd have this attitude toward Kaczynski if you hadn't been continually bombarded with the media's portrayal of him as a deranged sicko. So I do believe you've been heavily brainwashed. But nevertheless, thanks a lot for helping to keep this thread alive. Threads and things like this are undoubtedly helping to sell his books, and that's nice to know.

[Anonymous No.21412664]

>>21412658
>thanks a lot for helping to keep this thread alive. Threads and things like this are undoubtedly helping to sell his books, and that's nice to know.
The absolute state of Kacynski fans

[Anonymous No.21412667]

>>21412664
>enters thread
>btfo by 6 paragraphs from ted
>refuses to elaborate
What's his endgame lads?

[Anonymous No.21412673]

>>21412664
I'll let you have the last word because--and I can't fathom why--I suspect you're the kind of person who must have the last word. I'm going to bed now, but before I do, please, let me have it:

[Anonymous No.21412680]

>this same asshole appears in every Kaczynski thread without fail, always posting the same milquetoast boneless non-rebuttals in defense of the status quo without literally any introspection at all
1. classical autistic obsessive behavior + clueless ignorance of tone + getting upset and crying about even hypothetical changes
2. when this system fails it will either be a result of systematic processes Kaczynski foresaw but his disciples are not responsible for, or a result of poorfags revolting against the system with no knowledge of Ted or any of the posters here
What an absolute waste of time overall

[Anonymous No.21412687]

>>21412673
peepee benis

[Anonymous No.21412688]

>>21412667
>>21412673
The dude killed people to attract attention to his irrelevant little hobby project which has had basically zero impact on the direction of society. Essentially killing people for his own vanity project and you braindead numbskulls defend it like he's a hero for killing innocent people. He should have just printed it normally because, hey, there's a sucker born every day, and /lit/, more specifically, this thread, is amble evidence of that.

[Anonymous No.21412693]

>>21412680
If the system collapses, it will be for the reasons Marx outlined, not Ted.

[Anonymous No.21412696]

>>21412639
>hey, you absolute nobody! write something dry and esoteric and watch it fail to reach double-digit sales on amazon
>lmao, thought so
If eleutheromaniacs didn't play childish games, they wouldn't be eleutheromaniacs.
>>21412640
Rousseau, Paine, and Marx never killed a damn person. You still know who each of those people are.

[Anonymous No.21412697]

>>21412693
Spoken like a true virgin.

[Anonymous No.21412707]

>>21412696
Roussaeu and Paine were were a rich bourgeois with institutional powrr and a literal revolutionary respectively. In the case of Paine the only reason you don't consider him an incel terrorist is because he was on the winning side.
Besides, it's a fallacy to say that success should happen every time. There are thousands of works you've never heard of (but could have, if their authors really wanted)

[Anonymous No.21412717]

>>21412693
>economy no longer has to do with profits and commodities and proletariats, now it operates off of direct injections of fiat currency by central banks into asset management corporate giants which redistribute the money to subsidiaries
>technology and capital have a mutually-reinforcing relationship mediated by direct material factors
>the contradictions and flaws of technological society manifest regardless of the particular economic organization of an industrialized nation
>Marxism lost the plot within decades of Marx's death due to the development of a pseudoreligious movement agglomerated around his ideas
really you're wrong on multiple levels

[Anonymous No.21412720]

>>21412707
>it's a fallacy to say that success should happen every time
Of course, but criminologists have compared the manifesto to those three authors, James Q. Wilson in particular saying that if it is the work of a madman, Rousseau, Paine and Marx's work are "scarcely more sane."
I agree, by the way, though not to compliment Ted.

[Anonymous No.21412722]

>>21412696
Rousseau / Paine / Marx were not ideological outsiders in consumerist societies with developed surveillance apparatuses. Marx had the worst of it, and even he had financial backing from Engels without which he would have surely remained in obscurity
Without elite support, you end up like Stirner at best

[Anonymous No.21412725]

>>21412720
Well that's the most authentic thing you've said and I agree with you.

[Anonymous No.21412731]

>>21412722
There are legitimate ways of getting your ideas out there, is my point. Ones that don't involve the willful injury and death of random nobodies.
>BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY
Right, I forgot...

[Anonymous No.21412743]

>>21404623
Imbecilles. This is like reading Marx all over.

[Anonymous No.21412748]

>>21412731
Was Kaczynski a good guy? Who cares. He killed people.
You can argue that, although revolutionaries typically kill. (kinda expected). Whether Kaczynski was a murderer or not doesn't change the fact that he was right. If you disagree because he was a murderer then fine, that's okay. But the arguments that have appeared in this thread amount to "I don't like it because it goes against my values" or critiques that Kaczynski predicted and proactively BTFO'd.
You're not dumb or wrong if you don't like murderers. I agree, I don't like murderers and I don't support Kaczynski murdering people; it doesn't change the fact that, again, his critiques were on point.

[Anonymous No.21412750]

>>21412748
goddamn autocorrect

[Anonymous No.21412760]

>>21412731
You keep harping on this "by any means necessary" element (which is misattributed and ill-fitting, because leftists and primitivists do not see the same issues) as if you fundamentally fail to understand what it means.
The point isn't random acts of extremism, the point is to successfully overcome an overpowering disadvantage, by means that are practical and warranted compared to the scale of the danger.
Ted's position is that the whole of modern society is an inhumane abomination. One feature of this entity is that it is capable of deceiving people by sheer lies of omission, by refusing to publicize its enemies stances and by presenting endless empty drama to distract people from thought and action of substance. The halls of legitimate discourse are completely controlled by malicious selfish actors, and you could present the most solid argument possible, and it would not make any impact. It should take very little empathy to understand why creating a media sensation through murder (which was a huge cultural touchstone at the time, by the way) would be a maximally effective publicity campaign, considering you're already throwing optics out the window by declaring war on the entire social structure.
I mean, you're asking for the most illegitimate possible ideas to be presented in a legitimate way, which is simply an arbitrary and pointless expectation.
I assume I'll get another dismissive reply but what the hell, I tried.

[Anonymous No.21412775]

>>21412760
>you're asking for the most illegitimate possible ideas to be presented in a legitimate way
>the most illegitimate possible ideas
Uncle Ted cultists have an odd habit of saying the quiet parts out loud...

[Anonymous No.21412778]

>>21412775
>reading comprehension: 0

[Anonymous No.21412780]

>>21412778
Your words, buttfucker.

[Anonymous No.21412782]

>>21403386
even more delusional pipedream than communists. what an utter retard. glad hes rotting in prison. i agree with him that we are in hell but there is not escape

[Anonymous No.21412794]

>>21404207
nah. hes has been consistently posted about and gaining a lot of traction since the trump era.

[Anonymous No.21412798]

>When your own brother recognizes your unique brand of incoherent ramblings and outs you to the FBI
kek, at least old Teddy boy's story is good for a laugh

[Anonymous No.21412799]

>>21412798
stupid kekposter

[Anonymous No.21412807]

>>21412799
kek

[Anonymous No.21412810]

>>21412775
>my concept of legitimacy is literally entirely defined by the status quo
This confirms you fundamentally do not understand principle and are simply driven by arbitrary autistic fixation
I guess mommy really hammered home how you should be a good boy at all times, am I right?

[Anonymous No.21412814]

>>21412810
Even worse, he thinks you meant to say Ted was "illegitimate" in the sense that you were saying he was wrong, rather than at odds with society's values. He didn't even understand the post.

[Anonymous No.21412820]

>>21412810
>>21412814
Say what you mean and mean what you say.

[Anonymous No.21413882]

>>21403329
being a facist > being a commie > being and anarch > being an amish

[Anonymous No.21413906]

>>21404697
It is 100% impossible to globally eliminate industrial society and destroy it for 500 years without committing crime

[Anonymous No.21414401]

>>21413882
>Being a statist cuck is better than these other things I don’t understand
Fall on your knife

[Anonymous No.21414409]

>>21413882
Fascism and anti-industrialism aren't even mutually exclusive. You are either retarded or never read Kaczynski.

[Anonymous No.21415032]

>>21414409
I think they are. You need modern tech if you want a fascist state.

[Anonymous No.21415163]

>>21412810
>mommy really hammered home how you should be a good boy at all times
As all good parents should. If only I had good parents...

[Anonymous No.21415672]

>he's still bumping his thread about luddite ramblings
I'm going to immerse myself in some virtual world, go sleep in my very fine artificial fiber bedsheets, when I wake up I'll have a cup of coffee that was sourced from halfway across the world using the most massive naval engines the world has seen. I love being human, I love governments that take care of their people and dream of a world united under one flag. Humanity is beautiful, its achievements are incredible.

You're reduced to a book-thumping retard, bumping a thread in hopes of inspiring similarly handicapped individuals. Your only contribution to the rest of society is providing me and many others with entertaining ramblings on an imageboard.

[Anonymous No.21416056]

>>21406017
>Reddit spacing

[Anonymous No.21416065]

>>21409221
Kill yourself, my man

[Anonymous No.21416109]

>>21412509
Because he was a literal genius, the type of genius that only comes along once per generation.

[Anonymous No.21416110]

>>21415672
>I'm going to immerse myself in some virtual world, go sleep in my very fine artificial fiber bedsheets, when I wake up I'll have a cup of coffee that was sourced from halfway across the world using the most massive naval engines the world has seen. I love being human, I love governments that take care of their people and dream of a world united under one flag. Humanity is b- ACK!
>BOOM
lmao

[Anonymous No.21416254]

>>21403386
but i like my hecking videogames

[Anonymous No.21416352]

>>21416254
A lot of people play video games because they're one of the only accessible enjoyments they have. They think video games are super great and life is shit, they play games like minecraft or stranded deep and think about how great it would be to do whatever they want or go on an adventure without having to worry about getting shanked by hobos, or laughed at by strangers, or just not having the money to eat.
This is the human call for nature; the natural instinct. They think that wild nature is horrible, unforgiving, and terrifying, but they don't realize that they are earth's true apex predator. Even a weak incel basement dweller could learn to survive in the wilderness if he put his mind to it.
Unfortunately, it is illegal to survive in the wild without paying monthly for hunting permits(and only in the correct season) and you can't even catch more than 8 fish per month in some counties. You certainly aren't legally able to build a dwelling place. These stressors make it so that very few besides the insane really run off into the woods and listen to that natural drive for true autonomy. This is compounded by the fact that from birth every man has his desire for autonomy crushed at every turn. School turns them into drones that cannot think for themselves(and punishes them for falling out of line, and zero tolerance policies teach them to rely on other's for judgement), and law causes them to feel safe only in the clutches of industrial society. The forest is wild and untamed, outside the watchful eye of the government. There is no familiar structure, cetainty, or safety. All of this together, along with the comforts of modern society, make man unwilling to part with the single most destructive thing in his life. He believes that the world is total shit unless he has his cola, vidya games, funko-pops, anime, and air-conditioning. He doesn't realize that what makes the world shit- what causes him to need things that his ancestors would have laughed at- is the unnatural condition of industrial society.

[Anonymous No.21416366]

>>21416352
Video games provide simulated autonomy. The simulation is empty, meaningless, and unsatisfactory, but better than the alternative of soul crushing obedience to the industrial system.

[Anonymous No.21417306]

>>21416254
You'd love the adventure of the wild even more. once you're hunting, fishing, foraging, trapping, trekking, navigating, building shelters, fires, root-cellars, making your own clothes, cooking fresh meals, etc. etc. etc. in wide open spaces with fresh air and beautiful landscapes you would look back and think your video game days were a hellish poison.

[Anonymous No.21418302]

>>21403329
i'll keep my comfy air conditioning, vidya and tendies thanks

[Anonymous No.21419202]

didn't sam hyde say people who fantasize about being heros in a doomsday scenario and look forward to it are usually powerless irl that broke me

[Anonymous No.21419224]

>>21412509
R E T R O A C T I V E L Y

[Anonymous No.21419231]

>>21419202
How about you're not in a doomsday scenario
>2. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy.

[Anonymous No.21420387]

>>21417306
>"Bro, just dig in the dirt all day for barely enough scraps to eat. Bro, Bro, just be so hungry over the winter that you'd literally eat the bugs, it's an adventure bro!"
Nah, I'll take my indoor plumbing, my electric heating, my vidya games, and my tendies over some romanticized shithole rural living. You expect to be in the lap of some abundant paradise, tough luck buddy, reality is often disappointing.

[Anonymous No.21420394]

>>21419231

[Anonymous No.21420461]

>>21420394
Then stop making false blanket generalizations.

[Anonymous No.21420886]

>he's still bumping his schizo thread
I'm here for you Anon-kun, you can tell me where the electricity hurt you.