Disprove him without using:

[Anonymous No.14690388]

>strawmen
"He wants us to return to the Stone Age!"
>appeal to emotion and genetic fallacy
"How can he be right, he's a MURDERING TERRORIST"
>ad hominem
"He was incel, had a tyranny phase, raped dogs to death with a knife, was an MK-Ultra victim, etc."
>tu quoque
"How can you be against technological growth if you uses technology lmao gottem"
>appeal to nature
"Technological growth isn't bad because humans are naturally predisposed to it"
>just-world hypothesis
"Ted was a loser who couldn't cope with society's demands, it's his fault"

[Anonymous No.14690392]

>>14690388
*tranny phase

[Anonymous No.14690416]

>>14690388
How's your hairline compared to Uncle Ted's, /lit/?

[Anonymous No.14690421]

>>14690388
>He wants us to return to the Stone Age!
But that's a good thing

[Anonymous No.14690432]

>>14690388
>We did it Teddy! We got rid of technology! Now individual freedom shall reign supreme!
>Wtf? Why can't I sustain myself while living alone? Why does society shun me for being a loner? What do you mean that individualism and freedom were enabled by technology and that pre-industrial societies were highly restrictive and collectivistic?
>OK, that's actually a trade-off I'm willing to make. But how do we deal with these boomstick-wielding foreigners that came to enslave us?

[Anonymous No.14690436]

there's no disproving TK since he's right about everything

[Anonymous No.14690444]

>>14690436
b&t

[Anonymous No.14690458]

>>14690432
>individualism and freedom were enabled by technology
Who the fuck believes this? Try living off the techno grid, it's next to impossible. In the past you could live as a mountain man much easier, and all pre-industrial societies weren't the same

[Anonymous No.14690474]

>>14690388
He didn´t live long enough to arrive at final imperative of his philosophy. And that imperative is Negro suprematism.

As long as whites and yellows are alive, they will be developing technology and larger, more regimented societies. Only when they are violently removed from this world, shall humanity be free, as impulsiveness and low intelect of negro will protect it from techno-civilizational opression.

[Anonymous No.14690475]

>>14690432
>But how do we deal with these boomstick-wielding foreigners that came to enslave us?
Irrelevant to his point. Territorial struggle based on technological progress exists today as well.

[Anonymous No.14690477]

>>14690388
Why would I want to disprove someone who isn't wrong?

[Anonymous No.14690487]

>>14690388
The only thing he got wrong is optimism that there is still enough time to overthrow technology. It's too late

[Anonymous No.14690498]

>>14690432
All of this has been discussed by TK himself, read his works beyond the manifesto. What are you? Some kind of pleb who only reads manifesto? Kek.

>What do you mean that individualism and freedom were enabled by technology and that pre-industrial societies were highly restrictive and collectivistic?
yes, he agrees with you and wrote an entire book on this topic.

>>14690474
I've thought long about this, and the massive surge of african demographics give me hope, because there is absolutely no way the predicted 400 million nigerians will ever become civilized.

[Anonymous No.14690508]

>>14690458
>Try living off the techno grid, it's next to impossible
It´s much, much easier than in past, cuz you can buy metal tools, food, books and firearms (like teddy did). In the past, mountain folk would live in villages with some spread out herdsman.

>and all pre-industrial societies weren't the same
Sure, but most of them weren't like ancient Finnland.

[Anonymous No.14690518]

>>14690475
Irrelevant to my point. Society that puts his through in action, will be cucked by society that doesn't. Meaning that anti-tech revolution is futile struggle that will lead only to one's enslavement instead of liberation. Only possible solution would be enviromental destruction of unimaginable scale that would render human civilization incapable of advancing technologically.

[Anonymous No.14690521]

>>14690388
Why? The ad hominems are enough to sink him.

[Anonymous No.14690524]

>>14690388
WHy would you destroy the industrial system to increase happiness/reduce suffering when you could become a wirehead and turn everything into hedonium instead?

https://qualiacomputing.com/2016/08/20/wireheading_done_right/

[Anonymous No.14690527]

>>14690518
Your point is irrelevant since you're throwing your pleb opinion without argumentation while TK published books arguing for his stance.

> Society that puts his through in action, will be cucked by society that doesn't. Meaning that anti-tech revolution is futile struggle that will lead only to one's enslavement instead of liberation
You think TK overlooked this? Lmao, that's the entire point of Anti-tech revolution, retard.

[Anonymous No.14690528]

>>14690524
The absolute state of urbanites

[Anonymous No.14690533]

>>14690527
That's lot of words not disproving my point.

[Anonymous No.14690551]

>>14690524
Qualia computing is really interesting, love this website yet I'm deeply anti-tech. Have you ever realized that most transhumanist proponents are race bastards? Mutts of the highest complexion. Alienated, debased urban entities with no culture, history or ancestry. It is only logical that they push for the total atomization of humanity.

[Anonymous No.14690575]

>>14690416
Norwood 3 at age 25, took the shaved head pill and am satisfied with my decision.

[Anonymous No.14690581]

>>14690533
You literally parroted TK's arguments thinking you were proving him wrong. As always, I might add, it happens in every TK thread. It happened last week, some zoomer held the exact same points, down to the reply 'well prove me wrong'. Well, I'll prove you right instead, since, I'll reiterate, the point of anti-tech revolution is PRECISELY what you said:
>Society that puts his through in action, will be cucked by society that doesn't. Meaning that anti-tech revolution is futile struggle that will lead only to one's enslavement instead of liberation
Yes, yes. That's the entire problematic TK tackles in his works.

[Anonymous No.14690651]

>>14690581
>Yes, yes. That's the entire problematic TK tackles in his works.
*fails to tackle

Because through a "revolution", it is an unsolvable problem.

[Anonymous No.14690660]

>>14690416
Based hairline poster

[Anonymous No.14690781]

>>14690651
>Because through a "revolution", it is an unsolvable problem.
Yes, exactly, which is precisely why the anti-tech conception of 'revolution' is built upon the genius work of Ellul called "Autopsie de la révolution" and differs radically from the current understanding of a 'revolution'.

Maybe it's time to read Kaczynski because so far you agree 100% with him. Drop the contrarian act, you are a repressed anti-techer kek

[Anonymous No.14690816]

>>14690781
Is that why he spends so much time reviewing mass organizing and revolutionary strategy in anti-tech revolution?

Anyway, in what part of AT rev is he trying to solve the unsolvable?

[Anonymous No.14690826]

>>14690388
>raped dogs to death with a knife?
the fuck? did he?

[Anonymous No.14690880]

>>14690826
Take the Jiggerpill

[Anonymous No.14690903]

>>14690826
No it's mostly rumors. TK killed dogs in montana but never tortured them. When someone gets arrested, every crime is linked to them. He might or might not have done it.

Jigger hated TK just the way seething bugmen come to these threads to sperg, because dogs are domesticated, meaning their entire existence relies on the good functionning of the system, they intuitively know that big dick TK threatens their survival.

[Anonymous No.14690935]

(((Jigger)))

[Anonymous No.14690959]

>>14690524
Why do you think you'll be chosen for the utopia? The system will only use you as long as you are useful.

[Anonymous No.14691000]

>>14690388
His ideas were retarded and unrealistic

[Anonymous No.14691001]

>>14690903
>Jigger hated TK just the way seething bugmen come to these threads to sperg, because dogs are domesticated, meaning their entire existence relies on the good functionning of the system, they intuitively know that big dick TK threatens their survival.

Came here to post this. Dogs are degenerate.

[Anonymous No.14691013]

>>14690551
Transhumanism is the most cucked ideology ever.
>nnnngggghhhh I must only have PLEASANT EXPERIENCES
>I must completely SURRENDER MYSELF to a highly centralized hedonistic web planned out and controlled by my Jewish overlords
>I MUST COOOOOOM

[Anonymous No.14691027]

>>14691001
are you muslim or chink? dogs are awesome

[Anonymous No.14691040]

>>14691027
I feel sorry for dogs. They are bastardised and deformed. I love nature and I care about the wellbeing of animals, which is why I hate how they are tortured by becoming something they are not. It's kind of irrelevant but my known ancestry is 100% white.

[Anonymous No.14691136]

>>14690477
Linkola is most definitely underrated. Maybe he should've done crimes like TK so people would talk about his work more.

[Anonymous No.14691172]

>>14690474
He's still alive

[Anonymous No.14691184]

>>14691040
stop projecting then, dogs are the happiest beings.

[Anonymous No.14691193]

>>14691184
A transhumanist cuck plugged to a hedonic machine by his (((overlords))) is the happiest being in the existence, but do you really want to be like him?

[Anonymous No.14691253]

>>14691193
Yes he does, because he's a cuck.

[Anonymous No.14691281]

>>14690388
His only example of technological regression is the "muh roman roads" argument, but the roman emperor Diocletian laid the foundations for Feudal society and Medieval warfare. We can simply say roads did not provide a technical benefit to the conquering germans. Everything else falls apart from there.


also this topic should really be on >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.14691298]

>>14691281
/pol/ is NSFW, which makes it unsuitable for many of us. Also, this thread is discussing the content of a book.

[Anonymous No.14691329]

>>14691281
>We can simply say roads did not provide a technical benefit to the conquering germans
I don't understand how you could possibly make that assertion. Roads accelerate technological civilisation and its expansion.

All non-trivial technology is degenerate. I define non-trivial as being that which alters the environment substantially, for a period longer than several generations, or anything which requires more than one person or distribution of labour to manufacture.

[Anonymous No.14691330]

>>14691298
Then request that 4chan turns pol into a blue board.
that doesn't excuse an blatant disrespect of the rules.
this is a political thread larping as a lit thread

[Anonymous No.14691339]

>>14691330
This thread is about political philosophy, logic and argumentation. It should be on /lit/

[Anonymous No.14691340]

>>14691298
Unsuitable for pussies, maybe.

[Anonymous No.14691361]

>>14691330
It's funny how Marxist language spaghetti is perfectly fine to discuss on /lit/, but an author who threatens your worldview is somehow "off topic".

[Anonymous No.14691365]

>>14691329
>Roads accelerate technological civilization and its expansion.
>assertion without proof
Ellul explicitly states that tools or techniques that do not provide short term benefits (like square rods to circular rods) are abandoned.
Keeping the roman social structure is not a regression.

>>14691339
>This thread is about political philosophy, logic and argumentation.
yeah so >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.14691367]

>>14691361
Not a marxist faggot

[Anonymous No.14691377]

>>14691365
>yeah so >>>/pol/
Dear sir, this is a board for literature and philosophy. Political philosophy is philosophy. Logic and rhetoric are very closely tied to philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14691407]

>>14691365
>assertion without proof
Being connected to the system means being rapidly diluted and absorbed into it. A recent example would be the introduction of railroads in rural America (Approx 150 years ago). There is no dispute this radically altered the social fabric of previously isolated communities, basically destroying them.

We can also see the expansion of technological civilisation into "developing" nations, with the ease of global connectivity and relatively low cost of exporting labour. This has completely ruined countries like India for example. Technological civilisation strips all culture it deems not useful and combines all people into an amorphous blob of consumerism to serve the system and its continued acceleration.

[Anonymous No.14691426]

>>14691407
>"developing" nations, with the ease of global connectivity and relatively low cost of exporting labour. This has completely ruined countries like India for example. Technological civilisation strips all culture it deems not useful and combines all people into an amorphous blob of consumerism to serve the system and its continued acceleration.
Yes, the global technological society seeks out and forces all under its rules. You can't go back in time and undo it. People won't forget how things were and conditions can only go back to what they are now. Ted provides no reasonable solution for getting rid of Tech. At most he's given a self-help book that only serves to make retards like you feel smart.

[Anonymous No.14691448]

>>14691377
>Political philosophy is philosophy
Political philosophy is political

[Anonymous No.14691460]

>>14691426
As opposed to making you feel smart for supporting it? The future AI "god" doesn't need you, you're just a useful idiot... for now.

[Anonymous No.14691473]

>>14690388
If he's right about the power process, then he's hypocritically wrong if he believes humans can the handicap themselves from using agriculture as a leverage. Adam Smith posits that every human being often has the desire to accumulate property and goods useful to life. There is simply no escaping out of this, so long as human beings have the desire to continuously expand or change

[Anonymous No.14691474]

>"Technological growth isn't bad because humans are naturally predisposed to it"
>>just-world hypothesis

How exactly is that a 'just-world hypothesis', and how is thinking that a theoretical future without civilization - whether done by individuals/communities running away to the forest, or by removing these technologies/systems from society itself - is possible, let alone functional for any extended period of time, not in itself the biggest 'just-world hypothesis' here?

Also
>appeal to nature

Ted's entire argument is appeal to nature, and to the noble savage.

[Anonymous No.14691484]

>>14690388
>>appeal to nature
all his theory is literally an appeal to nature.

[Anonymous No.14691486]

>>14691460
>As opposed to making you feel smart for supporting it?
I don't support it. These are just counter-arguments from Ellul. Ted's work is very derivative of the communist call to action.

[Anonymous No.14691491]

>>14691486
Have you read Ted's second book? He doesn't encourage any such action.

[Anonymous No.14691504]

>>14690388
Surrogacy in meaningfulness cannot be demonstrated.

[Anonymous No.14691507]

>>14691474
Appeal to nature is not a fallacy, nature is a very useful template for what is and what is meant to be.

[Anonymous No.14691515]

>>14690388
>/lit/ - Literature and Antagonistic Manlets Barking Into The Void
Is this what people who are shit at video games do in their spare time

[Anonymous No.14691521]

>>14691507
Eternal stasis is wrong. Evolution has already proven that nature doesn't stay still

[Anonymous No.14691524]

>>14691448
This topic fits both in /pol/ and /lit/, but here you're more likely to get replies that aren't just "dude joowz lmaooo"

[Anonymous No.14691525]

>>14691504
That depends how you believe meaning is derived. If you believe conscious beings decide or create what meaning is, then yes as a concept it's irrelevant. I don't believe we create meaning, we are given it by God, any other is a surrogate/false meaning.

[Anonymous No.14691526]

>>14690388
No, prove all of those arguments are the fallacies you say they are. After you've done that, prove those fallacies are illogical. I'll wait.

[Anonymous No.14691528]

>>14690388
What's it matter if he's right? We have been doomed ever since the agricultural revolution and there's no turning back.

[Anonymous No.14691533]

>>14691474
Read the OP again, the "humans are naturally predisposed to it" argument is appeal to nature, not just world hypothesis
Following greentext isn't that hard, mate

[Anonymous No.14691537]

>>14691521
Civilisation is not evolution. When ideology took over from DNA, it ceased to be evolution in any biological sense, departing from the rest of history.

[Anonymous No.14691538]

>>14691525
>I don't believe we create meaning, we are given it by God
Okay, can you demonstrate how it's received?

[Anonymous No.14691541]

>>14691474
>>14691484
Ted's worldview isn't an appeal to nature.
Appeal to nature is when you say something is good because it's natural. He claims a more "natural" lifestyle is better because [many reasons].

[Anonymous No.14691545]

There is no reason to believe depression was not as prevalent in pre-industrial societies as today

[Anonymous No.14691547]

>>14691528
Read the Anti-Tech Revolution: How and Why.

[Anonymous No.14691551]

>>14691545
Many primitive tribes don't even have a concept of depression

[Anonymous No.14691555]

>>14691486
>I don't support it.
I meant that i am neutral to it.

>>14691545
Thats a good argument man. can I save it?

[Anonymous No.14691557]

>>14691526
Are you retarded? They're wrong because they don't address his actual argument, they just pussyfoot around him or misrepresent him

[Anonymous No.14691563]

>>14691551
Well it's hard to be depressed when you have to fear for your life every waking moment of it.

[Anonymous No.14691565]

>>14691557
>they just pussyfoot around him or misrepresent him
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.14691566]

>>14691545
Suicide is not prevalent in tribal societies and we can study the trends from developing nations. Industrialisation trends very strongly with increased depression, alienation, divorce, nihilism, atheism, suicide etc.

[Anonymous No.14691570]

>>14691565
Prove I have to prove it.

[Anonymous No.14691576]

>>14691570
I can't, that's completely up to you.

[Anonymous No.14691579]

>>14691576
Prove it.

[The Man !QkRJTXcpFI No.14691582]

>>14690388
He is extending his interpretation of the negative impact of technology that he has experienced to everyone in advanced civilization, assuming everyone else will suffer from it the same way he did.
At the end of the day, he is just trying to reorder civilization according to his wishes, and any argument that he makes comes back to this very point, so then we ask ourselves, why does he want to reorganize it in this way? Then we look at his disconnect with the world, his mental issues (nearly became a tranny), his breakdowns, his failures, his ressentiment, that lead him into a cabin in the woods, seething and screeching at "technology" because he needs to externalize his failures and blame something other than himself for them. He then enacts his little pathetic plan, kills a literally-who journalist or something like that, and of course gets caught because it is the hyperadvanced cybertech civilization with scifi spy equitment and armies of millions vs some scrawny frog crafting homemade contraptions out of scraps who is unable to advance his crafts because of ressentiment.

[Anonymous No.14691584]

>>14691579
No.

[The Man !QkRJTXcpFI No.14691595]

>>14691557
But they did address his argument, you didn't hear? Their response was finding him with modern technology and throwing him in prison.

[Anonymous No.14691603]

>>14691582
Put me in the screencap

[Anonymous No.14691612]

>>14691582
Technological civilisation pathologises anyone who finds flaws in its premises, disregarding them as mentally ill, maligned, broken etc. You're defining your idea of "normal" from a system which has an agenda to redefine "normal" in terms which suits its own advancement,

[Anonymous No.14691617]

>>14690903
>Jigger hated TK just the way seething bugmen come to these threads to sperg, because dogs are domesticated, meaning their entire existence relies on the good functionning of the system, they intuitively know that big dick TK threatens their survival.
Thanks for giving me a good laugh, I fucking love edgy 4chan psychopaths (and no I’m not a “newfag” or “redditor”).

>>14690388
He’s basically right in many respects but
A.) futile
B.) created very bad karma for himself with the techniques he used
C.) has an overall naive and reductionist is view (equally as naive as the Enlightenment view of eternal human technological progress leading us into a Golden Age) of human history and progression

[Anonymous No.14691627]

>>14691612
Circular logic

[Anonymous No.14691631]

>>14691617
>equally as naive as the Enlightenment view of eternal human technological progress leading us into a Golden Age
This view and Ted's view are the only perspectives that exist. Everything else is just hiding from the truth.

[Anonymous No.14691632]

Found a rare pic of Jigger

[The Man !QkRJTXcpFI No.14691641]

>>14691537
Civilization is technological evolution. You aren't going to make a flat screen TV with a bunch of savages at war with eachother.

[Anonymous No.14691652]

>>14691617
>has an overall naive and reductionist is view (equally as naive as the Enlightenment view of eternal human technological progress leading us into a Golden Age) of human history and progression
Ted isn't utopian. In his books he constantly repeats that return to our roots won't make our society better, just less bad. This is one of the reasons why he criticizes anarchoprimitivism

[Anonymous No.14691660]

>>14691627
No, you gaslighting shitbag, I showed the positive and negative representations of the critique which completely disables your argument. There is nothing circular about my assertion, you're just being straight up dishonest. And you are glow in the dark as fuck.

The OP also retro-actively refuted you with these points:

>"How can you be against technological growth if you uses technology lmao gottem"
>appeal to nature
>just-world hypothesis
>"Ted was a loser who couldn't cope with society's demands, it's his fault"

[Anonymous No.14691689]

>>14691632
>Son, why do you have a pic of a dog in Jewish garment on your phone?
Erm... You see, mom... It's... There was this anti-technology terrorist called Ted Kaczynski who raped a dog to death with a knife.
>What?
Um... Yeah... And... There's this internet forum I visit where we talk about Ted, and I saved this image to post it there.
>Why is the dog Jewish???
Umm... Cause... It's meant to show Ted wasn't wrong in killing the dog because the dog was shifty and subversive and...
>Son, you're grounded. Now give me your phone. No technology for you for a while.

[The Man !QkRJTXcpFI No.14691693]

>>14691612
I don't have a definition of "normal". All I see is people hitting every branch on the way down in modern civilization, and THEN getting diagnosed as mentally ill, and THEN hating all of technology and civilization out of pathetic ressentiment.
You want to destoy technology because it hurts you and you don't know how to use it to influence others.
You want to destory civilization because you hit every branch on the way down it.

[Anonymous No.14691706]

>>14691582
>>14691660
your argument does not address the central point to THE MAN's argument.
>Technological civilisation pathologises anyone who finds flaws in its premises
TECH BAD
ME NO THINK
YOU THINK BECAUSE TECH BAD

[Anonymous No.14691708]

>>14691582
>assuming everyone else will suffer from it the same way he did.
Wrong. He is explicit about this.
>At the end of the day, he is just trying to reorder civilization according to his wishes
Technically true but wrong. Anyone doing politics is just "trying to reorder civilization according to his wishes" so I fail to see how this is a conter-argument. TK is explicit about his wish and what is possible: he wishes to go back to hunter-gthering time but knows we can't destroy civilization, only industrial society. Solving this dichotomy is something Marxism was never able achieve, even theoretically.
> externalize his failures and blame something other than himself for them
Youngest math professor of his time, at Harvard. Solved mathematical problems at the frontier of his discipline; recognized in his field as one of the most promising genius of his time. Successful in his career, successful in living in the wild, succesful with reaching an audience; successful in hiding from the most powerful government on earth in a 18yo he would still be free if it wasn't for his brother (!!) betrzying him, successful in his analysis & critique. One of the most successful and accomplished living person in the world.
>and of course gets caught because it is the hyperadvanced cybertech civilization with scifi spy equitment etc
absolutely wrong, but I just answered it above. Did you know the TK manhunt was the most expensive manhunt until bin laden? That's right. If it wasn't for his brother, tech engineers, lab technicians and deforestation lobbyists would still piss themselves opening their mail.
What is it with TK that fills people with dishonesty when they read him? IF they have read him, which I'm not even sure

[Anonymous No.14691718]

>>14691582

Based nietzscheposter

[Anonymous No.14691721]

>>14691708
>What is it with TK that fills people with dishonesty when they read him? IF they have read him, which I'm not even sure
see>>14691426

[Anonymous No.14691722]

>>14691652
>Ted isn't utopian
He goes way beyond just not being utopian. He terminated Idealism.

[Anonymous No.14691732]

>>14691708
>IF they have read him, which I'm not even sure
Most people who participate in Ted threads clearly haven't read him

[Anonymous No.14691736]

>>14691136
He's a circus animal in Finland. They drag him out of his cottage every now and then for some interviews to show how horrible a life without globohomo technological empire would be. Such a shame.

[Anonymous No.14691753]

>>14691706
His argument is literally refuted in the OP. It's just an ad-hom, accusing Ted's worldview as a cope and a mental illness. Who defines what is illness or what is abnormal? The technological system. My refutation is precisely on point. It's not my fault if you lack reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.14691755]

>>14690508
>Sure, but most of them weren't like ancient Finnland.

What do you mean by this?

[Anonymous No.14691757]

>>14691722
>He terminated Idealism.
How exactely? Be whining how bad the society is and trying to convince enough people that it is bad so that he can have his revolutionary vanguard?

[Anonymous No.14691772]

>>14690388
He wants us to return to the Stone Age. Have fun without living with modern medicine or engineering. Also, how can you support a fucking terrorist? HE MURDERED PEOPLE. He was clearly unhinged, as evidenced by his gender dysphoria. Humans are predisposed to advance technology, and even if somehow we regressed to primitive times, technology would flourish all again. In the end, Ted was jus a loser who couldn't cope with society's demands.

[Anonymous No.14691784]

>>14691693
Not an argument.

I have a great career, a wife, a house, a car. Very successful and accomplished people have also found agreement with Ted's ideas (See the essay by Bill Joy for example).

Even if I showed you thousands of successful people who achieved comfort in technological society and still found the same critiques, it still wouldn't be an argument.

Because what you are doing is not an argument.

You couldn't even see how the OP refuted your reply before you wrote it, so we shouldn't be expecting a lot from someone of your intelligence.

[The Man !QkRJTXcpFI No.14691793]

>>14691708
>Wrong. He is explicit about this.
I have read his shitty book. He imposes his stupid "power process" on everyone in civilization.
>Anyone doing politics is just "trying to reorder civilization according to his wishes"
I know. I was breaking down all of his claims to being "irrefutable" here by showing what he is really doing.
>Youngest math professor of his time, at Harvard. One of the most successful and accomplished living person in the world.
Apparently you didn't read the book, where he scorns all education? Why would he ever do that? Maybe it is because BY FOCUSING ON NOTHING BUT MATH HE BECAME A PATHETIC MESS OF A COMPLEX OF RESENTFUL EMOTIONS, STRIVING FOR ANY SORT OF ESCAPE, WHETHER INTO THE BODY OF A WOMAN, FURTHER INTO ACADEMIA, OR INTO A FUCKING RINKY-DINK CABIN IN THE WOODS.
>Did you know the TK manhunt was the most expensive manhunt until bin laden?
It was never serious. If it was serious, they would've called in a million troops of the fucking US army and went to town. They went the pussy route because they knew he was a joke using homemade explosives that any group of physicists designing nuclear weapons for the army would've fallen over laughing at. Your hero is a pathetic mess. I wonder what that makes you?

[The Man !QkRJTXcpFI No.14691817]

>>14691784
And yet you do nothing but type on your keyboard and flap your lips. You don't actually believe Ted. If you did, you would move into a cabin in the woods and go to war with "civilization". But you WONT do that precisely because you don't believe it, and find advantage in modern technology and civilization. At least Ted believed in it and wasn't a pathetic poser like yourself.

[Anonymous No.14691823]

>>14691753
>>assuming everyone else will suffer from it the same way he did.
>Wrong. He is explicit about this.
He paints his detractors as just over-socialized midwits that are controlled by tech itself.

> Who defines what is illness or what is abnormal? The technological system.
see >>14691706

[Anonymous No.14691831]

>>14691722
>He terminated Idealism.
Based.

[Anonymous No.14691836]

>>14691772
Not defending Ted or anything, but to be fair, modern medicine and engineering are what is causing issues with climate change and overpopulation. If we want to sustain the benefits of those things, sooner or later, we're going to need to either terraform and coloninze other planets, or assemble the Infinity gauntlet.

[Anonymous No.14691852]

>>14691817
>If you did, you would move into a cabin in the woods...
This same objection comes up every thread. Urbanite plebs like yourself who never tried to live outside the system have no appreciation for the amount of barriers and the difficulty of achieving such a lifestyle. I've explained this hundreds of times, I can't be bothered any more.

"No one is stopping you!"... You have no idea.

Go back to drinking your onions latte and watching TV.

[Anonymous No.14691918]

>>14691852
Gotta love how people cling onto this argument. It's already covered in the OP and they STILL can't help themselves but to use tu quoque.

[Anonymous No.14691963]

>>14691193
no, you're still projecting, dogs are pets/working-dogs, have no capacity existential crises, just don't stab their anus with knife anon, that's fucking sick

[Anonymous No.14691972]

>>14691793
>It was never serious.
Ah yes, I see, the most expensive manhunt in history at the time was 'never serious'.

Stop humiliating yourself, tripfag.

[Anonymous No.14692175]

>>14690388
What I learned from this thread is that nobody can "disprove" him without using one of these fallacies. When anyone thinks they have a valid objection, it's just that they don't understand the fallacy they are using.

If any of you haven't read Ted's work, I implore you to do so.

[Anonymous No.14692181]

Are there any recent pictures of him? The newest ones I know are at least 20 years old. He must look old as fuck by now.

[Anonymous No.14692231]

Just as a heads up to people who will claim he was fucked by MK Ultra, an actual letter from him on this topic.

[Anonymous No.14692236]

>>14692181
I think the ones from this set are the newest

[Anonymous No.14692237]

>>14691918
My favorite of all the self-defense mechanisms.

[Anonymous No.14692261]

>>14692231
Wait... does he have access to the internet? The URL at the bottom makes me wonder.

I wish I could receive a letter from him but I'm too much of a pussy to write one. Not long left unfortunately.

[Anonymous No.14692358]

Probably the most fatal rebuttal of him is the null hypothesis: there is no proof that a world without advanced tech would be preferable. Primitivism is all well and good until a plague wipes out your village and a mountain lion snatches away your baby. Either man dominates nature or nature dominates man. Equilibrium is a cutesy myth.

[Anonymous No.14692393]

>>14692358
Humans have existed much longer as primitives (est. 150-300k years as anatomically modern humans) than they have as slaves to civilisation. That alone demolishes your argument. Now consider all of the potential world ending catastrophes we are capable of producing with modern tech.

[Anonymous No.14692401]

>>14690388
Give an argument why you shouldn't overthink the origin of someones writing who participated in a high level CIA mind control programm?

Also: many of his points at the end of his manifesto are congruent with the narrative pushed by the obviously controlled and socially engineered fridays for future movement.

[Anonymous No.14692420]

>>14691631
>>14691652
Riffing off of Nietzsche, you could say that the “sins” of industrialization and the technological era are inextricably bound up with its benefits. Think in terms of vast time periods of cosmic history. We’re apes who have pretty recently developed an intellect, it’s no wonder that in the short term we’re fucking it up. Our scientific development has far outpaced our moral and spiritual development. However, we’re way too far gone to just throw it all overboard as Kaczynski suggests. It may be that, ironically, this short term barbarism is paving the way for an eventual better age where we strike an enlightened balance between naive Enlightenment-idealism which holds technology inevitably makes everything better and equally naive Luddism, even if this future is thousands and thousands of years into the future, if not longer.

[Anonymous No.14692847]

>>14692401
He never did, but I guess holywood-tier disinfo is more interesting than real life. The state of americans....

Concerning the last point; you completely misunderstood his works. It has nothing to do with environmentalism, and everything to do with freedom(responsability) and dignity. Environmentalism is in focus insofar as it is an obstacle to freedom and dignity, but FC would rather see the planet destroyed than be part of a cybernetic 'eco-friendly' world where freedom and dignity are played with according to the system's needs.

[Anonymous No.14692861]

>>14692393
They existed, but existence alone does not indicate they lived good lives. It could have just been a long painful hell.

[Anonymous No.14692880]

>>14690575
>shaved head pill
Cringe

[Anonymous No.14692895]

>>14692861
Animals are evolved to derive pleasure from useful labour. What we do in the modern day just isn't useful directly to our survival. Even doing exercise feels good, imagine that but for every activity in the day. I think primitives would feel like gods compared to the modern man.

[Anonymous No.14692906]

>>14692420
>blablabla future blabla idealism blabla ideas of distant utopia in a galaxy far far away
bugman delusions, if you can't focus on the problems at hand; the immediate issues and urgency below your nose, then you are far removed from any ideal Nietszche came up with. If this future is thousands and thousands of years away; then it is of no relevance to me. In fact, dreams of a far away paradise are steeped in hebraic slave morality.

[Anonymous No.14692946]

>>14690474
HolyBased

[Anonymous No.14692964]

happiness is for pigs

[Anonymous No.14693106]

>>14691426
>People won't forget how things were and conditions can only go back to what they are now. Ted provides no reasonable solution for getting rid of Tech

He talks about this topic in Anti-tech Revolution. In the first half. It's an easy read.

[Anonymous No.14693132]

>relentless vivisection and refutation of theodore kaczynski's pap
he talks about this on his andidech rebolution xd
next

[Anonymous No.14693157]

No one here can actually "disprove" him without massively oversimplifying or misconstruing his arguments. It takes effort to actually go by the points in his books one by one. Most here probably haven't even touched anything but Industrial Society and Its Future

[Anonymous No.14693164]

>>14693132
No point arguing for him when you're going to be like this, but keep bumping these threads, that'll keep them off the front page, moron.

[Anonymous No.14693181]

>>14693164
There are enough refutations available on the internet, not going to google for you

[Anonymous No.14693192]

>>14693181
Wow, another bump. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.14693212]

OP's argument in a nut shell:
>first assume Ted was correct about everything
>now try to argue against his points
>haha you can't because you already established he's right about everything!
Wow what an amazing rhetorician OP is. I think we can all learn from him, that the key to arguing successfully is to preemptively declare yourself the winner.

[Anonymous No.14693219]

>>14693192
no problem redditfriend, I love participating in meaningful discussion

[Anonymous No.14693247]

>>14693219
I've been here since when they used to call reddit, gaia and ebaums. You are small time. Here's another protip: use the 'sage' function.

[Anonymous No.14693263]

>>14693132
>I didn't read the book but still wish to discuss its content
You had the balls to write this post? Zoomers are fucking braindead... wow

[Anonymous No.14693271]

>>14693247
this is the average theodore kaczynski drone
dont reply

[Anonymous No.14693280]

>>14693181
I thought the refutation was on this very thread according to your post >>14693132 so which is it? has he been refuted in this thread or is the argumentation solely found in google search results?

[Anonymous No.14693286]

>>14693271
this is the average theodore kaczynski drone
dont reply

[Anonymous No.14693289]

Ted's diagnosis is correct, but he mysteriously never gives any thought to the potential ability of a completely unified people using technology for the single purpose of advancing humanity in a divine or spiritual way. A natural way.
He applies capitalist thought to the entirety of its use and potential, which isn't wrong but is limiting.

[Anonymous No.14693292]

Its already been tried

[Anonymous No.14693309]

>>14693280
at least try to keep up. pic related (pbuh)

[Anonymous No.14693330]

>>14693289
>He applies capitalist thought
He pushes rationalisation to its logical conclusion, which capital happens to be a spawn of. Which is the 'irony' and strength of his works, a materialist and rational manifesto against materialism and rationalisation. You're right that it's somehow limiting, and excludes any type of non materialist point of view, but then it remains correct for what it aims to be. Marxism failed at being thoroughly materialist with its teological claims, which history proved to be wrong. As I often repeat, it is no coincidence that marxist erudites all left marxism behind and switched to an anti-tech stance.

>a completely unified people
doesn't exist, never existed, will never exist: belongs to the realm of idealism

[Anonymous No.14693368]

>>14693212
Are you daft? The OP doesn't assume Ted was correct about everything in any way.
Seems like you're unable to come up with any argument against Ted that isn't one of the fallacies addressed in the OP so you admit defeat and call the OP a cheater.

[Anonymous No.14693405]

>>14693289
Ted would tell you that any society which did not utilize technology to its fullest, most invasive and exploitative potential would likely be overrun and destroyed by societies with fewer scruples.

[Anonymous No.14693499]

>>14693330
>doesn't exist, never existed, will never exist: belongs to the realm of idealism
Idealism? Maybe, but people do form real bonds and there have been such things as good kings.
We would be talking about something approaching a benevolent dictatorship.
Ted's retort would be that technology would outlast the goodness of any one leader, but this still reeks of modernist understanding of societies.

>>14693405
A righteous society should have no qualms wiping out any and all invasive/exploitative societies using the same technology they would use against them.

[Anonymous No.14693543]

>>14690388
Absolutely based post OP. Also nice dubs.

[Anonymous No.14694728]

>>14691504
>>14691538
Why no further response to this?

[Anonymous No.14694746]

>>14691563
case closed

[Anonymous No.14694749]

I love how most fans of this guy make these desperate cries for help. They want someone, anyone, to rescue them from their intellectual Stockholm syndrome they’ve gotten into with this guy.

[Anonymous No.14694751]

To everyone in this thread: wouldn't it be great if we got off this site and made something of ourselves? There that was his argument. Case closed he was right.

[Anonymous No.14694760]

>>14694751
wtf are you even saying

[Anonymous No.14694787]

>>14692906
Ok, so then what are you going to do in the short term hotshot? Nietzsche would laugh at grand political and social reformers who idealize changing the world or society instead of just aristocratically looking out for themselves and their own class. You’re gonna overthrow technological society? You’re going to reverse industrialization? Go ahead and give me some meaningful plan or framework for this.

Short of that, it’s just masturbating on the Internet. I view ted as somewhat noble (inasmuch as a terrorist can be noble) but futile. Things have to get a whole lot worse before they can get any better, unfortunately small enclaves of intelligent people can’t really buck these type of huge historical and sociopolitical trends going on.

[Anonymous No.14694812]

>>14693499
>A righteous society should have no qualms wiping out any and all invasive/exploitative societies using the same technology they would use against them.
Okay. However, the reason Systems adopt all of the things that Ted decries is that those things make the System more fit and robust (often at the cost of individuals' well-being). By definition, according to Ted, the more technologically fucked up a System is, the more likely it is to dominate its adversaries. These things are chosen not by men themselves but by ruthless Darwinian selection pressures. It isn't a matter of moral fortitude and being righteous. Survival does not give one fuck about righteousness. All that matters is force and the ability to muster power.

This is outlined in Anti-Tech Revolution, if you haven't read it.

[Anonymous No.14695052]

>>14690575
>shaved head pill
Pathetic. The hairstyle of thralls

[Anonymous No.14695409]

>>14692261
Yea Ted has grown towards the internet as he learn't more about it. He believes that closed internet consisting of a mailing service can be used in a manner which is productive to society.

[The Man !QkRJTXcpFI No.14695468]

>>14691972
That is the best reply you could muster to that complete sodomizing of your hero. All I have to say is: lol. Not one life was sacrificed to capture him. Not ONE. It seems like you have no knowledge of history at all. The word "war" is not even in your vocabulary.

[The Man !QkRJTXcpFI No.14695488]

>>14691708
>>assuming everyone else will suffer from it the same way he did.
>Wrong. He is explicit about this.
Even here you are dishonest. And you have the audacity to call ME dishonest? The first line of your pathetic hero's work is "the industrial revolution and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race." What is that but the most extreme generalization of his suffering, extending it to the whole abstraction, humanity, and externalizing the blame on "technology", "industry", etc.

[cunt No.14695495]

>>14690388
>>strawmen
>"He wants us to return to the Stone Age!"
I did not know that was a strawman, I thought we was a primitiveist.

[Anonymous No.14695499]

>>14690388
He's wrong because Land is right.

[Anonymous No.14695888]

>>14690388
Nice work OP.

[Anonymous No.14695919]

How could you disprove a prediction? His diagnosis, I agree for the most part, but it’s also exaggerated. His personal grievances aren’t mine or society as a whole. However, I do respect him

[Anonymous No.14696283]

>>14695495
Read his works.
This is a stereotype, I guess people confuse him with Zerzan or something

[Anonymous No.14696448]

He never had a stable relationship with a woman.

[Anonymous No.14696496]

>>14696448
He did in prison. It’s actually the most interesting thing about him imo. Read up on it it’s touching.

[Anonymous No.14696574]

>>14691755
>he doesn’t know

[Anonymous No.14696598]

>>14690388
is his book actually worth reading?

[Anonymous No.14696606]

>>14696598
Both of his books are.

[Anonymous No.14696759]

>>14690388
He wasn't wrong about the problem.

The thing is, any population that abdicates from the technological 'arms race' will be at the mercy of those that don't. So we either find some non-dystopic way of reconciling with technology, or the genie is out of the bottle and the ride never ends.

[Anonymous No.14696778]

>>14690388
Easy, civilization and the industrial revolution had some negative effects on the human life and psyche, they also had positive effects that improved certain traits and conditions prior to them. Why throw the baby out with the bath water?

[Anonymous No.14696825]

>>14696778
You didn’t read the manifesto

[Anonymous No.14697049]

>>14696759
>any population that abdicates from the technological 'arms race' will be at the mercy of those that don't
He even admits as much. Read his second book for some solutions.

[Anonymous No.14697103]

>>14697049
>solutions
>Implying there can be solution, let alone multiple ones

[Anonymous No.14697126]

>>14690388
Dude I freaking love technology.

Sent from my MacBook

[Anonymous No.14697172]

>>14691507
Appeal to nature is the name of a fallacy. That doesn't mean to imply that all appeals to nature are fallacious.

[Anonymous No.14697551]

How do Ted fans reply to the fact that, while he criticizes leftists for rationalizing their inferiority complex in the face of America's success, he himself also couldn't fit in the status quo?

In alienating himself from technological society, he took refuge in weakness, and in trying to bring it down he expressed his own ressentiment and wanted everyone else to be brought down to his own level much like how leftists try to emasculated and "deconstruct" everything.

[Anonymous No.14697654]

>>14690388
in his manifesto he expresses his feelings against leftists, labeling them as degenerates, yet he says that society could be saved had it been managed closely by governments. i know hes an anarchist but i am confused as to where he stands when it comes to governing.

[Anonymous No.14697787]

>>14695888
why doesn't he receive royalties for his books?

[Anonymous No.14697855]

>>14690388
Technology isn't a net positive or a negative but It's progress is inevitable, trying to stop it with bombing your post office psychopathic and unhelpful.
Also posting this shit on a internet form is ironic at best.

[Anonymous No.14697888]

>>14691612
>>14691706
>Technological civilisation pathologises anyone who finds flaws in its premises
That's not at all exclusive to technological civilisation and you know it. Rebelling against society has always resulted in some sort of shunning by those that lived in it, be it by exile, seclusion as mentally unfit, social ostracism and outright murder.

[Anonymous No.14698131]

>>14697888
>and you know it

Up there with "its the current year" and "living rent free in your head" in the top tier of uninteresting non-descriptions. Your language and thoughts are all derivative of things you've read on forums. This is why you're an unfunny retarded faggot.

[Anonymous No.14698165]

>>14698131
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you were just being contrarian or slightly intelectually dishonest due to the nature of the posters on this site, but instead you showed me that you were serious and that you're actually retarded. So congratulations on tricking me, I guess.

[Anonymous No.14698294]

>>14697787
He’s not allowed to because of BOP rules. If he did the BOP would punish him.

[Anonymous No.14698392]

>>14698165
Different person dumbass. I was just critiquing your autistic pseud tone. Not only are you a retarded auti, you're a sensitive faggot.

[Anonymous No.14698413]

>>14698392
Hopefully the irony of calling someone a sensitive faggot and at the same time getting butthurt over a post directed at someone else isn't lost on you and your tiny brain.

[Anonymous No.14698435]

>>14690416
Still perfect at 36 thank god

[Anonymous No.14698512]

Technology isn't bad

[Anonymous No.14698521]

Does anyone have that picture of the early ape humans complaining about other apes using rocks as tools?

[Anonymous No.14698541]

Mishima's approach was more realistic. He romanticized old Japan and wars but knew himself that he was a dying breed and that you can't turn back the wheel of time. What would even be the point? So humans can live another couple hundreds of years before once again inevitably becoming more advanced? You can delay the inevitable but not forever

[Anonymous No.14699556]

>>14697551
Well?

[Anonymous No.14699574]

>>14690416
not receding yet, but not as good as his

[Anonymous No.14699660]

you cant disprove truth, why even make this thread?
everyone knows hes right... but to follow in his footsteps? insanity

there are too many of us on this planet to truly stop the constant craving of technological improvement, its not in the interest of people in power and if its in your interest as an individual, you will get shunned and mocked by the sheep masses
there will be no change, no matter what steps you take

[Anonymous No.14699730]

>>14690388
You attract more bees with honey rather than blowing them up.

He was anti social with an anti social philosophy.
If he had not been anti social and use mpre "subversion" rather than terror tactics i could see a need to dawn the mantle.
But he's just as bad, disinfranchised and powerless as the screaming baby libtards.

The use of antagonism against the state
HAS ALWAYS TURNED OUT POORLY FOR THE ANTAGONISTS.

Also what morality framework are we arguing from?
we need to establish the subjectivity/objectivity of morals first.
Give me time and i can prove from an objective amd subjective standpoint that he was wrong.

[Anonymous No.14699771]

>>14697172
>Appeal to nature is the name of a fallacy. That doesn't mean to imply that all appeals to nature are fallacious.

I like how this low key refutes OP

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14699777]

>>14690388
The pioneers took out the old west without advanced technology. Nearly exterminated the bison and wolf among others. Dust bowl etc.
technology scares rightwingers only because it’s freeing, especially for women. You take technology away and you keep the same system and life gets worse. For everyone but “chad”
Don’t pull that trigger, bitch.

[Anonymous No.14699784]

>>14699771
I think you just committed a fallacy fallacy

[Anonymous No.14699785]

>>14698413
Vaginal cope

[Anonymous No.14699802]

>>14699784
But anon
its fallacies all the way down.
so we need to ask ourselves exactly what dimension are we playing at here?
and its never a degree of how right we got it but really how wrong we are in our appraoch.

[Anonymous No.14699822]

>>14699777
>technology scares rightwingers only because it’s freeing
Living in a surveillance state is “freeing”? AI is necessarily “freeing”? Anyone with a normally functioning intelligence — which excludes you — that isn’t concerned about the progression of technology is a fool or a shill.

[Anonymous No.14699875]

>>14699822
Checkd

And in a sense it is freeing. In that we are free to make our lifes worth living more efficiently.
While enginneer products designed for productivity, connection, and ease of use.
We are free to live our lives how we want
we just have to accept consequences.
and we dont have to think about how this shit works, we just need to know how to use it.
and thats become an engineer problem.
So while we live our lives.
The engineers are free to gather data we produce by using thier machines, so life can go on and become even more efficient and streamlined.
ina way it chooses to see fit.
So yes we are free.
Free to play the game, or not.
And free to expierence ALL the conseqences, of the choices you made or didn't make.

[Anonymous No.14700163]

>>14698294
can't prisoners make money or is it because of the nature of his books?

[Anonymous No.14700178]

>>14699875
this very comment is hostile to life itself and i'm starting to suspect that a robot wrote it

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14700183]

>>14699822
Not all tech. I was thinking of washing machines and assembly line robots. I’m not apologizing for the harm technology does, but they’re tools only. The problem is SYSTEMIC. Change that and not even cultural norms will force it back.

[Anonymous No.14700251]

>>14697551
Still waiting..

[Anonymous No.14700274]

>>14690508
You're strawmanning. Primitivists have literally never encouraged people to cut out ALL social contact. You just sound dumb.

[Anonymous No.14700441]

>>14700163
Probably the former

[Anonymous No.14700832]

>>14690477
Linkola is a good guy and has his heart in the right place but his ideas would only lead to more statist tyranny since he wants an eco-dictatorship to enforce his vision, not to mention that the government would keep types of technology not allowed for citizens. The techno-industrial system needs wholly dismantled and destroyed. In Kaczynski’s newest book he convincingly argues that the development of society cannot be rationally controlled or even easily predicted in the long-term, and that things such as what Linkola advocates for would undoubtedly become corrupted after the first generation, who would just justify itself in ecological terms. Though generally Linkola is more realistic in many of his solutions. I’m conflicted between them at times. Check out “Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How”

[Anonymous No.14700850]

>>14691281
He talks about more than just roads when talking about organization-dependent technology – for example Rome’s sewer and plumbing systems. Today technology of this type is much more ubiquitous and dependent on large-scale organizations, whether it be roads, the power-grid, a steady stream of gasoline, etc. If there was a collapse this stuff would still be littering the planet for millennia to come, and Ted doesn’t deny that, but much of it would become wholly unusable and useless if the system truly destablized or partially collapsed (more likely wholly as he argues for various reasons) for any significant period of time.

[Anonymous No.14700868]

>>14693292
Pol Pot is unironically more of a Pentti Linkola-style ecofascist, even if he didn’t conceive of himself that way

[Anonymous No.14700876]

>>14697855
>progress is inevitable

[Anonymous No.14700996]

>>14700163
no. prisoners cannot "operate a business." i know for a fact ADX inmates cant make money off their book sales. but also kaczynski has a judgement against him, so, even if he could get the money, the government would probably try and confiscate the money anyway.

[Anonymous No.14701003]

>>14700441
? please explain.

[Anonymous No.14701332]

>>14691708
>Youngest math professor of his time, at Harvard.
At UC Berkeley, he studied at Harvard but didn't teach there

[Anonymous No.14701380]

>>14690388
It's simple, those with superior technology have tend to conquer those with lesser technology. Attempting to roll back technology isn't feasible in a state of any size or consequence, and anything that isn't a state of size or consequence is prey for states that are.
In short, Ted is correct, but he's correct in the way that a person can note that the Sun will eventually turn into a red giant and consume the Earth: the only "solution" is to get the fuck out of dodge.

[Anonymous No.14701405]

>>14701380
>brooo like the sun will explode billions of years from now, we’ve gotta live forever!!
Cringe. Embrace impermanence

[Anonymous No.14701414]

>>14701405
Your anti-natalist nonsense has been refuted countless times.

[Anonymous No.14701541]

>>14701414
>anti-natalism
I advocated for no such thing. I don’t care if normalfags have children or not, it doesn’t concern me. Basedboys like you are obsessed with ensuring humanity exists forever and ever for some reason. Are we really that great? Why should we care about events billions of years from now? We will never travel the stars.

[Anonymous No.14701583]

>>14699730
Pretty much this.

Ted sabotages himself and his readers. It's like with most anarchist social critics: the world appears horrible precisely because horrible, ill-suited language is being used to analyze it with.

For example, the "death of art," viewed by such people as starting with the manufacturing process. Nevermind what said process gave way to artistically, or how it might have made the theory of art a more complex matter; what was important to the art critics of the 19th and 20th centuries was simply what was being lost in the process. Because of that, it had "died" to them. It couldn't have value if it was made in a factory, or by more than one person, because their language forbid them from seeing the new values arising.

Context is everything. Such critics are usually far away from the "center" of the culture they find themselves in. They are so on the fringe that they do not even see the culture at all — and so they claim that "there is no culture" or "the culture is dead" all the same. They do not see how the context of their own lives colors their eyes.

[Anonymous No.14701903]

The lesser of two evils is still evil. I can get behind most of his arguments but I will never approve of his methods.

[Anonymous No.14701925]

>>14701541
Shut up pussy

[Anonymous No.14701952]

>>14701903
Cause you're a pussy faggot. You don't have to support Ted, but if you aren't willing to fight for what you believe in and instead feel content in outsourcing all solutions to outdated political systems, you are a coward.

[Anonymous No.14702489]

>>14700868
Yeah, something like that

[Anonymous No.14703117]

>>14697551
>while he criticizes leftists for rationalizing their inferiority complex in the face of America's success, he himself also couldn't fit in the status quo?
He never did that, here's your refutation

[Anonymous No.14703207]

>>14690388
Like trying to put the yolk back to the eggshell. Ride the dialectics nigga.

[Anonymous No.14703280]

>>14703207
You never read any of Ted's work

[Anonymous No.14703323]

>>14701541
This is hypocrisy, since I can safely assume that you prefer to have existed and presumably not in squalor. A nobler person recognizes and appreciates that they are a link in the continuum of humanity, from past to future; contributing what they can, whether they have their own children or not. Humanity need not be perfect or eternal to be worthwhile.

>>14701583
The primary problem of the industrialization of art is how it changed the arbiters of the taste and economics of art from aristocratic patrons to the crude masses. Now, the most prevalent art is gutter trash that doesn't challenge and elevate so much as it stultifies and anaesthetizes.

Today's popular culture is so saturating and ubiquitous that you don't need to be anywhere near the 'center' to plainly see the effects it has and the cynicism behind it. Indeed, it is no mean feat to escape it to any meaningful degree.

[Anonymous No.14703418]

>>14691330
>politically incorrect
>blue
kek

also, political literature is still literature

[Anonymous No.14703697]

>>14701380
Cringe. You haven’t read Kaczynski’s books or
You haven’t read them carefully. This is addressed. And oh! What arrogance to think this obvious concept isn’t addressed.

[Anonymous No.14703727]

>>14691566
>atheism
>a bad thing

[Anonymous No.14703939]

>>14703323
>it changed the arbiters of the taste and economics of art from aristocratic patrons to the crude masses
The masses are not the "arbiters of taste." They are just the commissioners of art. The masses still look towards institutions and individual critics as arbiters of taste. It's the duty of the arbiters to influence the masses into submission under their rule, as it's ALWAYS been... and in the end said arbiters will have much greater liberties than ever before, not merely a thousand slaves anymore but millions of consumers now support their efforts.

[Anonymous No.14704191]

>>14703323
Last I checked the ruling class was still aristocracy, or at least oligarchy. And art by masses is always criticized as trash, crude, low, etc. The ruling class commissions and/or hoards whatever still suits its fancy, and the masses are lucky if there even get to glimps what's hung in the rich mans garage (and last I checked at the museum it was a bunch of tasteful nude portraits). The masses govern nothing, they are nearly fed until it's too expensive to keep.

[Anonymous No.14704205]

>>14703697
>Ugh why should I formulate counter-argument? Read the entire bible first and you will find your answer! And no, I won't even tell you the fucking chapter!
lmao, your ilk are worse than the fucking marxists

[Anonymous No.14704318]

>>14703697
Would you mind indulging us then with a brief summary of how he addresses it?

>>14703939
You're ignoring that in the current 'soft(er)-power)' paradigm, power and wealth is gained by appealing to the baser dispositions of the masses. It is this 'race to the bottom' that now determines the popular aesthetic, debasing not only the influenced but the influencers themselves. The truly aristocratic (not just wealthy, but noble) are no longer the influencers, if such a class can even be said to exist anymore.

[Anonymous No.14704381]

>>14704191
see>>14704318
It's different now. Low art saturates everything and shapes the future, like a force of nature. Niches of high art are influentially irrelevant in the face of that. In times of patronage, higher art was promoted to the general culture as the ideal, without concern for profitability.

[Anonymous No.14705205]

>>14690388
good work OP.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14705405]

>Still no replies
Bookchin’s argument wins thread. Technology isn’t to blame and it can stay

[Anonymous No.14705425]

>>14705205
Are these fan-made? It would be pretty funny if these were the actual ads.

[Anonymous No.14705571]

>>14704318
>power and wealth is gained by appealing to the baser dispositions of the masses.

Power and wealth is gained primarily from ownership of energy exploitation and resources, raw/finished materials, and debt promises towards the first two. It is MAINTAINED by "appealing to" (aka controlling) the based disposition of the masses.

>The truly aristocratic (not just wealthy, but noble) are no longer the influencers, if such a class can even be said to exist anymore.

If you believe that then you are truly blind to everything of human history, and even the modern era. The big club still exists and still insists that it persists (and works hard to ensure that the masses don't resist), and I'm betting you ain't a member (like me)!

[Anonymous No.14705580]

>>14705405
Until the power grid goes off!

[Anonymous No.14705607]

Haven't read his other work. Does he explain what it was that made Europe technologically splurge over the rest of the world?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14705635]

>>14705580
Either way, the future is feminine

[Anonymous No.14705640]

>>14701952
I don't think you realize how much compromise and loss are in store for us in a tech free world. A world without the technological (and energy) benefits has a significantly smaller carrying capacity; we're talking the deaths of billions at a stroke should you cut the power and cease the trucks which haul the food (grown with pesticides and fertilisers, both manufactured artificially). We're talking a small, slow, and much diminished future in a world that lacks more than half trees and animals that inhabited it but half a century ago, if not 100 years ago. Considering how rapidly the planet's climate is now changing without our aid, a course of action is despairing in its long-term futility.

[Anonymous No.14705646]

>>14705635
Well, half of it (as always).

[Anonymous No.14705688]

>>14705425
dunno. i found it on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.14705721]

>>14705571
Tell that to jewgle and politicians. You don't 'control' the base dispositions of the masses (you can change demography via mass immigration, but that's another tangent), you control the masses by appealing to those dispositions. And if there is a meaningful illuminati, they are by no means noble.

[Anonymous No.14705722]

>>14705640
i think we do. the point is that infinitely more loss is in store for us if tech continues--even to the point of there being nothing left and no change the biosphere or humanity can regenerate.

so it had better collapse sooner rather than later. And you can blame all the promoters of tech and industry for getting us so slavishly dependent on the system at the expense of wilderness. Blame them for bringing us to the point where we must have this collapse and chaos. Don't blame revolutionaries who want to save the world from the mess THEY created.

[Anonymous No.14705732]

>>14701952
this.

[Anonymous No.14705733]

>>14690880
>jigger
lol

[Anonymous No.14705737]

>>14705722
"chance"

[Anonymous No.14705743]

>>14690474
yellows were happy living in middle age sustainable societies
idk about white race it's kinda compromised

[Anonymous No.14705842]

>>14698541
that sounds like an incredibly brainlet take
societal advancement can take many directions

[Anonymous No.14705897]

>>14705607
wars, weapons and shit
you could read the stuff about supersystems and subsystems in anti tech revolution
basically any subsystem that cuts back on maximizing it's use of resources in line to ensure a long term survival is killed off in the short term by competing subsystems because the mode of survival is maximum occupation of resources

[Anonymous No.14705918]

>>14705607
>>14705897
it's also the argument of why the efforts of selective parties at sustainable use of tech or resources do not work and why the global industrial technological system has to collapse all at once

[Anonymous No.14706118]

>>14705721
There is no such thing as absolute control. There never was in history and there never will be. That the aristocracy's control isn't absolute isn't an argument against it being a form of control.

[Anonymous No.14706124]

>>14705842
Advancement though, not regress

[Anonymous No.14706381]

>>14705722
You can always go off the grid first. Be the change you wish to see! If Townes Van Zandt can do it, so can you!

[Anonymous No.14706626]

>>14706118
Never said it wasn't. You've totally missed my point.

And again, there is no aristocracy of note these days. The oligarchs and manipulators of today are almost as crude as the masses (sometimes moreso).

[Anonymous No.14707041]

>>14706626
You can keep thinking that if you like, but it doesn't change the fact that there are entrepreneurs, scientists, and artists making millions of dollars, investing that money where they want, and slowly directing the world towards their desires rather than yours.

[Anonymous No.14707078]

>>14690524

[Anonymous No.14708228]

>>14707041
And what shaped their desires, hmmm? Jesus you're fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.14708240]

>>14707078