Ted Kaczynski was spot on when it came to leftists. A shame he wasted his life to kill some random people (instead of people with actual power). Anyway he's one of the few living people I'd enjoy talking to. And I'll never stop thinking of his brother as the biggest scumbag who couldn't handle having a better brother. The best of the Kaczynski brothers went to prison and the most mediocre went on with his life.
Brody Price
Good evening gentlemen!
Are you ready to have a serious discussion about the absolute state of our industrial society?
The organization of a movement of this scope needs to first and foremost repel leftists. Once you've done that you still need people that are Capable & Committed, and that share the same common value: For Wild nature and Against techno-industrial society.
Julian Scott
>pastebin.com/Dz7tH5qm His impact should not be measured as offing a few folks and blowing a few fingers off; true, very horrific and impactful to those individuals and their families, but his real impact was and continues to be his ideas and their dissemination. To this, some may object that the 'impact' in question should be a large-scale impact, like technological stagnation or destruction; we would counter that this remains to be seen.
Uploaded the FAQ to pastebin, sorry it wasn't made available earlier, kinda breezed thru your post requesting it in previous thread. Anyways, there it is now.
He was also spot on when he referred to (((conservatives))) as no less fraudulent and subject to the system as leftists are. They conserve nothing except the lies they tell themselves.
That being said, let's discuss propaganda and human behavior...
>1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life expectancy of those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in "advanced" countries. At last I truly see!
Do you wish to concentrate a bit on the FAQ today...? Glad to say we are about halfway there already, of the 22 questions, about 10 or 11 already have answers. Several tough ones to go, though.
Needless to say, any and all other ISAIF-reading anons welcome to participate, of course.
Definitely, wouldn't mind trying to answer on 1 or 2 questions. Would you mind trying to upload the questions and answers to a pastebin? I would imagine pastebin is easy to use, but I'm not sure
Easton Allen
would you mind referring us to the passage where he says that.
What are some natural outcomes from our current societal and biological affairs that the clandestine cabal will likely take credit for and further work to control or strengthen?
As far as behavioral control goes, it seems many currently find themselves detached, incapable and primarily dependent upon the system. There seems to be no alternative path for many. We might consider that even the end would be dictated by the system. The system seems not to stray too far from itself... What end might the system have for those currently subject to it? What would the system do to the many sickly, that perhaps we, as humans, might not?
Ian Hernandez
>What are some natural outcomes from our current societal and biological affairs that the clandestine cabal will likely take credit for and further work to control or strengthen? I say this in regard to Ted's observation that we are often not in great control of our circumstances (his references to American Revolution).
I see a lot of people associating Ted with AnPrim ideology, but everything I've read of his seems to indicate an advocacy for traditionalism. Timber frame or brick and mortar houses don't damage the environment the way that cheap, stick framed structures with vinyl siding and asphalt shingles do. How far back do we need to go? Or is it literally just prior to the Industrial Revolution?
Jordan Mitchell
In response to the question about just ‘living innawoods”: While it’s tempting to just retreat from society and try to live as primitive humans did, this does not entail a solution to our predicament with the progression of technological society. To use Ted’s life as an example: Ted became frustrated with society and did just as you said (before ISAIF was in its final form). He quickly realized that although he left the system alone, it would not leave him. It was actually living ‘innawoods’ that drove him to get ISAIF in front of the eyes of Americans (and eventually the world). Some might point to the Amish and see an example of a micro-society that has retreated from the system. The problem is that the Amish people only exist because the system has not yet found their existence to be incompatible with its own values. Once this happens, just as wild animals are displaced and forests are demolished for the sake of ‘progress’, so too will the Amish perish. This is all a matter of time.
For a start
Lucas Thomas
anti tech revolution page 29 in the book. it took forever to re download it.
So just now i was thinking about advertising the movement, i.e. spreading the memes for now: ->I think it is only of limited use to just post them in /TKG/, we should also post them in other threads consistently, to widen our potential audience. ->after the FAQ is done, let's focus on making memes. Then, let's dedicate an entire /TKG/ to memes only, a kind of collection if you want. We should occasionally do this, and make a special remark for them in the 'last threads list'.
Absolutely perfect, thank you. If other anons agree, think this should definitely be added it to the FAQ. One question down, nine to go!
Wyatt Hill
Why must step 5 be revolution? Why can't it be segregation? Rebelling against the industrial society is not a primarily intellectual exercise but rather a sentimental one. You must first feel something is wrong with the world and seek an alternative path. I think a transition to rural communities that focus on self-reliance and can demonstrate the viability of such a lifestyle is imperative before trying to overthrow the US government which derives much of its power and resources from urban citizens.
V Notwithstanding all the arguments we've reviewed in the present chapter up to this point, let's make the unrealistic assumption that techniques for manipulating the internal dynamics of a society will some day be developed to such a degree that a single, all-powerful leader (we'll be charitable and call him a philosopher-king10 9 rather than a dictator)-or a group ofleaders small enough « 6?) to be free of "conflicts among individual wills" within the group-will be able to steer a society as suggested at the beginning of Part III, above.
The notion of authoritarian rule by a single leader or a small group of leaders is not as far-fetched as it may appear to the denizens of modern, liberal democracies. Many people in the world already live under the authority of one man or a few, and when the technological society gets itself into sufficiently serious trouble, as it is likely to do in the coming decades, even the denizens of liberal democracies will begin looking for solutions that today seem out of the question. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, many Americans-mainstream people, not kooks out on the fringes-felt disillusioned with democracyllO and advocated rule by a dictator or an oligarchy (a "supercouncil" or a "directorate").111 Many admired Mussolini. ll2 During the same period, many Britons admired Hitler's Germany. "Lloyd George's reaction to Hitler was typical: 'If only we had a man of his supreme quality in England today,' he said."1l3 Returning, then, to our hypothetical dictator, or philosopher-king as we've decided to call him, we'll assume, however implausibly, that he will somehow be able to overcome the problems of complexity, of the conflicts of many individual wills, of resistance by subordinates, and of the competitive, power-seeking groups or systems that will evolve within any complex, large-scale society. Even under this unreal assumption we will still run into fundamental difficulties.
Zachary Myers
kek
Juan Wright
The first problem is: Who is going to choose the philosopher-king and how will they put him into power? Given the vast disparities of goals and values ("conflicts among individual wills") in any large-scale society, it is hardly likely that the rule of anyone philosopher-king could be consistent with the goals and values of a majority of the population, or even with the goals and values of a majority of any elite stratum (the intellectuals, say, or scientists, or rich people)-except to the extent that the philosopher-king, once in power, might use propaganda or other techniques of human engineering to bring the values of the majority into line with his own. If the realities of practical politics are taken into account, it seems that anyone who might actually become a philosopher-king either would have to be a compromise candidate, a bland fellow whose chief concern would be to avoid offending anyone, or else would have to be the ruthless leader of an aggressive faction that drives its way to power. In the latter case he might be an unscrupulous person intent only on attaining power for himself (a Hitler), or he might be a sincere fanatic convinced of the righteousness of his cause (a Lenin), but either way he would stop at nothing to achieve his goals. Thus, the citizen who might find the idea of a philosopher-king attractive should bear in mind that he himself would not select the philosopher-king, and that any philosopher-king who might come into power would probably not be the kind that he imagines or hopes for.
Jonathan Stewart
anyone got the template for OP's pic?
Jason Ward
A further problem is that of selecting a successor when the philosopher-king dies. Each philosopher-king will have to be able to preselect reliably a successor whose goals and values are virtually identical to his own; for, otherwise, the first philosopher-king will steer the society in one direction, the second philosopher-king will steer the society in a somewhat different direction, the third philosopher-king will steer it in yet another direction, and so forth. The result will be that the development of the society in the long term will wander at random, rather than being steered in any consistent direction or in accord with any consistent policy as to what constitute desirable or undesirable outcomes. Historically, in absolute monarchies of any kind-the Roman Empire makes a convenient example-it has proven impossible even to ensure the succession of rulers who are reasonably competent and conscientious. Capable, conscientious rulers have alternated with those who have been irresponsible, corrupt, vicious or incompetent. As for a long, unbroken succession of rulers, each of whom not only is competent and conscientious but also has goals and values closely approximating those of his predecessor-you can forget it. All of these arguments, by the way, apply not only to philosopher-kings but also to philosopher-oligarchs-ruling groups small enough so that Engels's "conflicts among many individual wills" do not come into play.
William Rivera
Based and tedpilled, user
Adam Jenkins
That's because the Amish are fucking pussies who don't arm themselves. They're not parasites, but they are wholly dependent on outsiders for their security and perpetuation of a way of life.
Something analogous to their close-knit communities that is sufficiently armed to present a challenge for any invading force is much more viable in the long term. See Chechnya.
All the same, let's assume that it would somehow be possible to ensure the succession of a long line of philosopher-kings all of whom would govern in accord with a single, permanently stable system of values. In that event ... but hold on ... let's pause and take stock of the assumptions we've been making. We're assuming, among other things, that the problems of complexity, chaos, and the resistance of subordinates, also the purely technical factors that limit the options open to leaders, as well as the competitive, power-seeking groups that evolve within a society under the influence of natural selection, can all be overcome to such an extent that an all-powerful leader will be able to govern the society rationally; we're assuming that the "conflicts among many individual wills" within the society can be resolved well enough so that it will be possible to make a rational choice ofleader; we're assuming that means will be found to put the chosen leader into a position of absolute power and to guarantee forever the succession of competent and conscientious leaders who will govern in accord with some stable and permanent system of values. And if the hypothetical possibility of steering a society rationally is to afford any comfort to the reader, he will have to assume that the system of values according to which the society is steered will be one that is at least marginally acceptable to himself-which is a sufficiently daring assumption. It's now clear that we have wandered into the realm of fantasy.
>Some might point to the Amish and see an example of a micro-society that has retreated from the system. The problem is that the Amish people only exist because the system has not yet found their existence to be incompatible with its own values. Once this happens, just as wild animals are displaced and forests are demolished for the sake of ‘progress’, so too will the Amish perish. >This is all a matter of time.
after re-reading you reply, would however add after 'This is all a matter of time' something to the effect of:
''Furthermore, no matter how far they may retreat, the Amish are still not exempt from nuclear disaster, all manner of pollutants, encroachment by the State and its judicial technique, among other features of technological civilization.''
The point of adding this is two-fold: making it clear that even if you are a Bible-based untra-trad community tech-civ will STILL encroach upon you, and it also brings to the fore the nearly-invisible techniques wich determine all human relations, namely the Constitution, the legal system, etc.
That whole passage is part of a larger section about how the development of societies CANNOT be the subject of rational human control. The philosopher king is a hypothetical dictator, and, as he fleshes out the details of his characteristics comes to the conclusion that this figure is a subject of fantasy. Reread that chapter.
Juan Diaz
Pill taken, meme saved.
The Polish user from the previous thred made a good point about the necessity of fresh memes.
Have a notebook with several quotes by Ellul copied down from 'The Technological Society'. true, Ellul may not be Ted, but if anyone (wink wink) is willing to make simple memes using those quotes, will be more than happy to post them ITT. These quotes are demolishing, absolute truth bombs, trustmebro.jpg. Just have to find the exact notebook.
One idea that I have been contemplating recently is how well representative democracy results in prosperity in contrast to serve the interests of the people. Note that the "interests of the people" are not identical to prosperity because collectively people aren't knowledgeable about what they want, but they can have strong opinions about what they hate. Monarchies are not purely subject to the whims of an individual because that ruler must serve the interests of the wealthy and elite in order to retain power. So maybe monarchy has benefits we don't typically credit it with like consistency of purpose, and particularly with male rulers, a sensitivity towards outside threats.
>we should also post them in other threads consistently, to widen our potential audience.
been doing that on subject-related threads, loke survival/gardening threads, etc.
>after the FAQ is done, let's focus on making memes. Then, let's dedicate an entire /TKG/ to memes only, a kind of collection if you want. We should occasionally do this, and make a special remark for them in the 'last threads list'.
Definitely.
Elijah Williams
While it’s tempting to just retreat from society and try to live as primitive humans did, this does not entail a solution to our predicament with the progression of technological society. To use Ted’s life as an example: Ted became frustrated with society and did just as you said (before ISAIF was in its final form). He quickly realized that although he left the system alone, it would not leave him. It was actually living ‘innawoods’ that drove him to get ISAIF in front of the eyes of Americans (and eventually the world). Some might point to the Amish and see an example of a micro-society that has retreated from the system. The problem is that the Amish people only exist because the system has not yet found their existence to be incompatible with its own values. Once this happens, just as wild animals are displaced and forests are demolished for the sake of ‘progress’, so too will the Amish perish. This is all a matter of time. Furthermore, no matter how far they may retreat, the Amish are still not exempt from nuclear disaster, all manner of pollutants, encroachment by the State and its judicial technique, among other features of technological civilization.
Jack King
>development of societies CANNOT be the subject of rational human control of course it can. see any authoritarian state. they control everything.
>The philosopher king is a hypothetical dictator it's hypothetical for him because he thinks it's a fantasy as in it can't happen. but north korea proves otherwise.
William Butler
Id like to propose a slight change as i feel it goes against Ted's philosophy... >oversocialization is harmful to the individual >therefore beter yourself by joining a gym
I think a much better way to get fit would be to go for a long distance run in nature itself. Along a waterway, bush, woods, forest etc. Then the individual can experience nature and its glory. If one cannot easily access nature without considerable time or money then they should reconsider where they are livingvand make changes to start moving to a more rural and isolated area. This action alone will have the benefit of less socialization and a greater reliance on the self which will subconsciously change your lifestyle and health/ fitness. This also gives you a chance to patrol the environment and become an environmental warrior, picking up rubbish, planting native trees, testing waterways for pollution, or whatever you feel is best generally starting small.
Henry Walker
This notion aligns somewhat with libertarian thought, and that of may geopolitical analysts; that societies are emergent orders subject to the nature of their land and collective wills of their people. For instance, Britain operated under a monarch for centuries but the common law tradition was not dictated from the top down.
However, I believe large scale de-industrialization is something that would require an authoritarian regime. The benefits of industrialization are too tantalizing for a nice guy door-to-door LDS campaign to counteract. People love their Netflix and takeout and you can't convince them to leave it.
Yes, monarchy is much better than generally credited. But that is true monarchy, not crowned republics or democracies with a crowned president.
I wanted to say that you are wrong on your idea of prosperity. America gets its prosperity because of its large size / resources and its place as world hegemon.
All other prosperous democracies either have a clear source of income or recieve benefits from the U.S. - thus are not really democracies / independent on their policy.
America would be much more prosperous if it was a technocratic society where dumbasses didn't have a voice.
Benjamin Wright
>For instance, Britain operated under a monarch for centuries but the common law tradition was not dictated from the top down.
Where were any system of laws in monarchy dictated from top down?
Ian Young
Kaczynski is good. But he is too much of an american to amount to any good in real life.
What (serious) alternative to industrial society does he suggest? What is the goal of his ramblings?
He's just another american drunk with muh freedumz as far as I can get.