The only book you will ever require.

[Anonymous No.21549903]

[Anonymous No.21549912]

>>21549903
What about How to poop everyday by Steve Herman

[Anonymous No.21549917]

>>21549912
And then you wonder why people abuse vpns. God you moderators are annoying.

[Anonymous No.21550158]

>>21549903
it's surprisingly mid desU
His diagnosis of leftists is p good at least

[Anonymous No.21550178]

imagine reading this book because retards pretending to be eco-fed memed it for you

[Anonymous No.21550200]

>>21549903
>says he wants freedom
>says he does not want permissiveness
>ancaps and libertarian fuckwits are okay with this

Please explain how to overcome this double-standard. His definition of freedom is to engage and deciede which actions to take yourself and take part in the power process.

At what point does permissiveness begin and freedom end and why does it begin and end there?

[Anonymous No.21550290]

>>21549903
you're forgetting Anti Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus

[Anonymous No.21550713]

>>21549903
>blocks your path

[Anonymous No.21551016]

>>21549903
It's not technology itself but for the fact that it's jewish that it poses a problem.

[Anonymous No.21551225]

I find it extremely depressing that Ted has turned into a meme author.

[Anonymous No.21551256]

>>21551225
He is a meme author. He is astrology for men. Not very strong men. Men who would, in the absence of a state sponsored law, be farming the fields of another man.

[Anonymous No.21551315]

>>21551225
Because his ideas are so off the mark? Because he doesn't deserve that kind of fate? Because it's ironic? Don't leave us hanging

[Anonymous No.21551333]

>>21551256
>He is a meme author
his manifesto is better written than 99% of shit released today, look at what people read today, always some self help bullshit from some retarded monkey because weak faggots can't be bothered to clean their penis.

[Anonymous No.21551334]

>>21551256
>astrology for men
This phrase has become meaningless

[Anonymous No.21551355]

>>21551333
I'll not argue the 99%, but because it is slightly better does not make it valuable, just less shit. He accurately describes a problem in society but is wrong in the cause and wrong in the solution. Picrel is the solution.

>>21551334
So has all of Ted's writings.

[Anonymous No.21552500]

It's a great book and has alot of good points, but it got memed into no one taking it seriously

[Anonymous No.21552744]

>>21550200
That would be a kind of philosophical problem that isn't easy to answer. To make things clear, his view of freedom is one in which an individual is unrestricted by the will of others, but it is not the Marxian view of freedom where the greater your opportunities, the more "freedom" you have. The latter is actually the prevailing notion of freedom in the western world, though I digress.
Ted has a problem with permissiveness because it is transient, unreliable, and hollow. For example, while you are theoretically "free" to speak your mind, it is merely because you have been given "permission" by 4chan and, by extension, the United States Government. I don't think you or I really believe that we have freedom of speech, but merely permission to speak. You raise a good point again, and that is "where does permissiveness begin and freedom end?"

Let's begin with something extreme: imagine there is only one single man left on earth. In Kaczynski's view, this man has ultimate freedom. He must receive permission from nothing at all to do anything, even if he must slave tirelessly every day to meet his physical needs. I don't think Kaczynski believes that it is possible to cultivate true freedom in the context of an actual society. The problem being that rules, duty, and obligation are absolutely and incontrovertibly necessary in any social interaction, whether unstated and unconscious or dictated and conscious. However, Kaczynski does seem to believe that it is possible to limit the power of individuals to enforce their will, primarily that of large organizations over the individual and small groups (such as tribes or families).

The fact is that freedom and permission are, as long as there is a social system in place, naturally entwined-- at odds some places, and together in others. For Kaczynski, a proper compromise could be found in the fact that, even if one does not have permission by their authority to commit some act, so long as that authority is unable to monitor and enforce its will, then the individual has freedom to commit the act. In the past, as Kaczynski states in paragraph 94-95, and as can readily be known from a simple perusal of history, while governments were highly restrictive and authoritarian, small communities and individuals paradoxically possessed a far greater level of freedom than the average person does today. This is because of the difficulty in enforcing the will of high-status or large organization without the aid of industrial technology.

This increase in capability given by industrial technology to large organizations forms the pillar of Kaczynski's belief that freedom cannot be reconciled with -industrial- technology. However, there is no real way to prove that freedom is good in and of itself, and so it is left to the reader to discern for himself what he believes will create a more just future.

[Anonymous No.21552756]

>>21550200
>>21552744
I think there is also an interesting thought in this problem, although I have not explored it:
Fascists, Bourgeois Leftists, Capitalists, and Libertarian Paternalists, and Marxists have highly similar views of freedom in opposition to Kaczynski, with Marxists and Fascists having slightly nuanced differences in other respects (I.E, alternative axes to levels of freedom)

[Anonymous No.21553067]

>>21549903
Hasn't this been refuted?

[Anonymous No.21553081]

>>21553067
Not yet. All refutations so far (academically or ones that don't merely misunderstand the work) center their criticism on industrial society being indestructible(unfalsifiable), good(moral argument), or that it doesn't matter because freedom and dignity are subjective values. His work has not ever been refuted as far as its observations, conclusions, and theories go.

[Anonymous No.21553156]

>>21553067
ISaiF can't be refuted because he only included obvious observations, logical inferences, and where he made conjectures and assumptions, he was careful not to base his thesis on them. For example, his comments on "leftism" which he stated doesn't only apply to leftists is clearly stated to be merely helpful information on the dangers of leftist thinking for the revolution.
Arguments against him boil down to appeals to morality or subjectivity. EVERY major academic or philosopher has essentially said "OK he's right but so what. I love tech." The arguments you can usually read are
>1. If the industrial system were to fail billions would die (moral argument that doesn't refute his point)
>2. Having no freedom is not so bad (moral argument)
>3. Freedom is an illusion (appeal to subjectivity)
>4. Industrial society would come back again one day (brain dead argument on the level of "if we clean this floor more dirt will come back")
>5. Industrial society is indestructible (not a refutation of his thesis, just a refutation of the moral conclusion of his thesis, that is, if it is indestructible)

For anyone that is of the "freedom ain't it baby" type, just imagine a future where all humans have their faces removed at birth and replaced with a brand logo. Their brains are dissected and given augmentations that give them extreme bliss if and only if they perform their wagie task, their genitals are removed, and their body is augmented for perfect completion of their wagework, etc. Reproduction would be left to the elite upper class that lives in eternal bliss by being served at all ends by test-tube slaves, and the slaves themselves are conditioned socially, genetically, and pharmaceutically to unconditionally love their masters and serve them with extreme euphoria.
This is absolute hell for Kaczynski, but if we throw out the concept of freedom as an end in and of itself then this becomes a utopian outcome.

[Anonymous No.21553165]

>>21553081
He was refuted by Marx

[Anonymous No.21553167]

>>21553165
He actually read Marx and if you read Marx you wouldn't have said something so retarded.

[Anonymous No.21553171]

>>21549903
Not true, you need this to be able to learn how to survive.

[Anonymous No.21553215]

>>21549903
> Grand visionary thesis critiquing the world and how it must change
> Launches his war
> His victims are almost entirely receptionists and the middle aged women who work the mailroom at universities
kek

[Anonymous No.21553231]

>>21553215
He didn’t launch any war, he did those things to get his manifesto published in the papers. And it worked.

[Anonymous No.21553235]

>>21553215
That wasn't the war. That was just his publishing deal.

[Anonymous No.21553264]

>>21553167
You haven't read Marx because you wouldn't be shilling an idiot like Kaczynski.

[Anonymous No.21553269]

>>21553264
Explain how Marx refutes Kaczynski. The Marxian view of freedom as a factor of social and economic opportunity was something Kaczynski explicitly detested.
But yes, please do explain how you outsmarted a literal genius mathematician.

[Anonymous No.21553295]

just read ellul and rousseau

[Anonymous No.21553305]

>>21549903
He wrote two more books so obviously it's not the only one. Anti-Tech Revolution is much better.

>>21550200
Where is he against permissiveness?

[Anonymous No.21553307]

>>21553231
>>21553235
"I will maul a thousand meemaws if it means the world reads my magnum opus"

[Anonymous No.21553683]

>>21553307
lmao

[Anonymous No.21553817]

>>21549903
Meme garbage for brainlets who don’t care to read real analysis and schizos.

[Anonymous No.21554746]

>>21552744
>Ted has a problem with permissiveness because it is transient, unreliable, and hollow. For example, while you are theoretically "free" to speak your mind, it is merely because you have been given "permission" by 4chan and, by extension, the United States Government. I don't think you or I really believe that we have freedom of speech, but merely permission to speak. You raise a good point again, and that is "where does permissiveness begin and freedom end?"
My problem with this is freedom is transient, unreliable and especially hollow without a corresponding duty imposed on you by the State. I do not think natural rights and natural law is useful as from where Rights originate is not as important as how one maintain control of them. The State in this case being the Germanic Pre-WW2 concept, that it is a unique expression of the native peoples martial and political culture and entirely represented of a single ethnic group.

>Let's begin with something extreme: imagine there is only one single man left on earth. In Kaczynski's view, this man has ultimate freedom. He must receive permission from nothing at all to do anything, even if he must slave tirelessly every day to meet his physical needs. I don't think Kaczynski believes that it is possible to cultivate true freedom in the context of an actual society.
That would imply that at a to-be-determined point freedom becomes a terrible setback and would cause more of the problems that Kaczynski accurately diagnosed, mental anguish, etc. Where that point is does not matter to this discussion, but it factors in to the overall picture that the logical conclusion of his thought is ultimately damaging to the average man.

>The problem being that rules, duty, and obligation are absolutely and incontrovertibly necessary in any social interaction, whether unstated and unconscious or dictated and conscious. However, Kaczynski does seem to believe that it is possible to limit the power of individuals to enforce their will, primarily that of large organizations over the individual and small groups (such as tribes or families).
Kaczynski was not an average man and his mindset and mental facilities were so far above the typical man that he can not possibly abstract what the average man needs. Kaczynski appears to be able to operate without a cultural structure around him, as evidenced by his writings and his non-standard lifestyle. The average man needs a load to carry, he needs duty imposed on him, he needs to accomplish it (The Power Process accurate in so far as the work needs to have a tangible benefit, not just busy work) and above all he needs an interdependent culture and social group of similar people to interact with. Kaczynski having been abused and being far above these things could not have understood how important they are to maintaining a society.

Men will go to extraordinary lengths and endure incredible hardship if his family, and those like him, benefit from his actions.

[Anonymous No.21554785]

>>21552744
>The fact is that freedom and permission are, as long as there is a social system in place, naturally entwined-- at odds some places, and together in others. For Kaczynski, a proper compromise could be found in the fact that, even if one does not have permission by their authority to commit some act, so long as that authority is unable to monitor and enforce its will, then the individual has freedom to commit the act.
I disagree with the second part of this too. Monitoring is not the problem, nor is delegation of authority. Being part of a command structure like this goes back thousands of years, to before 1 A.D Ancient Greeks and Romans had it and used it to incredible effect. You have described almost every military structure in the world, every successful one. A military has oversight by your superior officer or NCO, these delegate authority downwards. The decisions NCOs make are made within confines set by those above them. They have discretion on what they can do and what they can not, but it is all within the scope of acceptable behavior, this predates the Industrial Revolution by some considerable time, ultimately what they also have is responsibility for those decisions. Pair that with the fact that some people are completely unsuited to leadership and are as donkeys that need guidance.

>In the past, as Kaczynski states in paragraph 94-95, and as can readily be known from a simple perusal of history, while governments were highly restrictive and authoritarian, small communities and individuals paradoxically possessed a far greater level of freedom than the average person does today. This is because of the difficulty in enforcing the will of high-status or large organization without the aid of industrial technology.
No, this was not at all because of technology, the Roman Empire was able to run a high-status organization that covered most of the known world without so much as common literacy. Persia, Mongolia, France, Britain, Aztecs, Mayan, China and more all were able to do this. Almost every means of ruling prior to the 1900s was authoritarian and restrictive, none of them had the problems we suffer form today. This is because ethno-cultural bonds have been smashed, partly because of the isolation afforded by modern technology, but not because of it. No other nations outside the West have these problems. Just us, because it is our culture, our ethnicity and our lands that are being destroyed and profited off.

>This increase in capability given by industrial technology to large organizations forms the pillar of Kaczynski's belief that freedom cannot be reconciled with -industrial- technology. However, there is no real way to prove that freedom is good in and of itself, and so it is left to the reader to discern for himself what he believes will create a more just future.
Industrial technology is a symptom of the problem, not the cause. The cause is the current system. Blood & Soil is the solution.

[Anonymous No.21554922]

>>21553307
I mean yeah that was his plan

[Anonymous No.21554949]

>>21551225
this seems generally a thing within the internet and anglosphere, to bite, chew and digest any author and shit it out as "meme author" simply because too many people have talked about it and thus one ought to move onto something else due to a completely fried dopamine addicted internet-porn brain

[Anonymous No.21555030]

It seems many people read Kaczynski expecting some masterful argument against industrial society because of his background in mathematics and notoriety as a genius.
I was surprised to find an essentially normative polemical diatribe against le bad technology with no prescriptive element included (besides his call to jihad).

I really don't understand what the point is of all his writing; what he actually wants or intends for his work to accomplish.
He hinges all his anti-tech revolutionary writings on the premise that industrial society is bad.
He sort of explicates it with respect to the extreme and accelerating nature of domination by industrial technology -- which is a novel and important development, reversing Marx's dialectical materialism -- but does not really make heads or tails with respect to how it happened, why it happened, and why it is bad.
Unlike Marx, for example, he doesn't lay out an argument or system that can be attacked or expanded upon; it all lacks substance.
That's why no one has built upon his work, there is no foundation to build on.

At the end of the day, he expects the reader to accept his hypothesis and agree to commit acts of terrorism against industrial society (like he did) without even going so far as to define what technology is or how to tell what is industrial technology and what isn't.
I guess he'd argue that it doesn't matter and that society as it stands is irredeemable, it's just go to go, doesn't matter how it go there.
But, again, I am not convinced by his arguments that I should care, sacrifice my life and my childrens' lives, to fight this holy war.
He was also a gigantic faggot that barely even tried to do what he was asking of the rest of us.
He didn't even try very hard to kill anyone important.
Unironically, ISIS propaganda is more convincing and effective.

He never even explains what is supposed to happen or why it is more desirable than what we've got.
In his recent book, he only is able to say that it doesn't matter what happens after because it cannot be predicted. (The "how to" part of the anti-tech revolution was censored for obvious reasons; he's incarcerated for trying to do just those things.)
He then goes on to say that the revolution cannot even be expected to have its desired effect.
Disregarding that this is a very antiquated view of "revolution", if he really believes it, why is he even trying to convince anyone to do anything?
If society is hopelessly tied to the development (or regression) of technology, and that this is "bad", what reason is there to believe it will be better once we've gotten rid of it all?

[Anonymous No.21555038]

I will also just say that I want unabomber zoomer meme fags to put up or shut up about his supposed immense influence or philosophical achievements.

[Anonymous No.21555051]

>>21555030
>He never even explains what is supposed to happen or why it is more desirable than what we've got.

He actually does explain why it's more desirable, as he extensively lays out his critiques of the system. He, also, does explain what is supposed to happen as a result of absence of the technological system.

The rest is whatever, but he literally explains both of those. Go read him.

[Anonymous No.21555074]

>>21555051
>reddit spacing
fuck off

[Anonymous No.21555075]

>>21555030
>Unlike Marx, for example, he doesn't lay out an argument or system that can be attacked or expanded upon; it all lacks substance.
Marx wrote even less about his hypothetical system than Kaczynski. Kaczynski outlined what to do and how to go about it, Marx did not at all and just critiqued the current system.

From this, we can deduce that you have not read either of these authors and as such have nothing worse saying.

[Anonymous No.21555095]

>>21555075
Marx wrote multiple times at length about how capital works, excuse me?
Kaczynski doesn't explain what he's even referring to or revolting against.
Saying "you haven't read him" is not an argument.
I have read almost everything he's ever published, show me the passages or shut the fuck up.

by the way, care to explain what you're doing on 4chan if you agree with him?

[Anonymous No.21555276]

>>21554746
>My problem with this is freedom is transient, unreliable and especially hollow without a corresponding duty imposed on you by the State.
The duties that an individual has to the State and to the Volk are a direction extension of duty to tribe and family. This is why the Germanic concept of the State in inextricably tied to the family. As the State scales up or down, the duty remains relatively similar to scale. Kaczynski doesn't play a part in this, nor does he really care if there is an autocratic state that rules over the people.
>That would imply that at a to-be-determined point freedom becomes a terrible setback and would cause more of the problems that Kaczynski accurately diagnosed, mental anguish, etc.
I would say that the average man prefers the lowest level of technological interference that can be had, with the majority of people believing technology to have a positive influence on their life solely because they have been conditioned by the technological society to be unable to live without it. For example, a compulsive gamer that believes industrial society is good simply because he would have to do without his games, not realizing that the circumstances which led him to compulsive gaming come from industrial society. Besides, people that live more primitive or primitive lives do not suffer because they must slave away each day for their needs, in fact, they find it quite enjoyable and are typically hostile to outsiders that would seek to change this.
>Kaczynski appears to be able to operate without a cultural structure around him,
The State can be a replacement or an extension of the duty imparted by the family and tribe, the State, of course, being the very extension of the family and tribe, but it is in no wise necessary for cultural or social order. It is simply necessary in a large society. A world without technology of any sort is totally compatible with a Germanic State. There is no form of mutual exclusivity, as evidenced by your later example of the Roman Republic, a large society which could very well have been molded into an ideal State.

[Anonymous No.21555356]

>>21554785
My answer is long, but the final quotation and response is the most important. Any anons just skip to the end if you want.

>I disagree with the second part of this too. Monitoring is not the problem, nor is delegation of authority. Being part of a command structure like this goes back thousands of years, to before 1 A.D Ancient Greeks and Romans had it and used it to incredible effect.
True, though we're describing two different phenomenon. The Greeks and Romans weren't able to enforce their will as is possible in a modern industrial country, so there was no total uniformity with law and custom. The very problem of enforcement is why small groups and local communities were given so much freedom and autonomy by ancient empires; there was no practical way to enforce a centralized government. For a military, this isn't a problem. I'm sure you understand military structure, so I won't go into it.
>No, this was not at all because of technology,
Of course restriction is not because of technology, but it is multiplied by technology.
>Industrial technology is a symptom of the problem, not the cause. The cause is the current system. Blood & Soil is the solution.
Actually, it is neither in this case. Industrial technology is a force multiplier. In the case of the Jews, their small population would not permit them to propagandize and enforce their will on every part of the world no matter how remote if they were not aided by industrial technology. If circumstance such as the one we witness presently were to occur in a non-industrial world (which I doubt), then small communities would still go on with white ethnic customs and culture unmitigated by technological means of control, and like so many times in history, expel the Jews violently.
Industrial society is not necessary for the Volk, and it would be stupid for a state to voluntarily give up its technology while others still possess theirs. But there is no reason for a fascistic or ethno-nationalist type to be opposed to anti-industrialism because there is no exclusivity between the two; at best, you should look at it as a sort of interesting but irrelevant curio: not wrong, but not useful.

[Anonymous No.21555379]

>>21554785
To elaborate on the point of industrial society being a force multiplier I must explain that if truly benevolent and caring leaders ruled over a single State, then technology won't necessarily be a problem, as we can expect them to regulate it to the point that it has very little or no impact on the average person. But it doesn't improve the lives of the people, it is simply a different means of life. Technology becomes necessary and detrimental when we consider other countries that have access to technology, which could at any moment develop some new super-weapon and utter annihilate the Volk, or if technological progress means the State must rush wildly and blindly into the technological unknown just to be able to compete with its hostile neighbors.
Not to mention that if the leaders of the State are corrupted, technology will be used as a force multiplier to cause much greater harm.

[Anonymous No.21555387]

>>21555030
You don't really understand what the point of the manifesto was, then.

[Anonymous No.21555722]

>>21555276
>I would say that the average man prefers the lowest level of technological interference that can be had, with the majority of people believing technology to have a positive influence on their life solely because they have been conditioned by the technological society to be unable to live without it.
I would disagree immensely with this, outside of office and service work the average man goes home tired, dirty and sore. If there was a means to alleviate this with technology, I strongly believe he would capitalize on it. If he could support himself without this, homesteading with the benefit of technology I have little doubt few would embrace it. This is a societal problem, converting us in to economic units.

>Besides, people that live more primitive or primitive lives do not suffer because they must slave away each day for their needs, in fact, they find it quite enjoyable and are typically hostile to outsiders that would seek to change this.
That depends, there are those who downshift in a civilized country to live a more rural existence with the benefits of industrial technology whom I fully support and am striking to achieve myself. Then their are those who primitive people who could be shown them a metal canteen to carry their water instead of a animal bladder and they would still refuse it. Again this is cultural and societal which has been manipulated by powers who just do not care about us.

>The State can be a replacement or an extension of the duty imparted by the family and tribe, the State, of course, being the very extension of the family and tribe, but it is in no wise necessary for cultural or social order.
No, I don't believe it can be a replacement for the family. Nothing can be. Though the State can be an extension of the tribe. I firmly believe both of these things are necessary for cultural cohesion and tighter bond. Without it people grow distant, cultural traditions are forgotten. Without a central force mandating something, people gradually drop traditions, migration to the Americas proves this.

>A world without technology of any sort is totally compatible with a Germanic State. There is no form of mutual exclusivity, as evidenced by your later example of the Roman Republic, a large society which could very well have been molded into an ideal State.
I understand that, but I do not agree with it. Further, what benefit would it be? You would simply be at the mercy of a state that did adopt technological progress.

[Anonymous No.21555756]

>>21555356
>The Greeks and Romans weren't able to enforce their will as is possible in a modern industrial country, so there was no total uniformity with law and custom.
There was most definitely uniformity of law and custom, they Romanized most of the provinces they conquered which allowed many modern European nations to build their own common law based on Roman. Customs in Roman Britannia can be lifted and found in as far Roman Syria. Romance languages are another direct result of this.

>The very problem of enforcement is why small groups and local communities were given so much freedom and autonomy by ancient empires
Small groups and local communities didn't cause waves, they were the farmers and the ones that stood to gain the most from a Roman pax or any Ancient Imperial rule. A small local group had no reason to contend the might of a greater force. They care not who they pay their taxes to only the amount they pay. Frequently wealthy, rural families became the aristocracy of the emerging Empire.

>Of course restriction is not because of technology, but it is multiplied by technology.
It sure is, but it can also be countered by technology. Social conditioning as encouraged us to put as much stuff online as possible so that people may profit off it. Technology can easily be used to uplift and fix almost all the issues we have, but we don't want to. We, I mean they, want profit over health. So we profit off declining health.

>>21555379
>But it doesn't improve the lives of the people, it is simply a different means of life.
You must have a very subjective meaning on improvement. One that appears to come from a life that has not known toil or has a romanticized view of laborious jobs. I do not understand why you say this, so I will reserve judgement for further clarification from you.

I am enjoying the discussion, it is insightful.

[Anonymous No.21555794]

>>21549903
This is not good.

[Anonymous No.21556430]

>>21555756
What is the difference between a fascist state and a democratic state? Practically speaking there is none. They are both risky political doctrines, there is no guarantee that a society will continue to thrive if it is continuously chained with laws made by either an Indiviual or a group of people, as they all become highly distorted eventually resulting in suffering for everyone.

Technolgical and Industrial advancement for Jews is like what The Great Depression and WWI was for Hitler. The Jews that rule us now are not that all different from how Hitler ruled Germany. If you hate the current political climate then there is no way you would have lived in a fascist state.

[Anonymous No.21556467]

>>21556430
>and a democratic state?
not that ass-hat, but democracy can be taken to the degree that the state as we know it is supplanted. I agree that "western democracy" is two steps away from fascism

[Anonymous No.21556473]

>>21549903
based uncle ted san

[Anonymous No.21557366]

>>21556430
>What is the difference between a fascist state and a democratic state?
One (in theory) doesn't bypass and erode the organs of government to expedite its political will, the other does so with certainty.

[Anonymous No.21557371]

>>21549912
fpbp