/lit/ - Literature

>>11072749
I haven't read ISaiF but from what I've heard The Myth of Progress by Georg Henrik von Wright seems to be a kind of softer version of Ted's book

>>11072749
Look into post left shir

>as well as writing in which provides counter arguments to the manifesto
There actually are none, that's because everyone assumes Technology is neutral. And to critique the negative loaded ideas that Kaczynski presents requires to to deny Technology is neutral and that it's positive. So maybe post-humanist acceleratist theory?

>>11072999
>everyone assumes Technology is neutral
No, they don't.
>requires to to deny Technology is neutral and that it's positive
No, it doesn't.

Read "The Technological Society" by Jacques Ellul.

Has there been a resurgence of interest regarding the Unabomber lately? or has it always been like this?

>>11073617

This so much. Ellul does not resort to primitivism as a prescriptive means of dealing with technique and is much more precise and descriptive. It's not that Ted isn't smart but he more or less went mad somewhere down the road even before writing up his essays. Ellul is also the perfect choice to read first because he does not shy away from presenting what would be "counter arguments" insofar as he clearly denotes the undeniable and unheard of achievements of Technique.

>>11072776
>>11073739
>confusing leftism with teds ideology
hahaha

unironically might is right supports a lot of what ted is saying.

>>11073756
Primitivism is good you insect
>>11073963
for completely autistic reasons

>>11073976
might is right is primitivsm for a eugenics/barbarian reason ala conan robert e howard. it's better than what ted wrote

>>11073976

It doesn't matter whether or not primitivism is good, if society does not adopt it at large as a prescription for their modes of production (and no society has ever done that, doesn't look like one ever will). If this is the case it's much better to analyze technique and think up of ways to deal with it rather than asking for the breaking down of the whole concept. Progress has been historically as inevitable as entropy, and as much as I don't want to sound accelerationist, does it matter trying to dampen it?

>>11073976
No it isn't you braindead zombie

>>11072749
Jacques Ellul (Technological Society), Ivan Illich (Deschooling Society, Tools for Conviviality), John Zerzan, Daniel Quinn (Ishmael and associated material), Max Weber (anything on bureaucracy or rationalization).

>>11073746
People are beginning to realise he really was right in light of the past decade

>>11073947
>Thinking those replies were meant to circle jerk about Ted
That's not what this thread is about.

>>11073746
Probably due to the show.

>>11073947
post left isnt leftism i dont think bruh

>>11073746
Ironically enough, i think it's because of the show

>>11072749
Against His-Story, Against Leviathan
>https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fredy-perlman-against-his-story-against-leviathan
Post-Civ!: A Brief Philosophical and Political Introduction to the Concept of Post-civilization
>https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/strangers-in-a-tangled-wilderness-post-civ-a-brief-philosophical-and-political-introduction-to
Post-Civ!: A Deeper Exploration
>https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/usul-of-the-blackfoot-post-civ-a-deeper-exploration
>>11073739
bookchin is and will always be garbage; do not read
>>11073976
Have you read Atassa?

>>11074146
>bookchin is and will always be garbage; do not read
Care to extrapolate?

>>11074192
Beyond his mostly academic, anthropological critique contains a mishmash of ideas better articulated by theorists who were literally decades ahead of him, especially by the time he started complaining about the so-called "unbridgeable chasm". For example, one could replace "The Ecology of Freedom" and "Post-Scarcity Anarchism" with Henri Lefebvre's "Critique of Everyday Life" and Walter Benjamin's "Arcades Project" and the latter wasn't even finished. Bookchin is ostensibly significant for emphasizing the importance of "liberatory technology" during a time where systematic rewilding was being taken seriously in reaction to the prospect of nuclear holocaust, sure, but his theories in relation to anti-civ currents are about as deep as the very accusations he flung at his constituents.

>>11074236
Basically he was a bad theorist, a terrible writer, and as grumpy as people say; he was utterly obsessed with bringing mass politics into the 21st Century while never really coming to terms with the reality of the situation.

>>11073963
>mercater
>faggot

>>11074077
>>11074105
I'm sure Ted is rolling in his cell right now.

Heidegger has an essay on technology which sit well with big Ted's views. He also went to live in a wooden cabin in the woods.

Why not Walden by Thoreau?
Why not Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth by Buckminster Fuller?

>>11074427
the correspondence between Heidegger and Junger touch this topic too, they also talked about nihilism and how technology has created

>>11074409
Someone write him and ask.

>>11074884
>send letter with pics of /lit/ to Ted
>sends a letter back
>"nothing but inane comments"

>>11072999
What delusion do you live in?

>>11074991
Refute it

>>11074991
he rite

>>11072999
Technology solves itself with technology.
One create the spear and another the shield.

>>11075372
LOL

>>11075372
True, but you're depending on the System to save itself from the thing it loves. Genetic engineering, population limits, space exploration, etc. could lead to utopias or self-chosen worlds, but it's not likely that this will be the goal of future societies.

>>11074061
This. It's hard to read the first 12 pages of the Manifesto and not feel like his criticisms of Leftism and Technology are spot on.

Ted Kaczynski was not an anarchist, please stop recommending anarchist titles. He did not believe in disorder as a product of his neoludditism.

>>11075665
4U

>>11073617
>"The Technological Society" by Jacques Ellul.
pdf: https://monoskop.org/images/5/55/Ellul_Jacques_The_Technological_Society.pdf

>>11075665
He got co-opted by an-prims

>>11072749
His 2010 book, Technological Slavery, has a collection of his writings, letters and a short interview. It includes additional thoughts on his older writings and addresses a few counter arguments.

>>11074105
no russians have bombarding us with memes of aggrandization, or the american deep state, maybe Mossad.

either way, somebody is trying to get ted's ideology into zeitgeist, intent to get you start bombing. they want to normalize his method, praxis through artisan bomb-crafting .

>>11075665
>Anarchists believe in disorder
Pls no troll

Gilbert Simondone
On the mode of existence of technical objects.

>>11075665
What was his political position then?

>>11075694
i don't think russians would try to push an ideology that is highly unlikely to become widespread such as this one
maybe you're right and they're trying to catch one or two mentally ill morons though

>>11075694
Makes no sense. Why waste resources trying to push something that has already been given that much publicity? No point in risking getting caught, no need to interrupt your enemy when it's destroying itself.

>>11072749
Some links here:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/various-authors-a-dialog-on-primitivism
https://www.marxists.org/archive/camatte/agdom.htm

>>11075824
The central premise of Kaczynski's ideas is that technology and "oversocialization" robs us of the power process that our brains are naturally fit for. That's the only thing that he strongly claims.

On whether it is anarchism, Kaczynski says the following
> 215. The anarchist [34] too seeks power, but he seeks it on an individual or small-group basis; he wants individuals and small groups to be able to control the circumstances of their own lives. He opposes technology because it makes small groups dependent on large organizations.

The [34] is available here:
> 34. (Paragraph 215) This statement refers to our particular brand of anarchism. A wide variety of social attitudes have been called “anarchist,” and it may be that many who consider themselves anarchists would not accept our statement of paragraph 215. It should be noted, by the way, that there is a nonviolent anarchist movement whose members probably would not accept FC as anarchist and certainly would not approve of FC’s violent methods.

But he's loose with how he defines things here. Not only might most anarchists disagree with the idea that technology makes small groups dependent on large organizations, but most anarchists are against the idea that large organizations and groups are necessarily bad. He's conflating his normative and positive statements here in a horrible way, to the detriment of his message.

>>11075883
One would think that the violence and torture which is now endemic everywhere would have people mobilized and up in arms against it, but instead it continues to flourish on a world scale. Indeed, the situation today makes the "barbarism" of the Nazis seem in comparison rather unprofessional, quite archaic in fact.
what the fuck am I reading

>>11075885
(self reply)
Upon rereading, I need to elaborate on why he isn't necessarily arguing for anarchism.

> 51. The breakdown of traditional values to some extent implies the breakdown of the bonds that hold together traditional small-scale social groups. The disintegration of small-scale social groups is also promoted by the fact that modern conditions often require or tempt individuals to move to new locations, separating themselves from their communities. Beyond that, a technological society HAS TO weaken family ties and local communities if it is to function efficiently. In modern society an individual’s loyalty must be first to the system and only secondarily to a small-scale community, because if the internal loyalties of small-scale communities were stronger than loyalty to the system, such communities would pursue their own advantage at the expense of the system.

> 52. Suppose that a public official or a corporation executive appoints his cousin, his friend or his co- religionist to a position rather than appointing the person best qualified for the job. He has permitted personal loyalty to supersede his loyalty to the system, and that is “nepotism” or “discrimination,” both of which are terrible sins in modern society. Would-be industrial societies that have done a poor job of subordinating personal or local loyalties to loyalty to the system are usually very inefficient. (Look at Latin America.) Thus an advanced industrial society can tolerate only those small-scale communities that are emasculated, tamed and made into tools of the system. [7]

> 53. Crowding, rapid change and the breakdown of communities have been widely recognized as sources of social problems. But we do not believe they are enough to account for the extent of the problems that are seen today.

He's not arguing against large scale organizations, he's arguing only against the large scale organizations created by technological society.

>>11075912
A lesser-known genius.

>>11075923
(self reply)
And only because of the particular conditions that technological society brings about.

It stands to reason that Kaczynski would have no problem with a confederated society like 1800-1850s America, provided that they still maintain the small scale group structure and individuals are allowed to maintain their power process.

Now, he does take the essentialist angle towards technology that because they still embraced technology at this time, that this necessarily would have still been problematic, but my point is that Kaczynski was not necessarily an anarchist, and there are plenty of societies he would have found agreeable that anarchists would fundamentally disagree with

>>11075885
Yes, anarcho-syndicalists would try to disrupt John Zerzan's talks. They even punched him at one event, same response as the SJWs now give to neo-fascism.

>>11075930
explain how the fuck is violence and torture endemic everywhere or more prevalent now than it was before please

What would music for anarcho-primitivists sound like? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3cnPN-CLT4

>>11075941
It's in your food. It's in your water. It's in your air.
It does not even need to expose itself as violence.
People welcome it, even cheer it on and pay for it to entertain them.

>>11075962
>more prevalent than it was before

>>11075958
Anarcho-primitivist band
https://youtu.be/8Qp3Oxe0GMk

>>11075965
>greentext

>>11075996
whitetext<

>>11075989
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV1p2u82n54
Too edgy?

Why do people say he is mad?

>>11075958
Arean war drums, crude brass horns, wood flutes, the bestial howling of ten lithe braves encircling a blaze stoked with the hatred of one hundred humiliated generations of Y Chromosomal DNA, teeth coated in a lacquer of animal blood and pulp from the stalk of an entheogenic reed, rising flame, wood popping, the shrieks of the metriculating youths as scarification and branding commences, the elders eyes like the abyss, brow arched ever forwards, towards the horizon, bows strung, a polychromatic bird-man undulating, flying in an out of the circle, a sinusoidal sigil etched in a tracers and trailing smoke colored with noxious metallic ash, bodies coated in bone ash, bodies inscribed with curses against mechanospheric nightmares, bodies attesting the hateful deformities of office catacombs, howling

>>11076029
>this post
And I thought mentioning Acid King was too edgy, lel.

try endgame by derek jensen

its in the same vien, albeit maybe a tad less extreme

>>11076029
Kind of like this:
https://youtu.be/2wy-W-pYlds

>>11072749
relevant

>>11076309
Boring, please try again.

>>11076029
I was at the FTAA protests in Quebec and near the end there were thousands of people making music by banging rocks against guardrails and people dancing around the largest bonfire I have ever seen.
Incredible atmosphere that is horribly lacking as a positive ritual today.

>>11076333
Bad taste.

>>11076344
Bad taste.

>>11076309
ya, but with more animal blood and organs being immolated in green flame
>>11076339
its going to happen, there will be another WTO but the size of the Baltimore chimp out or the French student riots

>>11075665
how do you make the connection anarchy-->disorder? to me anarchism means organic order, as opposed to artificial order enforced by an elite thru monopoly of violence
>anarchists r da reel Rx

>>11075958
like an ensemble of whatever instruments can be handcrafted out of exclusively locally sourced materials
so brass sections are gone lm afraid

>>11076366
To clarify, I was suggesting the music and celebration rather than any sort of violence or illegal activity.

>>11076407
I see no problem here.

>>11076313
How?

>>11076377
just me not choosing my words properly. The point is that kaczynski didn't necessarily believe in tenants of anarchism, he just saw it one possible tool towards fighting against what he truly argued against: technology creating societies that deny people the power process. But there is a case to be made that there are many classes of societies that also fit this criteria.

In other words, Kaczynski doesn't ever make a strong claim that other political systems are incapable of fighting this, his main claim is simply that this erasure of the power structure from technology and how it changes society exists, nothing further.

I guess the real reason I chose that word, though I wouldn't choose it again if I was being more careful with my comment, is that anarchists believe that politics is a perpetual cycle and that the ability to further consolidate is a necessary condition of anarchism. That revolving (revolution) of the political cycle is inherent. My point is that accepting Teds thesis doesn't force a reader to hold that as true.

>>11076454
he actually writes about this extensively in 99-110, and it's clear that he believes in the possibility of a permanent change. That section is incompatible with most anarchist ideology.

>>11074986
based /g/-crossboarder

>>11072749
The entire green anarchist position steps back logically through Kaczinsky, deep ecology, Zerzan, and further until it shits absurdity - rejecting language, symbolic thought etc... you'd be better off accepting accelerationism, hypermodernity, solar-punk, or something along those lines seeing as the green anarchists are never going to be able to turn back time.

>t. guy that took himself too seriously in the 90's

>>11076594
forgot link http://greenanarchy.anarchyplanet.org/

>>11073024
what planet are you living on? 99% of people i know think technology can be used either for good or evil, aka it's neutral.

>>11076594
I got nearly every one of these except drinking, risk-taking, and psychology.

Also, were you implying that anprims are pic related, or your knowledge of the subject comes from being pic related?

>>11076594
This is me without the giftedness

I don't understand how people can think it's still possible to turn back time. Do these anarcho-primitivists actually believe you can succesfully erase AND supress technology and modes of production which benefit those who use them, and thus at the same time put those who don't at a significant disadvantage?
I mean, if one of two societies who are at the same level of technology (concerning food-production for example) achieves a technological advantage (like using genetic modification of crops for a more abundant supply of food), isn't it obvious that the more technologically advanced society has a higher chance of reproducing itself and its modes of production and technology?
Isn't there some kind of 'survival of the fittest' for culture, including technology?

>>11076599
>on literature forum
>insisting on the big majority fallacy

>>11072749
I have yet to read the book so take this recommendation with pinch of salt, but doesn't Pentti Linkola have simular take on things in book Can life prevail.

>>11075885
So... He is a crazy Thoreau?

>>11072749
>provides counter arguments to the manifesto

Don't shit in buckets, or murder random people.

>>11075665
In our previous letter to you we called ourselves anarchists. Since “anarchist” is a vague word that has been applied to a variety of attitudes, further explanation is needed. We call ourselves anarchists because we would like, ideally, to break down all society into very small, completely autonomous units. Regrettably, we don’t see any clear road to this goal, so we leave it to the indefinite future. Our more immediate goal, which we think may be attainable at some time during the next several decades, is the destruction of the worldwide industrial system. Through our bombings we hope to promote social instability in industrial society, propagate anti-industrial ideas and give encouragement to those who hate the industrial system.

>>11075372
that's exactly the point of anti tech writers.
I love these threads. It's always people unfamiliar with the topic who either try to refute or engage in discussions by raising the very points these writers make.

>>11075694
Are you for real? Someone who wants Ted's ideas to catch onto the mainstream does it to get people to start bombing civilians?? Like hahahahha what? I'm not even sure I read your post carefully. You can't truly be saying this

>Someone wants Kaczynski to reach the mainstream so that mailing bombs will become normal.

is the tv series on him any good?

>>11077505
Sure. A tv show about someone currently incarcerated in one of the most guarded prison in the world, who wrote the most dangerous manifesto of the past century, who went as far as to bomb people to have his message reach the masses, is totally unbiased and not propaganda. I haven't even seen it, but all I hear about it is how Kaczynski was 'fucked up' because of his mkultra experiment from his university days. Except Ted himself said the 'cruel experiment' was just him filling out quizzes... Mmh, I wonder what the show wants you to make out of it.

But seriously, are you fucking kidding me? The manifesto is 60 pages LONG. It's probably 4x quicker to get through it than binge watch some braindead tv propaganda lmao. wew

>>11072749
i hope this helps

>>11077641
also this and if you want a bit more edge you should read some eco extremist books too

>>11077641
Rousseau as the first author makes me think this is some CIA™ approved chart. Like really? Heidegger/Ellul/Spengler and... rousseau? either some illiterate /lit/ poster or cia niggers

>>11077647
And this? Really? Have you guys read kacynski? He rips apart anarcho primitivists and radical ecologists in the VERY BOOKS BY HIM ON THIS VERY CHART. this cannot be not on purpose

>>11077659
This, kosher anarchs making lists on material they haven't read

>>11077521
>just him filling out quizzes
Are you retarded or from the FBI?

>>11077654
Have you even read Rousseau's discourses?

>>11072749
You've already gotten Ellul so I won't repeat that but definitely check him out.

>counter arguments to the manifesto

Steven Pinker perhaps, insofar as Pinker believes our modern liberal society is objectively the best there's ever been

>>11077654
Read Rousseau man. He's a good counterweight to Voltaire, who I don't personally like. There's a surprising amount of overlap between his material and Burke and especially Kant. Give him a chance.

Start with his inquiry into the arts and sciences if you're interested.

>>11072749
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm

>>11072749
That's easy, here are Kaczynski's two books:

TECHNOLOGICAL SLAVERY (2010)

and

ANTI-TECH REVOLUTION (2016)

Both are amazing.

>>11076809
The second.

>>11077654
Brainlet

>>11077521
woah calm down my brain can only handle so many redpills at once I've lived in the matrix too long and I'm not used to such insightful revelations about society

>>11076428
haha. The FBI is a joke.

Occam's razor

>>11077659

It's terrific!

>>11076891
this guy is right
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxStSCGNhlA

its weird that kaczinski's analysis is so cold and accurate in so many ways but the very idea of trying to stop technology through revolutionary violence is obviously impossible if you think it through

>>11072749
also for OP i just read a bunch of kaczinski's writings on a twitter account by one of his fanboys and have also been reading a bunch of Nick Land's essays, and i find that their assessment of things is often very similar - they even have the same moral intuition of technological society as an inhuman alien entity relentlessly subordinating mankind to machine logic but Land thinks that's good because fuck humans or something "Coldness be my God"

>>11081642
>is obviously impossible if you think it through

Go on, show us all your reasoning

>>11077371
You could have replaced all these smug words with an explanation of "anti tech" writers point.
That would be engaging in the discussion.
If their point is technological advance is inevitable, then why even border. It's inevitable. As in can not not happens.
They could use the various communication technology to advocate for less murderous weapons creation, or build a technology-free remote society and attract people there, or mail bombs to CEOs.
Infinite possibilities.

>>11077647
Crap chart cause it lacks Fredy Perlman, Carmatte and Bob Black. (And maybe Kevin Tucker) remake it.

>>11078305
He actually knows his shit /pol/ack retard. If you actually think mkultra was what the media displays then you are a "kook" as Ted says for your inability to do any research at all.

>>11075941
>One would think that the violence and torture which is now endemic everywhere would have people mobilized and up in arms against it, but instead it continues to flourish on a world scale.

he's not wrong. this doesn't mean you have the spanish inquisition skinning peoples alive but rather that violence and torture is widespread as a result of western politicians' decisions and western public indifference (and hypocrisy).

so, despite we pride ourself of valuing rights and justice, we torture people for fighting terrorism, the cartel chop people thanks to the war on drugs, 400k people die in syria because of western and russian's interests (that is higher than USA ww2 total deaths), or the creation of lybian's concentation camps employing torture and rape or silence towards turkey becoming a fascist regime to deal with the immigration problem.
just to name some widely know issues

>>11077654
one of the most famous Rousseau's idea is the noble savage
>Tout est bien sortant des mains de l'Auteur des choses, tout dégénère entre les mains de l'homme.
brainlet

>>11073739
>No jacques ellul
>the guy who inspired most of those authors and Ted as well
leftypol is fucking shit

>>11072749
The Dialectic of Enlightenment, specifically, the chapter titled "The Culture Industry"

Adorno - mass media & selected essays

Habermas

Mumford
Ellul
Jaime Semprun
Encyclopédie des Nuisances
Grothendieck

Strict luddism is just utopian though, and primitivism is laughable.

>>11073739
Lmao. No.

>>11082541
It's strictly a guide to bookchinism tho

>>11081551
t. FBI

>>11072749
Byung chul-han makes much better diagnosis of capitalism following actual logic and without falling into unfounded utopian thought.
He's not anarcoprim, just an accurate and simple philosopher.
Read burnout society, society of transparency and psicopolitics. They're easy reads eventhough his prose is robotic.

>>11084199
>makes much better diagnosis of capitalism
Kaczynski never addresses capitalism
>unfounded utopian thought
ISaiF is the most lucid and pragmatic take on technology published
>anarcoprim
He rips apart anprims in every book of his, good try though

Time to read the hour long manifesto! Difficult!

>>11084652
>Kaczynski never adresses capitalism
He adresses burocracy, rationalisation and liberalism.
>ISaiF is the most lucid and pragmatic take on technology published
Read anything by the Tiqqunim, they're actual philosophers. ISaiF is a chaotic mess of aporetic reasoning. I admit that there are some good ideas, but nothing new or original.
>He rips apart anprims in every book of his
He's the JK Rowling of anti-development writers.

Team to read something else besides the hour long manifesto! Difficult!

Read and look into:

Jacques Ellul
Marshal McLuhan
Guy Debord
Tiqqun's Raw Materials for a Theory of The Young Girl
The Last Psychiatrist
Marcuse's One Dimensional Man
Adorno's The Culture Industry

>>11081642
This is kind of just an autistic, and backwards, game theory of what Perlman had said. He was arguably the first anarcho-primitivist and pointed out the paradox of militarisation in revolt.
The reality is that tribes don't function in that way, nor do they think so mechanistically. Basic anthropology teaches us that the most violent tribes are also the most isolated while more advanced anthropology teaches us that their rituals and religious thought function as something of a pre-absolution against schismogenesis. Perlman's idea is basically that something else happens, a catastrophe into which the tribe isolates and instrumentalises itself. And this is aligned with origin myths - catastrophes create new peoples.

>>11084816
>Basic anthropology
Any recs? Do we have a chart for anthropology?

>>11084804
>He adresses burocracy, rationalisation and liberalism.
Only burocracy in that.
>ISaiF is the most lucid and pragmatic take on technology published
>ISaiF is a chaotic mess of aporetic reasoning. I admit that there are some good ideas, but nothing new or original.
ISAIF is honesty a bit chaotic I give you that. Kaczynski doesn't try to be a philosopher and doesn't not try to be new or original. The whole intend and bombing campaign has gone all above your head. If he just wants to be a mere philosopher and be original and new then he would have done the exact same as Zerzan and Perlman.

>He's the JK Rowling of anti-development writers.
And no substance, Ted his critique of anprims is the best there is besides the crap bookchin produced.

>Team to read something else besides the hour long manifesto! Difficult!
Then go do that will ya. would be nice if Communization would leave the philosophers circkle jerk and actually gets a Revolutionary movement going. Oh wait the left is coopted to it's core, if only someone pointed that out.

The Foundation for Exploration by Sean Goonan is anti-tech and focuses on the concept of powerlessness in modern society in a philosophical way.

>>11084961
The Forest People
Society Against The State
Structural Anthropology
Not really basic, but very good books from diverse perspectives.

>>11084972
Are we talking about ISAIF or about the whole persona of theodore kaczynski?
Yeah, i'm aware that it's a fucking manifesto, not a philosophical treatise. But if we limit the discussion to the text on itself, there are better works that aknowledge the question of todays societies and "human freedom" (technology, as this dudes understand it, isn't the only issue, it's just part of the issue, and not the most prominent one).
I agree that the "production of left discourse" is not propotional with actual practice. But we're not debating that.
Anyway i haven't read almost anything by anprims, everytime i come by any of their texts i just get to confirm the bias that they're clowns.
Btw i didn't even know that kaczynski had written anything besides the manifesto, i will give it a look.

If you want to pinpoint precisely what is wrong with the world read all of the following:

>The Technological Society
>Simulacra & Simulation
>The Society of the Spectacle
>The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times
>Das Kapital
>Propaganda (either Bernays of Ellul is fine but Ellul's is better)

Or if you want the tl;dr just read pic related.

>>11073746
i think his mainfesto is just more clear to the public now

>>11081923
well, in brief...

technologies spread themselves through human hosts by population increase, colonization and warfare; a moralistic/ideological prohibition on technology or scientific progress can't halt the process for long. history is groups using new tech to steamroll other groups. someone invents the saddle, or the compound bow, or bronze working, or iron working, or the repeating rifle, or aircraft carriers; groups get in fights, group A develops an edge group B lacks in population, diseases and/or weapons; group A wins and expands their turf and the dominion of their technologies, or group B holds their own in the arms race and the effect re: technology is much the same, rinse and repeat. in a post-apocalyptic world (which is what we are talking about having to happen for An Prim - it requires a total collapse of industrial civilization), it’s impossible to stop that process from initiating again: you won't have the logistical means to support the very prohibition against technology over a large area that would be required. at most you could help facilitate a local "dark age" lasting a few centuries (probably more like decades; we would be collapsing from the internet and nuclear power plants, not stone roads and aqueducts) which would almost certainly not even entail a full return to pre-civilization hunter gatherism, and you would need modern weapons to effect this dark-age 'facilitation'. even if this works in one place with one group of people (or constellation of groups since population density pre-civilization is low and communications between pre-civilized peoples are between slow and nonexistent by modern standards – so how could you organize resistance if your an-prim utopia was threatened by technophiles?) some other group of people who lack anti-technic moral prohibitions will come along with more people (farming tech = higher pop) and more advanced weapons; eventually they'll invade you because they want your resources or land or they just don't like you. repeat function for every an-prim 'dark spot' on the map. 1/2

>>11081923
>>11085707
as previously mentioned the very revolutionary violence required to catalyze/deepen a technological dark age - and you would need A LOT of revolutionary violence, you can't sanely expect a majority or even plurality of people, many of whom have deeply-held pro-civ religious beliefs, to ever commit to a ludicrous fringe-of-the-fringe ideology like anprim - would require huge amounts of advanced weaponry so as to get the upper-hand on any well-equipped adversary, of whom there would be plenty. weapons are technology, and modern weapons are products of other modern technologies, including and especially the technologies required for coordinating armies and supporting them logistically – food, petrol, ammunition, more weapons, medicines, clothing, etc. you're in a trap, a similar trap to the one Marxists fell into who wanted to abolish the state (if you take Marxist orthodoxy at its word); the anprim idyll would hover over your embattled revolutionary state but never be realized, because there'd always be some dangerous external or internal rival, some new head of the hydra to chop off, which would require the skilful deployment of organized violence or at least the capacity to do so. to compete with hostile groups you’d either have to play their game or lose by default. there’s no third option. 2/2

>>11084816
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori#Invasion_by_Taranaki_M%C4%81ori

this doesn't have anything to do with "tribes" per se and little to do with how "they think." you're getting confused if you think this is an issue of anthropology and hunter-gatherer psychology distinct from the history of civilization and conflict more generally.

>>>/sci/694061
Someone posted the entire dissertation of his, as well as a number of letters and some other info. Very good quality thread for anyone interested

>>11086788

>>>/sci/9694061
Whoops

>>11085214
>we talking about ISAIF or about the whole persona of theodore kaczynski?
Both, Kaczynski is just entry Ellul but whom takes a revolution seriously instead of an abstract object.

>Yeah, i'm aware that it's a fucking manifesto, not a philosophical treatise.
Then why make the comparison? Bit retarded don't you think. And even saying that someone is or isn't a philosopher doesnt give them shit.
> (technology, as this dudes understand it, isn't the only issue, it's just part of the issue, and not the most prominent one).
What text did you read? Technology is litteraly the origin of the majority of the issues within the Manifesto and is required to be destroyed. Have you *read* it or skimmed it? Every internet asshole nowadays feels like they have a right to share their uneducated shit opinion about shit they barely understand while making up half of it's shit.

>I agree that the "production of left discourse" is not propotional with actual practice.
Wasn't my point but can agree the left does enjoy smelling their own farts and make no impact at all in Revolutionary politics. Maybe some niche communist group in India or Greece.

>>11085707
>it’s impossible to stop that process from initiating again:
Easy acces Resource Scarcity accasible by pre industrial Technology prevents a whole industrial revolution of happening on massive scale. (Industrial Revolution can actually happen once an advanced civilisation, it's a great filter) And easy acces mineral disposits are exausted Wich requires us to mine from more hard places Wich requires advanced mining Technology. Scarcity of coal that is required for optimal functioning of maschines (wood and charcoal is to ineffecient) , scarcity of easy acces oil, gas and other stuff to make feul off. To access most of the current and future Resources that are running out you need industrial Technology. It's a paradox, really.

Revival of all the conditions to initiate an industrial revolution like the scientific Revolution (Wich depended on the renaissance and to guide towards it) Colombian Exchange, Mass Colonialism (with it's resource extraction and wealth spike Wich can't most likely happen anymore), black death and it's suprising positive effects. And the whole legency of all other civilisations that need to be all restarted. Civilisations will appear no doubt, but an other industrial revolution and thus industrial civilisation? Impossible on this planet. We had our chance and if we collapse now (Wich is a high possibility with the current ecological collapse happening) then humanity will have failed to pass a great filter and will never get in space again. Your making a good point against anprims but nothing against neo-luddites like Ted k whom are not against civilisation and domestication. (Ted is against civilisation but realizes the impossibility of preventing that, preventing an other Industrial revolution in comparison is a more plausible option.)

Little extra comment to the first post. You neglect the importance of the difference between industrial Technology and pre-industrial Technology. Post-industrial Technology is system ingrained Technology that creates a whole system of Dependence (people and tools and methods depend on each other to function) and also with this every Technological innovation requires increased effeciency of related Technology and techniques to maintain and sustain the new Technology. This creates a chain effect of forced innovation and a creation of a complex system. This logic is called technique and this logic is the issue with Ted as it's progress means the inevitable appliance of technique to everything in existance for the survival and self propagation of the system. All tools, methods, people, life, Eco systems and all that. A process of problem solving and problem creation that integrates everything eventually to the Technological system.

>>11087243
This is why Ted says that it's the industrial revolution and it's consequences were a disaster for the human race and not civilisation like Zerzan. Also why he keeps referencing to Technology as a system and not as mere tools. It's like the difference between simple barter and the whole system of capitalism. People who make the comparison that Technology or capitalism is a simple thing are ignorant on how complex things are.

Another extra comment. there are many idiots who think they can manage or create a society and think if you implement it that it would work. These people have their head stuck in theory and not in reality as real societies are much more complex and have a fuckton of conditions attached to it.

>>11085713
You do not require to appeal to the masses to create an effective destructive Revolutionary force able to cripple a modern nation. Only a Fringe of a Fringe of commited forces that hit it where it hurts not to control important places them but to destroy them. (And it's side effects of economic crisis that spreads to other countries creating breeding ground for new forces in that nation to apply the same. Also other forces like fash or communist can appear fueling further instability) A sort of cannibalistic relationship where scorched Earth will be applied to everything. You only need to hit 12 weak places to destroy the grid of the us for a year. Factor this with how much instability you create the opportunity for total destruction of the system is very possible among the chaos. Only way to prevent is to create isolated totalitarian nations that try to maintain stability at all cost.

>>11087149
Where's your reading comprensión m8.
By "technology, as this dudes understand it, isn't the only issue, it's just part of the issue, and not the most prominent one".
I was shortly stating my opinión and that of many others. Technology is an important part of todays subjectivation devices, but its naive to think about "human nature" and "freedom" as some kind of unmediated human agency which can only exist by isolating It from external actors. Getting rid of cars, mills, steam machines and computers won't magically produce "human freedom". Moreover, technology might be a device todo achieve socialism.
Read anything by Donna haraway or Science studies: Woolgar, Latour. Even Deleuze without talking specifically about technology proves how naive antidevelopment thinkers are.

>>11073739
Kaczynski thinks leftists are severely mentally ill
You are btw