/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23060388]

Any writers like him that are not political? I don't want to change the world I just want to get away from it all

[Anonymous No.23060393]

>>23060388
oh you mean like philosophy?

[Anonymous No.23060403]

>>23060388
Read Walden.
Thoreau was basically Ted, but if Ted wasn't a fucking freak and a murderer.

[Anonymous No.23060404]

>>23060388
No.

[Anonymous No.23060861]

>>23060388
Ted said his favorite book was Secret Agent by Joseph Conrad and the character of Professor was literally him and influenced him a lot.

[Anonymous No.23060939]

>>23060388
Read Guenon. His ideas are used by right-wing folks but traditionalism itself is non-political.

[Anonymous No.23061497]

>>23060939
>traditionalism itself is non-political

I wish more people understood this. I also wish they'd understand that pro or con "traditionalism" doesn't have to mean The Handmaid's Tale, 1950s TV, or rigid, idealized Victorian propiety.

[Anonymous No.23062440]

>>23060388
You don't need a book for that.
>>23060403
Ted was a revolutionary, and revolutionaries tend to kill people. I'm sure in the special little world in your head revolutions are won by holding hands and giving flowers to people, but that might not be the case elsewhere. And the follow up to this will be
>"revolution by bombing random people?"
Yes, like islamic state revolutionaries, IRA, etc., sometimes violence is used simply to make a statement, not because the targets have a political function. In Kaczynski's case, he needed to become one of the most notorious criminals in history to get his manifesto maximal coverage. And the follow up to this will be:
>But it didn't matter because now everyone associates his movement with violence!
And the answer to that is that it doesn't matter because anti-industrialism necessitates violence. Total de-industrialization of the world cannot happen by choice, which is explained in the manifesto, and any attempt will essentially result in "muh billions must die." Either way, anyone that cares if people die for a movement will NEVER contribute to anti-industrialism in a meaningful way. The follow up to this will be:
>But if you destroy the industry in America then it will do nothing but let other countries...
Which is why he said that it needs to be worldwide, even to the point that random attacks are totally useless (unless they result in instability, which most do not). Kaczynski did NOT care about local de-industrialization. The follow up to this could be many things, but the most basic is:
>Why does it matter? You could just go into the woods or stop using tech. Look! You're posting on a...
If you read Kaczynski's manifesto it's an all-or-nothing situation where moving into the wilderness is just playing make-believe while the entire earth and humankind is subdued by tech, and if you continue to engage with technology there is no reason to abstain from it because it will stunt your progress. Revolutionaries are supposed to limit technological use ONLY so that they aren't reliant on technology, but they are STILL supposed to use it as much as it is useful for their thriving. This is the same response, essentially, to the idea that Marxists should abstain from using capital. I am not a Marxist, but anyone can see that that is retarded.

There are too many possible retarded replies to this from readlets that have way too much to say about something they don't know anything about. I'll make it easy and BTFO Kaczynski myself. You can expand on these arguments:
>1. "I don't care about freedom because utilitarianism is... le GOOD!" (This argument is as irrefutable as Kaczynski's, which is the reverse.)
>2. "I don't care if human will is subordinated by technique" (Either because technique is an expression of human will, or human will is an illusion)
>3. "I don't care because I like product." (Nothing wrong with this.)

[Anonymous No.23062489]

>>23060403
>>23062440
And no, I'm not saying that I agree with Kaczynski's killings. I'm just stating that it is not really any different than any other revolutionary action, it doesn't make a difference whether he was alone or not.
Kaczynski's thesis can't really be refuted because his statements are more or less incredibly mundane observations and facts based on them. All you can do is say you don't care because pleasure-pods are cool and the singularity will be awesome and social engineering will solve unhappiness-- all of these things are true from your perspective, but Kaczynski's position is just that he hates them. So be reasonable and say:
>SO WHAT? I don't care. If we genetically engineer humans to always be happy then it doesn't matter if it's "degrading" or "dehumanizing"
or some variation on this.

[Anonymous No.23063406]

>>23062440
He didn't win. He died in prison and not a single thing he wanted to happen, happened. We continued down the same path.

Teds story is about what happens when bright people recognize legitimate problems in the world, and then fuck it up by believing that they are God and must perform and act of divine intervention. This is generally what makes most people compromise themselves and become villains, usually they think they're heroes.
I like Ted's writing a lot, the Neatest Trick is a fantastic essay. He was very perceptive and had a lot of true insights about the nature of our current world.

He also killed a bunch of innocent people and then died in prison, considered a monster by most people, and not a thing -- i want to emphasize, nothing -- changed.

[Anonymous No.23063460]

>>23062440
>>23062489
He was hopelessly idealistic

[Anonymous No.23063463]

>>23060403
There's nothing wrong with either

[Anonymous No.23063939]

>>23063406
>He didn't win. He died in prison and not a single thing he wanted to happen, happened. We continued down the same path. ... not a thing -- i want to emphasize, nothing -- changed.
He didn't have the expectation that it would be successful, and there have been many other people that have fought losing causes out of a sense of moral duty.
I understand what you're saying, though.

[Anonymous No.23063946]

>>23063939
Yes, it isn't a call to hate him. I quite like his mind. But it's just a warning to keep it realistic, some people nearly idolize these guys.
Like, I like Charlie Manson too I think a lot of his little rants are low key brilliant. I'm also pretty sure he was a sociopath and not someone I'd follow in the footsteps of

[Anonymous No.23063948]

Ellul and Charboneau maybe

[Anonymous No.23063951]

>>23063939
I'd also question his motive; idk about moral duty, Ted's main concern was autonomy, as he stated over and over again, and then he would also talk about how he specifically felt slighted and constricted by industrial society; so really I think it was just a revenge plot for himself. It was about him. But every selfish person plays acrobatics of the mind to convince themselves it's a noble cause taken on for others. Its hard for an intelligent man to do something if he can plainly see the selfish root of it, so he tricks himself.

[Anonymous No.23064203]

>>23060388
>Any writers like him that are not political? I don't want to change the world I just want to get away from it all
Being totally concerned just about yourself and a pure egoist is inherently a nihilistic political project if you want it to be or not.

>>23063406
>Teds story is about what happens when bright people recognize legitimate problems in the world, and then fuck it up by believing that they are God and must perform and act of divine intervention
His writings are just CHUD ramble, not "bright" or you think /pol/ is filled with geniuses and every school shooter must just be psychotic and not acting on the same sort of wave length

[Anonymous No.23064220]

>>23064203
He was objectively a literal genius. His IQ was off the charts.

[Anonymous No.23064242]

>>23064203
>filtered

[Anonymous No.23064682]

>>23060388
Forest Anon was about to publish a book before he disappeared. I haven't been able to find anything out about it but I'm sure you would get a lot out of that read

[Anonymous No.23064703]

>>23064220
He was objectively a literal boomer. His self-absorption and impracticability was off the charts.

[Anonymous No.23064715]

>>23060388
His writing isn't that political though

[Anonymous No.23064723]

>>23063406
You probably would have never read his writing if he didn't kill people

[Anonymous No.23064770]

>>23060388
I have personal reasons to hate this faggot. Stop posting him.

[Anonymous No.23064782]

>>23064770
>you will never discuss literature woth uncle ted
>ywn add your books to the the extensive collection of classics found at his cabin
>ywn stare into his dreamy eyes while eating stewed snowshoe rabbit on a cold winter's evening
Why live bros?

[Anonymous No.23065459]

>>23064770
you're related to one of his victims?

[Anonymous No.23065589]

>>23060388

[Anonymous No.23065605]

>>23060388
The American transcendentalists.