[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 91 KB, 427x640, s-l640.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21615069 No.21615069 [Reply] [Original]

Imagine writing a book where you criticize society and technology in your time and the future, hoping people will take you seriously. actually making some valid points within your writings, just for it to be memed on Tiktok and taken out of context

no wonder why no one takes him seriously anymore.

>> No.21615079

Manifesto is not that well written, unfortunately

>> No.21615085

>Tiktok
Who cares about the content being posted on garbage ephemeral platforms. Information without context is just entropy. Ideas are immortal and will be reverberated through time and space, to be incarnated when the conditions are favorable.

>> No.21615086

even if it's thrown around by braindead zoomers, that will inevitably attract the attention of more serious readers and keep it relevant

>> No.21615093

>>21615086
Sure no one is doubting this, but the braindeads and braindead zoomers are vocal enough to turn people away simply for what they post/react to the book

>> No.21615138
File: 65 KB, 1024x150, ted k dogs 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21615138

He fucked dogs.

>> No.21615149

he bogged his own relevance when he decided to go on a schizo rampage

>> No.21615169

>>21615149
killing people is how he became world famous in the first place and that was his point, to force journalists to publish his manifesto
he should've killed lowlives like journalists though, not those targets

>> No.21615180

>>21615085
pseud fag

>> No.21615187

>>21615169
>lowlives like journalists though, not those targets
dangerously based

>> No.21615190

>>21615169
>and that was his point
no it wasn't. he's explicitly said that he just wanted to kill people.

>> No.21615192

>>21615085
This poster REALLY loves the smell of their own farts

>> No.21615201

>>21615190
>he's explicitly said that he just wanted to kill people
where? been a while since I read Technological Slavery?

>> No.21615206

>>21615201
It's literally stated in the manifesto that he killed people/mailed bombs in order to get published.

>> No.21615209

>>21615206
>he killed people/mailed bombs in order to get published
that's what I said, are you another poster?

>> No.21615219

>>21615190
>>21615206
Lmao brainlet

>> No.21615244

>>21615069
Ted himself said he hopes people spread his ideas through the internet

>> No.21615685

>>21615069
>no wonder why no one takes him seriously anymore.
I do. And I'm proud of letting people know about him.

>> No.21615701

>>21615138
Can't find anything about it online. Source.
Big if true.

>> No.21615740

>>21615079
I agree. It's really poorly written and for those who only read ISaiF and not ATRWH are losing too much.
I appreciate and agree with all his "I hate lefties" rant, however, the amount of pages he spent on that instead of the main goal is a problem, he is absolutely right there and the issue is correlated, but the text is giving too much information of too many problems in a way that is not concise.
For this reason, I tell for my experience that when I read the manifesto, I've found it thoughtful but unimpressive, I thought "eh, shit I'd fucked up but it was always like that in history. no biggie". When I read The Anti-Tech Revolution after a friend insisted, I really started to see the problem.

>> No.21615765

>>21615169
>>21615190
His targets are really irrational, such as a Salt Lake computer store owner.
Why would he attempt to kill a guy like that, he is just carrying on with his life.

I don't understand TK's motivations for it all. I honestly don't like his personality, but I appreciate his message.

>> No.21615792

>>21615701
It's just more fed propaganda.
>>21615765
He chose minor targets because they're far easier. If he picked high profile targets he would only be able to manage one massive strike. He needed leverage to get his manifesto published. He did try to keep it tech themed with some attacks on researchers for example, but his actual goal was not to damage industrial society. It was to blackmail the government into publishing the manifesto.

>> No.21615815

>I wrote for my journal on August 14, 1983: “The fifth of August I began a hike to the east. I got to my hidden camp that I have in a gulch beyond what I call “Diagonal Gulch.” I stayed there through the following day, August 6. I felt the peace of the forest there. But there are few huckleberries there, and though there are deer, there is very little small game. Furthermore, it had been a long time since I had seen the beautiful and isolated plateau where the various branches of Trout Creek originate. So I decided to take off for that area on the 7th of August.
>A little after crossing the roads in the neighborhood of Crater Mountain I began to hear chain saws; the sound seemed to be coming from the upper reaches of Rooster Bill Creek. I assumed they were cutting trees; I didn’t like it but I thought I would be able to avoid such things when I got onto the plateau. Walking across the hillsides on my way there, I saw down below me a new road that had not been there previously, and that appeared to cross one of the ridges that close in Stemple Creek. This made me feel a little sick. Nevertheless, I went on to the plateau.
>What I found there broke my heart. The plateau was criss-crossed with new roads, broad and well-made for roads of that kind. The plateau is ruined forever. The only thing that could save it now would be the collapse of the technological society. I couldn’t bear it. That was the best and most beautiful and isolated place around here and I have wonderful memories of it. “One road passed within a couple of hundred feet of a lovely spot where I camped for a long time a few years ago and passed many happy hours. Full of grief and rage I went back and camped by South Fork Humbug Creek…” The next day I started for my home cabin. My route took me past a beautiful spot, a favorite place of mine where there was a spring of pure water that could safely be drunk without boiling. I stopped and said a kind of prayer to the spirit of the spring. It was a prayer in which I swore that I would take revenge for what was being done to the forest. My journal continues: “…and then I returned home as quickly as I could because—I have something to do!” You can guess what it was that I had to do.

>> No.21615828
File: 16 KB, 428x424, 1674987612972436.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21615828

>>21615138
WTF

>> No.21615838

>>21615815
Kaczynski, based man of action.

>> No.21615847

>>21615079
People that have actual good ideas are rarely good writers.
Only hacks are good writers.

>> No.21615849

>>21615069
I know people always say he isn’t original and just copied Ellul and some other dudes (forget them lmao), but is there any other writer who has suggested that technology is actually the root problem AND advocates for a (hypothetically violent) revolution against it? Obviously basic bitch an-prim stuff will criticize civilization, but as far as I’ve seen, none openly call for meaningful action against it

>> No.21615862

>>21615849
Ellul and Kaczynski actually have different critiques of different things. It's a bit irksome that people who have never read either say things like "Fighting back is technique so he didn't escape technique!" or "Even a spear is technology!" Just retarded.

>> No.21615868

>>21615792
I still don't like it. That's why I'm authoring Samizdat calling people to keep creating Anti-Tech Content (The Gramscian Way, I call it) and perhaps going beyond Kaczynski. Kaczynski was not the first to realize the tech question, and he shouldn't be the definitive guide to destroy the system. If organized, we can be bigger than him.
He will always mean bad PR that will attract only misfits, angry teens and schizos.

>> No.21615874

>>21615862
I know as I’ve read both. I’m mostly asking if the people who say dumb shit like that have anything comparable to Kaczyski that isn’t Ellul or an-prim stuff

>> No.21615885

>>21615868
You cannot destroy the system by operating within its rules. You necessarily need misfits, angry teens, and schizos. TSMC won't die because people smugly criticized it and boycotted their superconductors.

>> No.21615886
File: 60 KB, 727x422, st hubert.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21615886

>>21615815
>I stopped and said a kind of prayer to the spirit of the spring. It was a prayer in which I swore that I would take revenge for what was being done to the forest.
Kinda Based

>> No.21615906

>>21615885
Don't get me wrong. I never said we don't need them. What I'm trying to say is, we need to convince more people to see this as an alternative, as the fringe minority of revolutionaries will be doing the dirty work against the system.
To spread Anti-Tech ideas is to make the revolution acceptable. To strike the system when people are numb praising its propaganda will create "Tech Martyrs".
Also, the Gramscian way will help to create dissidents in high places, whose strikes can be more impactful than a John doe cutting the power lines.

>> No.21615912

>>21615906
based

>> No.21615940

>>21615906
Delusional but do you have a link to your work? I could put you in touch with some people

>> No.21616032

>>21615912
I will expand on it. The feds already have me, they got my browsing history anyway so I don't care.

One of the best way to destroy the power grids of my country is simply bombing the hydroelectric grid of the major metropolitan areas, which is very simple if you think about it since the idiots planted the dams following the same river.
So, there are six dams following the Rio Grande, if you blow up the first two, the water pressure will probably damage the third one and force them to open the floodgates in the following three.
A bunch of misfits with guns could do this. However, an engineer that is planted as dissent could do this by himself, since he knows very well where to hit.
I know that imploding a single wall is enough to run a whole dam, since once there was an incident like that in Marimbondo Dam where some decades a guy gave his life away to shut the steel doors from within after a crack threatened to flood the whole dam and crumble it.

São Paulo, including the capital, would go dark for a few hours until they take the decision to power all the gas and coal plants, and this would go on for a few months, which would mean an sudden increase in everyone's electric bill and a huge debt that would ruin the Brazilian economy for at least a decade.
If such attacks are performed in the right time (such as during the forseeable oil crisis that will happen until the end of this decade), this would be almost an irrepairable damage.

I am having some dangerous ideas here.

>> No.21616040
File: 161 KB, 960x720, furnas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21616040

>>21616032
Forgot image with the hydroeletic grid plot currently in operation. Here it goes.

>>21615940
I am still working on it. I published the INCOMPLETE DRAFT of my first Samizdat here. The reason I haven't done it fast is because I am trying to source everything and create a really legible, informative and easy-to-read samizdat.

>> No.21616050

>>21616032
Extremely, dangerously, based.
The problem with dams, if I recall correctly, is that they're actually pretty hard to blow up. Putting a hole in one is possible but it won't take the whole dam down because they are constructed in such a way that no single spot is structurally integral.

>> No.21616076

>>21616032
>>21616040
Although you are being way too specific. Since you live in brazil I would seriously recommend not saying things that could get you prison time because you'll probably end up with jelly arms and a bussy with a 15cm gape.

>> No.21616109

>>21616050
They are not easy to blow up because they are made with an insane amount of concrete. These things are indeed marvels of engineering.
However, a single crack without opening the floodgates will create such a pressure that the dam will open a hole.
The idea is not collapsing the dam (although it would be a massive W), but opening a wide gap so the water will flow, leveling the water in both sides.
Also, this would flood the land after the dam. Probably destroying bridges connecting regions too.

It would be interesting if this could be done in the Three Gorges Dam in China.

>> No.21616112

>>21616076
The intel surveilance here is so slow that they won't touch me unless I actually blow a fucking dam or anything of the sort.
Also, they are too busy looking for the people who attempted the coup last month, so I guess I will go unnoticed this time.

>> No.21616242

>>21616109
A dam collapsing is hard, but not impossible.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02vJC3_KLWI

The most infamous is this one in Russia, considered the world's 9th greatest hydroelectric dam
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayano-Shushenskaya_power_station_accident

What people needs to realize is that the system is not invencible. It's very feeble and no wonder that, from time to time, we are facing economic recessions. In fact, if we think about it, we have
major recessions every 15 years or so.
When comes to energy, since 1979 the oil and gas question has been the major drive for wars and conflicts, contradicting Fukuyama's "end of history and centuries of boredom" and Huntington's "the conflicts of tomorrow will be culturally motivated". We not only still have devastating wars, but we also have conflicts over resources more than anything else.
The ((green)) transition is not about "saving the planet" or "mitigating the acceleration of global warming", it's a very conscious action to move from this geopolitical struggle for resources.
If you want to hit the system, you gotta target renewables more than anything else.
The failure of renewables is the death of the system.

>> No.21617105

>>21615069
>no wonder why no one takes him seriously anymore.
NO one ever did.

>> No.21618072

>>21616242
I think I'm following you here, but if I AM following you, then I think you need to understand that oil and gas are never running out.

>> No.21618164

>>21615069
One of the biggest owns of the modern left I've ever read. Very apt description of their collective psychological state that's still relevant to today.
Both ISaIF and TAR have keen insights into politics beyond ecological and environmental concerns, I wonder what would have happened if Kazynski went the professor route and published books with a PhD, talked at seminars etc. Could he have spread his message among normies this way? Killing people will get the stratas of society to read your work, not the whole

>> No.21618188

>>21618164
>, I wonder what would have happened if Kazynski went the professor route and published books with a PhD, talked at seminars etc. Could he have spread his message among normies this way? Killing people will get the stratas of society to read your work, not the whole
I think that he would only attract the intellectual types through this, which are mainly leftists.
Truth is, I don't like Kaczynski's murdering tactics, it's deplorable. But he would just be another intellectual that would never reach the heights he did.

>> No.21618209

>>21618072
Why wouldn't it be running out?
The problem is not the resources being depleted, but getting hard to obtain for a number of reasons:
1. Extraction costs are increasing and will increase with time.
2. These resources will be located in hostile and ptotectionisty countries such as Russia, Iran, Arab World, perhaps Africa where the political landscape is unstable.
3. Despite what the renewable shills say, our consumption of oil and gas will most likely increase. This is because oil and gas is not only for cars, but also airplanes and cargo ships that cannot run on renewables.

So, we are to expect more wars over resources, not less. More investment in the fossil industry, not less. And more consumption as the markets will never halt.

Our window of opportunity to strike the system is nigh.

>> No.21618241

>>21618209
It's an abiogenic process that comes from inside the earth. It's too massive a volume to ever use and it's constantly being generated.
BILLIONS of years have passed all the time gas was leaking out the pores of the earth.
What we've tapped is nothing compared to what there is. You have bought into oil company lies that there is a finite amount.
You will of course have to do your own research starting with the above clues.
>costs
You mean the price, which is influenced by money printing. It's very easy to get this stuff and always has been.
>hostile
The USA has more coal and natural gas than anywhere. Canada is barely even tapped at all relative to it's land mass.
>consumption increase
Yes. Won't matter.

The wars are not for resources really. It's for geopolitical control.
Again, the USA was energy independent under Trump just because he said "let's do that." It's all artificial and contrived narrative.
Trump did nothing but allow it to happen, there wasn't even time to build infrastructure and such. It was simply being suppressed and he stopped suppressing it.

We are in agreement on the problems, but we can't be going down a road based on false premises. Oil and gas and coal are never running out.
At least not ahead of the next mega disaster that destroys civilization.

>> No.21618246

>>21615069
It's taken very seriously by very serious people and it's all that matters.

>> No.21618306

>>21618241
It does not matter if it's abiogenic or not, I don't wish to discuss it
Yes, the volume is massive. But more and more extraction of oil gets complicated, since oil is getting less and less reachable. It's deeper and harder to extract.

>You mean the price, which is influenced by money printing. It's very easy to get this stuff and always has been.
This assumption is not really right since the price of every consumer good is defined by how much energy and resources it takes to be produced.
Forget money, the real currency of the world is ENERGY. And energy can be calculated into EROI (Energy Return on Investment), which means how much energy you spend in order to have the extraction of a product.
The concept is a little complex and is better explained through these videos:
https://youtu.be/2AwIgeyPtJY

https://youtu.be/ZV4itTdbuZs

https://youtu.be/v0_9xD9QQUY


>The USA has more coal and natural gas than anywhere. Canada is barely even tapped at all relative to it's land mass

That doesn't explain Gulf War (operation sandstorm was basically an attempt to save oil fields) or the incursion in IRAQ

>Yes. Won't matter.
It does

>> No.21618363
File: 160 KB, 268x334, Encyclopédie-des-nuisances.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21618363

>>21615765
The entire point of choosing SEEMINGLY irrelevant target is to further the point that industrial society, being interconnected, is not the product of the will of individuals but an autonomous system.
Targeting high profile tech leaders would completely undermine the entire point of his works, that the system is autonomous, that human will is not a historical determinant, that technique builds upon itself.
The anti-tech movement would be no different than social-democrats, ISIS or the Thai monarchy if it posits the individual as some free-willing and rational historical actor. These groups do not seek radical change in material conditions but fight for the object of power. "The Development of a Society Can Never Be Subject to Rational Human Control " reads chapter 2 of anti-tech revolution.

Who is to claim that the death of the president would have more impact than the death of an unknown engineer whose works were about to radically impact material conditions? Can the death of this particular engineer even have that much of an impact?
The perception that certain hierarchical position or "powerful" individuals have the potential to steer the course of a particular or general (historical) event is mostly ideological. The very nature of industrial society and the political and social organization that follows is that power diffuses horizontally and the action of the individual is drown out by the inertia of material conditions.

>> No.21618380

>>21618241
>Again, the USA was energy independent under Trump just because he said "let's do that." It's all artificial and contrived narrative.
>Trump did nothing but allow it to happen, there wasn't even time to build infrastructure and such. It was simply being suppressed and he stopped suppressing it.
Btw, it's easy to be energy independent after your country passed through a phase of deindustrialization.
I'm not saying you're wrong when you say the raw resources available in US soil aren't copious, you're right. But I am skeptical on how long fraking and massive coal mining craters will be profitable. Not for many decades.

>> No.21618381

>>21618306
Those are attempts to keep OTHER COUNTRIES from having control of their own oil.
Nothing to do with needing the oil.
It keeps them down and under thumb.

You misunderstand geopolitics and it's goals.
Getting energy uses less effort than anytime in history
ONLY measuring in terms of fiat paper money makes it seem as you said.

Get it straight or lose the battle.
You are buying their most effective lie.

>> No.21618392

>>21618380
Look up how much coal in PA alone.
Case closed.
We've barely skimmed the surface.
Of course they take the easy and move on for better margins.
But it's profitability is not in danger for hundreds of years and thats ignoring all other variables of energy improvement.

>> No.21618442

>>21618381
Even if it's about curbing other markets, these are wars over resources nevertheless.
You really think the system is indestructible?

As a history student I disagree with your point of view, I'm even considering a thesis where lack of resources was one of the main reasons to the fall of the Roman Empire (a main reason, but not the only one).
The fact is, when a society reaches its zenith, the consumption of raw materials increase so significantly that the system decelerates and become very fragile.
I'm not saying that deceleration is always leading to collapse, it may or may not collapse due a number of factors, but it always opens a window of opportunity for invasion, rapine and destruction.

>> No.21618490

>>21618442
They duf with hand tools.
You are correct in your thesis, i just submit your extrapolation is off a few orders of magnitude.

The system will collapse, but not for lack of resources.
I suppose possibly the ratio of resources vs humans getting in the way of those resources.

>> No.21618780

>>21615138
Your source?
Ah yes, a 4chan green text of course

>> No.21619629
File: 31 KB, 485x297, 0712oder.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21619629

>>21618306
Wtf u on about, EROI is one of the easiest concepts ever. Literally barrels in barrels out. If you spend more barrels of energy than you receive in return, you're screwed. Like caloric deficit, it leads to starvation. But you start getting problems long before that.

>>21618381
You're a fucking idiot. EROI doesn't measure money, it measures energy.

>Getting energy uses less effort than anytime in history
The EROI of oil was in fact lowest when we first started using it as an energy source - late 19th and early 20th centuries. There were literal lakes of oil on the ground and swamps. The business was to use fucking buckets to scoop it. EROI was about 100 and now it's getting into single digit territory. Shale is much, much worse. The only reason shale ever became a thing was because of massive unprofitable investment in the US.

Fiat money is completely irrelevant to the equation. EROI is a thermodynamic limitation, money a social one. And printing money doesn't alter thermodynamics, ie. it merely pushes the costs around (via inflation), but never decreases them.

>> No.21619751

>>21619629
You are ignoring that drilling and all sorts of regulations and artificial costs are added on top of everything.
They don't let you drill here. They regulate this or that thereby making the inputs far higher than the need be.
They just let it shoot all over the place back then, you'd see a different number if it weren't artificially suppressed.

It was easier to build a house back then too. Why?
Because you could just build it. Now you have 20% of the costs being just making sure it's up to spec. Specs being arbitrarily imposed.
So it's not as simple as you put it.
There are forces actively suppressing the ease at which we can get oil and coal and gas.

Now. Of course it's harder, but not nearly as hard as they've made it and the profit margin could easily sky rocket by just releasing the people to go get it.

>> No.21619769

>>21615069
Who the fuck has tick tock

>> No.21620356

>>21619629
>Wtf u on about, EROI is one of the easiest concepts ever. Literally barrels in barrels out. If you spend more barrels of energy than you receive in return, you're screwed. Like caloric deficit, it leads to starvation. But you start getting problems long before that.
I'm not disagreeing with you.
>>21619751
That's a classic liberal take saying "things bad because muh regulations" without taking a number of things into question.
Regulations do not lead to civilization decline, it's a consequence of decline.

>> No.21620409

It's very sad that the only Kaczynski related threads are confined to /lit/

It's impossible to have this conversation in /his/ because they will go on with "muh Nazis" "muh Jesus" etc. Whilst in /pol/ everything is "muh trump" "muh trannies"
The problem with posting in /lit/ is because people here are into books and measuring their egos on who has the most literary baggage, meanwhile, the other boards are taken by low IQ mongrels

>> No.21620455

>>21615847
this

>> No.21621658

>>21615138
>works cited == NULL
What's up with the MASSIVE influx of anti-ted posting i've been seeing these past few days? This might be the trilllionth one that i've seen, there was even one which was saying "ted is a tranny". None of which seem to have any remote correlation to any truthful fact.

This is unironically beginning to look like some kind of smear campaign. But why tho? Why are these people only afraid of Ted's ideas now and not in the past two and a half decades since his writings have been out?

>> No.21621810

>>21621658
>But why tho? Why are these people only afraid of Ted's ideas now and not in the past two and a half decades since his writings have been out?
because interest peaked among boomers and I guess techies (and probably glowies too) gotta do some defamation.

>> No.21621820

>>21615847
>>21620455
Why are retards so prevalent?