Technological Slavery and other Literature

[Anonymous No.21697748]

>3. The political left is technological society's first line of defense against revolution. In fact, the left today serves as a kind of fire extinguisher that douses and quenches any nascent revolutionary movement.

>What do I mean by "the left"? If you think that racism, sexism, gay rights, animal rights, indigenous people's rights, and "social justice" in general are among the most important issues that the world currently faces, then you are a leftist as I use that term. If you don't like this application of the word "leftist," then you are free to designate the people I'm referring to by some other term. But, whatever you call them, the people who extinguish revolutionary movements are the people who are drawn indiscriminately to causes: racism, sexism, gay rights, animal rights, the environment, poverty, sweatshops, neocolonialism... it's all the same to them.

>These people constitute a subculture that has been labelled "the adversary culture." Whenever a movement of resistance begins to emerge, these leftists (or whatever you choose to call them) come swarming to it like flies to honey until they outnumber the original members of the movement, take it over, and turn it into just another leftist faction, thereby emasculating it. The history of "Earth First!" provides an elegant example of this process.

Just as the "leftists" swarmed to socialism and communism, utterly derailed it, and turned it into a shitty bourgeois idpol golem. Any literature about this phenomenon?

[Anonymous No.21697811]

>>21697748
If you aren't a social justice fag why are you revolting in the first place? All revolution basically comes from an "is not fair!" complaint.

[Anonymous No.21697828]

>>21697748

[Anonymous No.21697896]

>>21697811
uncle ted explains this pretty well, the system subverts revolutionary sentiments and uses it to propagate itself further. Anti-tech revolution is somewhat about re-contextualizing and defining these issues from this new perspective.

[Anonymous No.21697907]

>>21697896
>DO YOU NOT SEE THE 4D CHESS?!

[Anonymous No.21697908]

>>21697896
But the revolutionary sentiments themselves are born out of some social justice instinct already. Revolution is inherently leftist.

[Anonymous No.21697951]

>>21697908
That's not really a good definition for leftism, and I'm not talking about the Kaczynskiïan view of leftism.

[Anonymous No.21697966]

>>21697908
totally disagree, uncle-ted also addresses this fairly thoroughly at the very beginning of his manifesto with his definition of the power process and how that is subverted by leftists via the mechanism of demoralization. Basically the theory is that "leftist" revolution is disingenuous and to varying degrees comes from a some form of inferiority complex which is culturally reinforced. Real revolution should make sense, be practical and target actual power. He also inb4s the use of the word "leftist" but of course this is all explained on like page 1 in clear, concise unambiguous language and nobody here actually reads

[Anonymous No.21697970]

>>21697966
Just because he claims "my revolution is different" doesn't mean that it actually is.

[Anonymous No.21698034]

>>21697970
you brought up 2 issues that were addressed on the first page of the first thing he wrote 30 years ago and now you're doing tactical nihilism to "win" the argument. Maybe read and try to learn about what you're talking about before you have an opinion???

[Anonymous No.21698079]

>>21698034
I've read it and found them inadequately addressed. Not everyone treats Ted's writings like flawless scripture m8, nor his assumptions and frameworks as the only correct ones

[Anonymous No.21698086]

>>21698079
oh my god dude you can't be serious

[Anonymous No.21698093]

>>21697748
>indigenous people's rights
So European nationalists are leftists? Interesting.

[Anonymous No.21698110]

>>21697908
>Revolution is inherently leftist.
You can only justify this claim if you tacitly agree with leftists that history will always progress leftward, and thus the left of today is destined to always rebel against the left of yesterday. We could get into the implications of this (such as how the aforementioned revolutionary cycle is precisely what Ted describes in "The System's Neatest Trick"), but you're missing the main point. Ted did make a major mistake with his terminology: he should not have used to term "leftist" to denote what type of person he meant. "Leftism" in Kaczynski's philosophy is not a political ideology, it is a psychological type, which is necessarily pre-ideological. When Ted says "leftist," he is referring to the stereotype of an NPC who receives all of their news from MSM, easily falls for agitprop, is a strict materialist, and never thinks twice about the potential conflicts of interest of those who have power over him. A "leftist" to him is precisely what he defined the term to be: an oversocialized individual (i.e., one overtaken by integration propaganda), someone with deep-seated feelings of inferiority, or both. However, since modern readers are all to familiar with the contemporary meaning of "leftist," this point is largely lost.

[Anonymous No.21698145]

>>21698086
It might be a shock to you but actually the vast majority of people who have ever read Ted found him to be lacking.

[Anonymous No.21698167]

>>21697748
>Just as the "leftists" swarmed to socialism and communism, utterly derailed it, and turned it into a shitty bourgeois idpol golem.
It's not so much that leftists derailed a true socialist/communist movement in the west - they play a vital role in an ideal revolution - it's that there were no real leaders of such a movement to exploit the masses of leftists generated in the 2010's. Lenin was extremely Machiavellian and realized the advantages that such "useful idiots" (read leftists, or, in 2010 terms, liberals) offered at home and abroad - hence the founding of the Comintern. Kaczynski's "ideal" revolution advises rejecting leftists completely since his goal is to effectively kill the myth of progress, not to still realize that myth only with a different economic system.

[Anonymous No.21698171]

>>21698145
Read Ellul, then. There's a bit more substance there

[Anonymous No.21698195]

>>21698145
that's fine idiot, I'm not making these points because I'm a die hard ted k cultist, I'm only illustrating that the takes presented here come from a barely superficial understanding of the ideas presented and if people would just actually read what they are talking about they wouldn't post that shit in the first place. It's not even trolling either it's just dumb.

[Anonymous No.21698207]

He's gonna die before releasing Vol. 2.

[Anonymous No.21698217]

>>21698207
I'll be releasing Vol. 2.

[Anonymous No.21698223]

>>21698217
this post scares me, ya need jesus lad

[Anonymous No.21698275]

>>21697748
>racism, sexism, gay rights, animal rights, the environment, poverty, sweatshops, neocolonialism... it's all the same to them.
But these, I guess with the exception of animal rights, which I assume won't be solved until a communist society is long underway, have their roots in being maintained by class society, ie, capitalist society. Most leftists (not liberals like Joe Biden) place their primary antagonism to capital, saying that practically all leftists only focus on single-issue problems and ignore the role of capital and class society may be true amongst 1st world "leftists" for sure, who only care about leftist ideas so long as it benefits them (if they're LGBT, promoting LGBT rights) while ignoring the rest (such as their country's imperialist plunder) but that doesn't mean that Leftism as a global trend is oriented that way.
>But he doesn't mean leftism as in what any communist states were geared towards, he means liberal!
Then I don't see why this is interesting. Lenin talked about the need for a vanguard over a century ago, one reason being this exact idea of either liberals or angry politically-disengaged protesters being overly concerned with individual issues while ignoring the root cause and how that root cause manifests in contradictions in other spheres of life. That's why Lenin described certain groups such as the Economists (just one example) as "Tailists" to the working class movement, derogatorily saying that they were crippling with their "worship to spontaneity".

[Anonymous No.21698296]

>>21698275
these more intellectual takes fall on deaf ears, most leftists are just faggot NPCs culturally conditioned to support the technological system as it complexifies and approaches the eschaton

[Anonymous No.21698297]

>>21698110
>schizo with drug addled brain lacks social skills to function in society and becomes a pseud/terrorist who mails bombs to innocent people between taking shits in the woods

[Anonymous No.21698304]

>>21698297
>Ad
Hominem

[Anonymous No.21698305]

>>21698297
Based

[Anonymous No.21698356]

>>21698297
>schizo
>drug addled brain
>lacks social skills
>can't function in society
>psued
>terrorist
>mails bombs to innocent people between taking shits in the woods

you voluntarily inserted yourself into this discussion to post a sentence almost entirely made up of ad hominem for what reason?

[Anonymous No.21698378]

You know the edgy 4chan contrarian take on the internet used to be "wow ted kaczynski is so based read industrial society and its future terrorist attacks on feds and technophiles is based"and now that his ideas are somewhat mainstream the contrarian take is "wow ted kaczynski is a psuedo intellectual schizo mkultra psyop"

it's predictable, boring, superficial, vain and tiresome...

[Anonymous No.21698385]

>>21698297
Everything you listed is based. Where is the insult supposed to be?

[Anonymous No.21698553]

>>21697896
Yeah and his anti-tech revolution stance is no different. You’ll all end up as statistics.

[Anonymous No.21698574]

>>21698304
>>21698356
>>21698385
>seethe

[Anonymous No.21698593]

>>21697896
>subverts revolutionary sentiments and uses it to propagate itself further.
What are we revolting against? The "system" is vague and meaningless.
If you look at past revolutionary movement there are either basic outbursts from peasants which are basic outbursts of frustration at their position, or there are ideologues who have some concrete agenda. Like the French revolutionaries, led by bourgeoisie intellectuals opposing monarchy and supporting enlightenment ideals.
Reading the fragment here from Ted it's unclear what his values are besides revolution for its own sake.

[Anonymous No.21698631]

>>21697748
Is there any good fictional lit to read about this idea other than Brave New World. Preferably something comfy and doesn't have to be directly related.

[Anonymous No.21698702]

>>21698631
L'Academie by R.C. Waldun

[Anonymous No.21698715]

>>21698593
A lot of his writing is spent defining exactly what the technological system is, explaining why it is bad, explaining what an anti-tech revolution means in practice, etc

[Anonymous No.21699785]

>>21697748
Posting the AT symbols before the jannies get me again.

[Anonymous No.21699951]

>>21699785
nice luddite iphone wallpapers :)

[Anonymous No.21700016]

Leftists are the bourgeoisie
It's as simple as that
It's always been as simple as that

[Anonymous No.21700275]

>>21700016
and the right wing has always been the aristocrats and their house niggas

[Anonymous No.21700564]

>>21700275
>Left = Subjectivist-Materialist
>Right = Objectivist-Idealist
This is the only categorization that matters.

[Anonymous No.21700601]

>>21700564
so like i said, merchant powerplay against the landed gentry
and landed gentry resistance backed up by the priestly class with an interest in the status quo and the serfs who believe them.

[Anonymous No.21700665]

>>21700601
Based