Ted Kaczynski

Ted Kaczynski unironically made some good points, and also there's no way we'd be here talking about his writing had he not done what he did… I know, you can say that about anybody, but Teddy was arguably worth reading to begin with but just probably wouldn't have been read otherwise.

I've fully read his manifesto, and he makes an interesting point of how some types of techology require an entire infrastructure to produce and maintain such as internet, satellite communication, roads etc. and some tools require only small-scale production like making furniture, drawing pens, knives etc. and his utopia can make use of tools and tool production, but all infrastucture-required produce he deems as inherently evil and corrupting.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I remember from half a year ago when I was reading it.

He also has this spooked belief that left wing and liberals are the same thing, but that aside, his criticism of the liberals is not that off the mark. My problem with him is just that he is supposed to be a smart guy, a true mastermind INTJ, but he still doesn't get that if we go back to some Varg-tier anprim utopia to live as hunter-gatherers, we WILL experience the rise of slave empires, then feudalism, then capitalism all over again.

...

muh tech is ebil

Do you not get that there's a difference between being a lone guy in the woods where all social resources have been monopolized by capitalism and an anarcho primitive society where your entire community would be working together to sustain itself?

yes that is exactly why anprim will not work - we cannot return to being hunter gatherers because people who live under an agricultural let alone industrial system will over power you.

This

Personally, I really love nature. Sometimes I spend few hours a day walking around in woods, enjoying silence and peacefulness. I kinda feel that it's perfectly natural for humans to try to retreat into nature, because it's the place we came from. Although I can't really imagine abandoning favourite music, books, games etc. Nevertheless, AnPrim seems like a interesting idea though

have to agree with the nazi here, hopefully for the last time

Yeah I agree, the cyclical nature of civilization shows that technologal development is inevitable and delaying it by reverting to primitive society is just putting a bandaid on the problem
I wonder what Kaczynski would think of the theory that technology is a living organism that is evolving off the back of humanity.

same, anprims one of the few anarchos i respect. i want to read more, maybe im going to go full anprim idk

top kek

You know what I find funny?

This entire problem that he sees is 100% true but he does not go far enough to truly draw out the cause or source of the problems that he recognises.

Like he blames the industrial revolution and technology instead of capitalism and he wants to return to pre-civilisation instead of negating class society and progressing to communism.

Brainlet tier tbh

he was many things, but brainlet is not one of them

this is your brain on marxism

Many brainlets in STEM I can tell you firsthand

excuse me. STEMlord who did not know anything about political theory.

You sound thoroughly domesticated tbh

Literally what is your problem?

Not really. The whole "isn't it ironic that you own a laptop" bit targeted at leftists is dumb because socialism isn't opposed to the production of consumer electronics, access to the Internet, etc — they're opposed to the economic mode of production in which they are currently being made. But in the case of primitivists, this criticism does make sense because these guys really want to get rid of advanced technology, mass communication, etc. A primitivist browsing Holla Forums from his air-conditioned basement is as hypocritical as a nazi being a stock trader at Goldman-Sachs would be — because they want to get rid of it entirely.

I read several of his books and I was an anti tech for a lot of time. I say anti tech because anyone that read him knows he wasn't a primitivist in the strict sense. Imho he is right about how SYSTEMDEPENDANT technology limits freedom. His analysis of leftism is completely based on boogyemans though. Imho he got right everything but didn't realize his own error: he himself said that personal level technology is good (for example everything you can build with a small group of people) and in my opinion we should strive to make most technologies personal. Capitalism wants people to be as out of touch with technology as they can (see 50 years old people with an iphone) and this creates the scenario Ted analyzed so well. But getting rid of technology would be eating or keeping the pie while if we abolsh capitalism we can do the two thing for real.

you have read zero (0) things by him because if you did you would have seen he is not against the use of technology by individuals

Have you ever discussed TK with normalfags?
Everyone on chans heard about him and many agree at least on some points.

I just wonder how I would look being an UNB apologist irl

so it is backyard furnaces again?
Did i ever tell you the definition of "Insanity"?

I was not talking about Kaczynski but primitivists in general, I know the guy's positions were more ambiguous and he even antagonized them on a series of issues.

That said, I'm having a hard time picturing how "individual" use of technology wouldn't lead to it becoming a social force, or even how it could even exist without first being a social force.

Anyway, have you read Lewis Mumford's Myth of the Machine (from the late '60s) and Hartmut Rosa's Social Acceleration (from a few years ago)? After reading the first part of your post (that wasn't addressed to me), I believe you might find those reads interesting.

you should post his work then

What do you mean by social force? If you mean it could cause disrupption and disorder well I think it depends on the kind of technology (imho the greatest thing that ted can teach is that technology is definetly not neutral in many of its applied forms). Never read those books, I'll give them a try. The only other anti tech book I've read is four arguments against the use of telvision. Also I always avoided the primitivists, they are retarded, the book ted wrote against them is very good. I looked forward to read the brick he has wrote lately but I'm starting to lose my hard anti tech positions so I don't know

I had defended him a lot of times irl because I'm an autist who can't hide the power level

That it has an impact on how society is organized, how individuals and collectives interact, how economic production is managed, how culture develops, etc. The question I'm asking is: Is it possible for someone to build his own car without assuming he did because speedways are already available or will eventually be built for that purpose?

I believe it's feasible to defend his philosophy if you don't also legitimize his quite frankly terrorist methods along the way.

go try decentralizing your water supply network or electrical grid

idiot

That is what I say when I think he is right in saying we should ditch "the modern technology" entirely. We should get rid of the concept of cars and highway, there really isn't a more "individual" way for transport? With all the combinations of elements that exist i nature?? I mean we are at a point in history where we know more about how nature works than there has ever been, we could completely rethink the technological department. And yes "new technology" WOULD impact daily life but it wouldn't limit freedom. One should realize Ted gave a very specific answer to a very specific problem: that systemdepandant technology limits freedom. And that's why I think only by reading some of his books you get the whole of his ideas: he doesn't think untechnological societies are perfect, he strongly critiques australian aborignals for their treatment of women, eskimos and african tribes for their treatment of animals and the sirions amazonians for their extreme individualism which he thought was dumb. But he says that at least they were free from the threat of technological society and that is true

you really don't get this do you

oh no, I get it my man
I'm soooooo fucking getting it you couldn't even believe

delusions about self sufficiency by sheltered city rats that don't even know how to milk a cow properly
delusions about self sufficiency when modern goods have production chains involving millions of people on different continents

delusions, delusions everywhere

dude my point is that we actually will never live in self sufficency but we got to use communism to adjust the material conditions to dismantle certain types of technologies that are too authoritarians, you know 0 shit about this fuck off you are the one deluded into thinking technology in something not worth discussing from a negative view point

So you are opposed to modern technology, then?

I agree there are serious problems with individual vehicles and the highway system (pollution, accidents, traffic jams, stress, unaffordability, etc) that are indeed tied to the capitalist mode of production but I don't see how that could be "solved" by "individual" solutions. Transportation needs a framework of operation that is by definition public, unless of course you're content with awkwardly riding a homemade bike through bumpy hills. The same goes for communication, too. Or hygiene. You name it.
What would be your problem with, say, a free and green-powered public transportation system? It could solve many of the issues associated with cars and roads, and it arguably involves even more advanced technology. What's the issue with harnessing technological development to the social benefit of mankind?

this is your brain on anarchism

...

I say he is right to say we should oppose it but we should combat it by using new technology not return to eat salami made with the intestine of animals, that's why I think primitivists are idiots. This should answer your second question too, what I'm saying that at the moment we are based on an unsastainable model of technology and that ted has some motivations to say it limits freedom. Tbh as long as I don't die everything is good and it's better if it's "personal level" because more limitations tend to go by hand but I'm NOT for destroying or blocking stuff that works, that's why I think his work was indeed interesting and should need revaluation but he was retarded in doing the terrorist attacks

My discourse is always

* it's not that the message isn't worth it, it's just that it doesn't work like that

Anprims should become transhumanists. then you can have your VR primitive world, except it doesnt suck.

I rather enjoyed his surgical analysis of typical leftist psychology in his manifesto. Seemed to sum things up nicely. As far as his relative AnPrimitivism goes, it's idealistic and would be preferable, but ultimately unrealistic and unattainable for the same reasons communism and anCapitalism are. A power void would be left and it would quickly be filled up again, either by an invading nation or by a new government/political party/ other equal form of gang or such.

webusers.imj-prg.fr/~leila.schneps/grothendieckcircle/recoltesetc.php
Enjoy brainlets
webusers.imj-prg.fr/~leila.schneps/grothendieckcircle/pubtexts.php
webusers.imj-prg.fr/~leila.schneps/grothendieckcircle/unpubtexts.php
webusers.imj-prg.fr/~leila.schneps/grothendieckcircle/mathletters.php

But that's wrong, he would be just a very grumpy hippie (with much better arguments) among thousands of other more agreeable hippies who aren't known if he weren't The Unabomber.

If he's fringe NOW he would be non-existent otherwise, just like robots, wizards and MRAs were mostly ignored before Elliot Rodger.

I don't speak to normals.

The least retarded AN-Prim
Had very valid critiques of 21st century industrial and technological capitalism and it's effects on the world society and it effect on the human being

I didn't mean he didn't get more attention, I mean it's not like he started a whole new mindset on the human race

Also, that's what I tell people to convince them that I won't bomb people.
I think it makes the message more relatable if it goes with a "sorry, won't do it again"