/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16486523]

Finally read pic related. And I have to say that I seldom agree entirely with someone else's outlined ideas. After 25 years his statements seem more relevant today than ever, which leads me to ask - has any of his notions ever been refuted?

[Anonymous No.16486679]

>>16486523
26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a
sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the
most important means by which our society socializes
children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or
speech that is contrary to society’s expectations. If this is
overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible
to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF.
Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society’s expectations
than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty
behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break
traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they
say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to
get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates
in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt,
thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think “unclean” thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to
conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under
the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is
kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running
on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and
powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest
that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties
that human being inflict on one another.

[Anonymous No.16486861]

>>16486679
What are you trying to say? I think he was spot on with this part, it is basically political correctness incarnated in society, i.e. social correctness - the main trait of the leftist.

[Anonymous No.16486904]

>nihilist makes another thread promoting another nihilistic book

[Anonymous No.16486922]

>>16486861
It's all true, my man. Cannot be refuted or reversed.

[Anonymous No.16486946]

>>16486904
>delusional histrionic wants to keep his mandatory all-inclusive suck fuck shit piss party going despite the fact that it has come to it's unavoidable end

[Anonymous No.16486953]

>refuted
Is it possible to have one single thread on this infernal board discussing someone's ideas or musings that does not have to be propped up by this word and the implied necessity of the existence of someone's attempts at contesting or dismantling the ideas in question so as to explicitly give further credence to a specific side that is almost always easy to discern from the wording of the OP's post? As though a full refutation or rebuttal must be out there somewhere for our collective peace of mind, as though the lack of one will sufficiently calm our endlessly uncertain hearts so that we may confidently post "X was right about everything'" at every opportunity.
Not counting ideologies that are antithetical to the man's positions (transhumanism, futurism) or any 4chan posts, no, there have been no systematic, rigorous or significant criticisms of what he has laid out, and judging by the nature of his work, it is doubtful that there ever will be any

[Anonymous No.16486982]

>>16486946
t. anarchoprimitivist larper

[Anonymous No.16486993]

>>16486679
"muh degeneracy" faggots fucking TORCHED

[Anonymous No.16487014]

>>16486982
>can't see people without assigning gay political labels

[Anonymous No.16487037]

>>16486953
No, because if you use words like "BTFO" or "Debunked" then it'll lure people in who want to prove you wrong, while the thread would otherwise be ignored. It's one of the better ways to make sure a thread gets replies, besides using coomer pics or elephant pics.

[Anonymous No.16487056]

>>16487014
>didn't deny it

[Anonymous No.16487084]

>>16487056
Ok? Deny what you fucking retard? Deny that I'm some fucking caricature you made up in your head?

[Lon𝖊 Int𝖊ll𝖊ctu𝖆l !xVZee/J6YQ No.16487098]

>>16487037
I physically licked my lips when I looked at her hips.

[Anonymous No.16487117]

>>16487037
Those are quite the hips.

[Anonymous No.16487120]

>>16486523

[Anonymous No.16487119]

>>16486679
idk but using ted’s definition it seems we lack oversocialization in society than the contrary

[Anonymous No.16487127]

>>16487120

[Anonymous No.16487132]

>>16487037
Well of course, every OP is unknowingly practicing (or rather mimicking from earlier users) a tactic from the Art of War, namely that of tricking your enemies through lures into acting how you want them to act, while they mistakenly believe they are acting of their own volition

[Anonymous No.16487134]

>>16487127

[Anonymous No.16487136]

>>16487037
She could get my seed and feed i tell ya

[Anonymous No.16487137]

>>16487119
>we lack oversocialization
>people getting fired for any and all public opinions

[Anonymous No.16487178]

>>16487084
Ted is boring. Disliking things doesn't make you or him special.

[Anonymous No.16487190]

>>16487178
Nobody cares faggot.

[Anonymous No.16487211]

>>16487190
Nobody cares about Ted.

[Anonymous No.16487236]

>>16487211
Again, nobody cares you histrionic faggot.

[Anonymous No.16487259]

>>16487236
You don't even know what histrionic means, do you? If anything, Ted's followers are the histrionic ones. It's obvious whenever they talk about technology, which they mythologize to a ridiculous degree.

[Anonymous No.16487290]

>>16487259
Says the faggot who deliberately comes into the Ted thread and starts flaunting his manufactured cookie cutter hot takes looking for attention like a bitch in heat.

[Anonymous No.16487397]

embrace monke

[Anonymous No.16488222]

>>16486993
Fucking idiot. A comment so stupid doesnt even deserve a rebuttal because everyone understands how moronic what u just said was.

[𒂊𒊑𒀁𒌅 !!ph+3gMFUUxd No.16488410]

>213. Because of their need for rebellion and for membership in a movement, leftists or persons of similar psychological type often are unattracted to a rebellious or activist movement whose goals and membership are not initially leftist. The resulting influx of leftish types can easily turn a non-leftist movement into a leftist one, so that leftist goals replace or distort the original goals of the movement.
>219. Leftism is a totalitarian force. Wherever leftism is in a position of power it tends to invade every private corner and force every thought into a leftist mold. In part this is because of the quasi-religious character of leftism: everything contrary to leftist beliefs represents Sin. MORE IMPORTANTLY, LEFTISM IS A TOTALITARIAN FORCE BECAUSE OF THE LEFTISTS' DRIVE FOR POWER. THE LEFTIST SEEKS TO SATISFY HIS NEED FOR POWER THROUGH IDENTIFICATION WITH A SOCIAL MOVEMENT AND HE TRIES TO GO THROUGH THE POWER PROCESS BY HELPING TO PURSUE AND ATTAIN THE GOALS OF THE MOVEMENT (see paragraph 83)...

How the wilderness incel so right so many years ago?

[Anonymous No.16488732]

>>16488410
Sounds like he ripped off Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.16490229]

>>16486904
>just put on your pink glasses bro, consoom more media and ignore all the problems of the world bro

[Anonymous No.16490237]

>>16486953
How new are you?

[Anonymous No.16490423]

>>16488732
Ted never read such philosophers.

[Anonymous No.16490868]

>>16490423
Pretty sure he did, or he was at least aware of them by proxy through thinkers like Ellul

[Anonymous No.16490973]

Read Anti-Tech Revolution by uncle Ted, also Technological Slavery

[Anonymous No.16490979]

>>16488732
when did N say such a thing?

[Anonymous No.16491344]

>>16490979
In Genealogy of Morality and The Antichrist. The part that's all caps in that post above is Nietzsche with some difference in terms: the egalitarians and socialists, movements which stem from Christianity, who are as much part of the will to power as anything else, are slave moralists who can only satisfy their will to power by means of inversion and group systematization.

[Anonymous No.16491670]

Greetings all. Share this link to your heart's content and make Ted accessible to people! Augustus Invictus also has a reading of ISAIF buried in his channel on youtube.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=1WqtbyR57ms6yZH_3pwHTt0R4DgF_MZ9X

[Anonymous No.16491847]

>>16490973
No way Ted shilled amazon.

[Anonymous No.16491905]

>>16491847

[Anonymous No.16491952]

>>16491847
Ted doesn't really have a lot of understanding of Amazon or the internet, to be fair. He's admitted to not knowing what YouTube is, for example. For him, Amazon is just another site, I wager.

[Anonymous No.16492082]

>>16491905
backstory on the letter?

[Anonymous No.16492097]

>>16492082
ted usually answers most of his mail. you guys should write to him.

[Anonymous No.16492098]

>>16492082
I have no idea. Just saved the image

[Anonymous No.16492117]

>>16486946
Take your meds

[Anonymous No.16492127]

>>16487290
Calm down you schizophren

[Anonymous No.16492474]

>>16492097
We did the
>/lit/ writes a letter one word at a time
but then they bullied the ones who wanted to send it “NOT TO WASTE HIS TIME” lmao
should do it again and this time send it.

[Anonymous No.16492513]

>>16492097
I thought he wasn't allowed to answer mail, anymore.

[Anonymous No.16492522]

Ted is boring in all honesty. I don't get how he has had such a lasting appeal on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.16492551]

>>16490237
Not new, merely stupid enough to experience disappointment at daily occurrences.

[Anonymous No.16492560]

>>16492513
>anymore
why?

[Anonymous No.16492644]

>>16486679
wow that is literally me

[𒂊𒊑𒀁𒌅 !!ph+3gMFUUxd No.16493041]

>>16490868
>Ellul
idk about the Nietzsche bit but I'm pretty sure that Ted said on several occasions that he was heavily inspired by Ellul

[Anonymous No.16493090]

>>16488410
To add to this, from the foreword to Technological Slavery:

>The political left is technological society’s first line of defense against revolution. In fact, the left today serves as a kind of fire extinguisher that douses and quenches any nascent revolutionary movement. What do I mean by “the left”? If you think that racism, sexism, gay rights, animal rights, indigenous people’s rights, and “social justice” in general are among the most important issues that the world currently faces, then you are a leftist as I use that term. If you don’t like this application of the world “leftist,” then you are free to designate the people I’m referring to by some other term. But, whatever you call them, the people who extinguish revolutionary movements are the people who are drawn indiscriminately to causes: racism, sexism, gay rights, animal rights, the environment, poverty, sweatshops, neocolonialism…it’s all the same to them. These people constitute a subculture that has been labeled “the adversary culture.” Whenever a movement of resistance begins to emerge, these leftists (or whatever you choose to call them) come swarming to it like flies to honey until they outnumber the original members of the movement, take it over, and turn it into just another leftist faction, thereby emasculating it. The history of “Earth First!” provides an elegant example of this process.

[𒂊𒊑𒀁𒌅 !!ph+3gMFUUxd No.16493230]

>>16493090
>tfw twitter trannies are literally the iron bulwark of industrial society

[Anonymous No.16493304]

>>16486953
electrifyingly based

[Anonymous No.16493313]

>>16493090
Wow, I can’t believe Kaczynski was a racist.

[Anonymous No.16493348]

>>16487120
>>16487127
>>16487134
does anyone have that cool white haired tarsier looking monkey with both his hand up in the air like he was reciting an epic poem?

[Anonymous No.16493728]

>>16493230
thats why the Land types love them

[Anonymous No.16493962]

Is it fair to say man either goes:
>anprim revolution as Kaczynski wants
or
>(at w/e speed it might take to occur) ai Kapital that leaves the last man behind its revolution

[Anonymous No.16494210]

>>16493962
Kaczynski is not anprim

[Anonymous No.16494270]

>>16492522
he's right about everything tbqh. his main appeal is his no bullshit style, he's radical through and through; the system is alienating all of us, we must destroy it. the end. no endless theory, the implicit understanding that any act of intellectuality is alienating. he is marx and engels but accomplished. he is debord but without the quart of vodka a day and faggy poet tendencies. he is the nietzsche who left his appartment.

[Anonymous No.16494404]

>>16494210
>this meme again

[Anonymous No.16494770]

>>16486523
He did an excellent job of making everything he wrote irrefutable. The way he packaged ISAIF was lock and key. Anti Tech Revolution Why and How as well.

[Anonymous No.16494798]

>>16494770
>forest anon
he still alive or did a second fire get him?

[Anonymous No.16494883]

>>16494798
He's probably alive, I imagine he's got a lot of work to do around his cabin now but you never know. The forest looked really dangerous in that last video.

[Anonymous No.16495810]

>>16494210
>>16494404
>pic related, from "The Truth About Primitive Society: A Critique of Anarcho-Primitivism"

Ted wrote 63 page critique of the ideology known as 'anarcho-primitivism,' which,in large part, he helped to develop in the common conscience with his writings. There is an important distinction between original thought, thought based on principles, and ideology.
The essay basically refutes a whole lot of misguided and misrepresentative idealism about primitive life with anthropological studies.
One of Kaczynski's principal concerns is the weaponization of ideology, so it's no surprise he would go to such lengths to correct even those who are ostensibly 'on his side,' because this is exactly the problem-
people tend to get stuck on the tribalistic 'red team blue team' narratives rather than actually stick to principles and execute based on those. It is just the nature of the masses to behave this way, and power knows well how to exploit it for administrative purposes.
I suspect Ted is concerned that his whole corpus of work will ultimately be rolled into ideological narratives and become nothing more than therapeutic entertainment for a contingent of sedentary outsiders frustrated by life in industrial society, but unwilling to do anything more than banter about ideology, and so become neutralized as a revolutionary potential.
The following essay, might I add, is about exactly that- a model of the process by which ideology is weaponized and used to destroy any momentum of revolutionary movement unsanctioned by 'the system,' or if you prefer, world government.

Here is my reading of that essay
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_Yk0r47uAlqRJxONd0PhJszajLkn34Ld/view?usp=drivesdk

[Anonymous No.16496063]

>>16495810
>file gone
its an essay in technological slavery?
that pdf is available online

[Anonymous No.16496092]

I agree with his criticisms, but how do you actually propose a permanent solution to the problem, exactly? Even if humanity were set back by hundreds year ago by strange circumstances, it would inevitably reach the point we have reached today.
>inb4 "teach them otherwise"
Would be a temporary fix but not long-standing.

[Anonymous No.16497820]

>>16496092
Creating a small group of enlightened 'elite' that can exert its influence behind the stage to such an extent as to constantly keep the masses in reins and never allow it to go past a certain point of technological development (only the basic technological structures will be allowed, and that tiny Elite group will have many dispersed operatives all over the world to ensure things don't go south). Of course, the most difficult part would be obtaining power and influence in the first place, but I think if a group of loyal, willing enough enthusiasts organise quickly and create a precise and concrete plan beforehand, it's not that impossible.

[Anonymous No.16498107]

>>16496092
>Even if humanity were set back by hundreds year ago by strange circumstances, it would inevitably reach the point we have reached today.


It's arguable. There are no easily accessible oil deposit available anymore. A rebuilt civilization might remain stuck at the steam stage. Steam power is plenty sufficient to generate an alientating technical society though.

[Anonymous No.16498566]

>>16496092
If you are stuck on this problem then you literally have not read Kaczynski and it is intellectually dishonest to say you 'agree with his criticisms.' There are human societies that never industrialized or developed agriculture and yet persisted. Additionally, although it apparently confers survival utility, it is not an inevitavibility for groups of humans to do as much. This is all contained within the mythos of 'progress'.


>>16497820
You are just a fucking idiot I don't even know what to say about that. Are you trying to suggest superstate administration of all human affairs from without, indefinitely, in order to covertly prevent technology from re-emerging?

>>16496063
No, it is my personal reading of Ted's essay "The System's Neatest Trick."
Can you post me a screenshot of what you're seeing? I can try to reupload.

[Anonymous No.16498601]

>>16498566
Could you post it somewhere other than google drive perhaps, like pastebin or other text sites instead? would be much preferred.

[Anonymous No.16498728]

>>16498566
>Are you trying to suggest superstate administration of all human affairs from without, indefinitely, in order to covertly prevent technology from re-emerging?

Yes. Just look at the Zionist-Satanic Jews - they've been existing for thousands of years, and for hundreds of years have been managing to control literally every minor to major process that happens in the world - wars, world finances, banking, major corporations, entertainment industry, entire countries and their economies, etc. And all that while prudently remaining behind shadows and using their many-layered interconnected networks of operating people and structures through which they influence the way the world develops. If they can do it, so can we. It's a slow process, and persistency and perseverance are key aspects to it.

[Anonymous No.16498914]

>16498728
>weak bait
no (you) for you

[Anonymous No.16498925]

>>16498914
I wasn't baiting, and the fact that you haven't provided even one counter-argument speaks how you are the one who's probably baiting

[Anonymous No.16498943]

>>16486523
Yeah man, like industry sucks and stuff. We should like go back to primitive ages. Me? Oh I'm socially retarded and physically weak because of technology man. Like, there is no escape.

[Anonymous No.16499189]

>>16492522
It's relevant and easy to digest.
To get normies to understand historical philosophy they need to understand what the people were like, how their lifes were, who all the people are, the history the landmarks, and many other things (if they are relevant). A lot of what philosophers talk about aren't relevant to most people. An anti tech revolution is relevant. His writing is also very simple to understand so any old Norman can read it. Its also shilled on /pol/ and people come here to talk about it.

[Anonymous No.16499270]

Does anyone have a mega of this, and his other books?

[Anonymous No.16499274]

>>16499270
Literally Google it. His works are found on the first sites free in text.

[Anonymous No.16499300]

>>16499274
Okay, but that’s not what I asked. Thanks, anyway.

[Anonymous No.16499783]

Does Theodore believe in God? Is a return to hunter gather life compatible with agrarian religions like Christianity? I've noticed on twitter a lot of the pine tree people put crucifix emojis in their name or bios as well, can someone help me understand a synthesis of Kaczynski's thought and Christianity?

[Anonymous No.16499880]

>>16499783
asking the really hard hitting questions here

[Anonymous No.16499931]

>>16499783
I'd wager that he's agnostic

[Anonymous No.16499936]

>>16490423
He has read some Nietzsche, he references him in some letters in technological slavery. He did probably only read him in prison though.

[Anonymous No.16499971]

>>16499783
He does analyse the progress of major religions in anti tech-revolution, but I would say hes ideas are largely on issues that are outside of religion, therefore if a particular religion is more agreeable/disagreeable with his ideas, that is more circumstantial to Ted, and more a matter of personal preference

[Anonymous No.16500135]

>>16492522
he's a real revolutionary. how many of those left in our western world?

[Anonymous No.16500163]

>>16486523

He never discussed Kaczynski directly (as far as I know - I'm not particularly well read in either), but if you're looking for critiques of anti-civ/anti-tech thought in general, you could try Bookchin - in particular his essay Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm, or his later update to it Whither Anarchism.

[Anonymous No.16500263]

What the fuck was Lise's problem?

[Anonymous No.16500269]

>>16500263
fuck i meant to make this it's own thread

[Anonymous No.16500300]

>>16498943

This is always and without exception the case.

[Anonymous No.16500389]

>>16498566

> There are human societies that never industrialized or developed agriculture and yet persisted.

So? Primitive peoples that have persisted in tribal living for hundreds of years or more do not do so out of some contemplated naturalist wisdom that they must not advance. It's merely because they were incapable of conquering their environment. You're essentially a leftist for idolizing the noble savage over the humans that taken over the world, it's slave morality.

[Anonymous No.16500443]

>>16486523