What did he actually want to happen? What would his ideal society look like?
I agree with his views on environmentalism and conservation of the environment. I agree with what he said about leftists and conservatives but I don’t understand what he wanted to do fully.
Did he want to turn the clock back to 1800 and leave it at that? What technology is acceptable and what isn’t? Is a washing machine or a gas cooker ok for him? Or the printing press?
I don't think he had a serious plan to make it happen, he just recognized a number of problems and probably didn't think they were solvable, his manifesto and actions seemed very nihilistic to me.
I’m pretty sure he wanted us to go back to living like cavemen
The tone of his essay imo shows that he did think things were solvable, after a fashion anyway and a lot of booms.
>What would his ideal society look like?
If you've read his manifesto, you should know that he admits it is impossible to know how a post-revolutionary society will look like.
>I don’t understand what he wanted to do fully
Accelerate the collapse of industrial society. If you want to know more about how that might take place and why it is actually a real possibility, I'd strongly recommend pic related.
>What technology is acceptable and what isn’t?
That would be determined by post-revolutionary conditions
The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can't make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values...
He wanted to alert society to the perils of technology and he was right.
We can have tech, we just need to be aware of how bad it can be for us.
Is it the opinion of uncle TEDfags that the ship (of society) is bascially running without a captain? ie it's out of control bascially- the system ahs tis needs and those at the top find ways of satiating it?
the virus fiasco could support this view
He was an MK-ultra victim playing out a script
And again, Ted elaborates on how modern industrial society infringes uniquely upon human dignity. That's why it doesn't matter as much whether we know exactly what happens after its collapse (i.e., how far back would sociopolitical complexity be taken). And of course, the longer the collapse is delayed, the worse it will be once it comes.
society is so fucked up and on the other hand so sinister that smashing it is by now valid in itself, whatever comes after.
what he wanted was to upthrow the 'industrial' system, and let technology survive. Technology that is local, and does not depend on a global chain. He was not against technology but organised industrial society.
you got it wrong mate, he pointed out that the system cant sustain itself for ever, and the more complex it gets, more mayhem it causes when it breaks apart which is inevitable. he used the mammalian system to show an ideal state, and even mammals die, and that such systems can only be made out of natural selection and not conscious human planning.
they want the black man to loose his blackness, and stand in the shoes of white men, and live and act like them.
we can have the tech, without the organised industrial setup. he was not against windmills, and craftsmanship, he was against a global industrial chain. he asked for whatever technology that can survive autonomously
I’m not sure how that would work. You can’t expect every community to have the knowledge to maintain machinery
smashing it is all that needs to be done, what comes after is none of our business
it's uncanny that modern science began as literal witchcraft trying to get power over devils and control nature...did in fact play out...
>he pointed out that the system cant sustain itself for ever, and the more complex it gets,
No, you didn't read his essay. He thought society would become unstable in the near future, and that would be the key junction for eco-anarchists to crash civilization. After that key junction point if civilization still persists, then he said it would be likely to continue indefinitely with little threat to its existence.
primates and corvids can use tools, we can do better with whatever is available in the vicinity instead of depending on a small valve of a modern ventilator, of which a certain company has copyrights and you cant 3d print it although you have all means
"scientists" are satanists the deny God
why have there been so many teddy k threads recently
like 5-6 a day for the past week
fucking weird
>systems can only be made out of natural selection and not conscious human planning.
>Humans aren't natural
I thought he was smart
>What would his ideal society look like
He wanted an anti tech revolution, and that's it. He said that he didn't want to try to control the course of the revolution to instate a new system afterwards. He literally just wanted to destroy tech.
There are groups of eco-anarchists set up in discord and other communities which are trying to covertly influence opinions towards him in places like Yas Forums. At the very least they try to raise awareness and get people drifting towards their point of view.
this is literally his plan
Idid read it, not only the essay but the book following it. Plus he points out very clearly that we can never guess how society would evolve on a larger timescale and that a fall is inevitable.
I first came accross this guy after reading algebra and another proof of wedderburn theorem, even artin cites him
Agreed
Society has evolved fairly consistently in one direction over the past thousands of years, with occasional minor downward corrections. Just like life on our planet.
he means perfect systems can only be a result of natural selection, and not rational planning
>haaarrrvaaaarrd
>muh 167 iq
>child prodigy
LMAO.
Who’s dumber him or that idiot bouncer always being shilled as the worlds smartest man?
>Did he want to turn the clock back to 1800 and leave it at that? What technology is acceptable and what isn’t? Is a washing machine or a gas cooker ok for him? Or the printing press?
The problem is not the individual technologies themselves, but the high organization an logistics required to produce them; the washing machine you mention requires mining operations for the production of some of the raw materials, energy-production to power it (with all of the logistics and coordination required to deliver it to each home), etc etc.
Modern technology is a unified system, and as such is highly coupled; the 'bad' parts of technology cannot be eliminated without at the same time harming the stability of the 'good' parts.
For example, look at modern medicine. The progress of medical technique is based upon sustained progress in other areas such as biology, physics and chemistry; thus, it is clear that medical technique is highly coupled with other areas of study and technical development.
Paradoxically, the development of so-called 'weapons of mass destruction' as well as bioweapons is also greatly dependent on the fields of biology, physics and chemistry.
It is not possible to pick and choose which technology to keep and which technology to reject; reform of the
technological system is simply not possible.
he wanted most of you faggots to be dead from abortion - i say good idea
/r/equesting Uncle Ted quote on scolars and academics
How would you maintain that globally without force? What’s to stop som other country from saying “Fuck this, let’s industrialize and take over”
Ted had entire pages on leftism I literally cannot post them since there are so many.
Yeah.
You know why he sent packages to colleges predomintly?
Because he had an inferiority complex. Because he wasnt smart. Im sorry but he wasnt.
you got that point wrong. technology has evolved fairly consistently while the socio political structure has been chaos. like Simon Bolivar and Bismarck have failed to achieve the desired outcome of their efforts, and every one who tries will meet the same fate. Technical progress guide societal structure, its not the other way round
>“Fuck this, let’s industrialize and take over”
Because industrialization simply won't be possible without prerequisite scientific knowledge, which has been destroyed purposefully by revolutionaries. It took a long time for civilization to develop the prerequisite knowledge base to enable industrialization.
Read anti-tech revolution: why and HOW
I disagree. The further you go back, the more scattered, numerous and fragmented cultures become. Go all the way back to the neolithic and each little tribe has its own identity and culture. As society progresses to the point it's at now, cultures, languages and histories become more and more blended into larger homogenized clusters. The printing press was one pivotal point where a new technology enabled rapid centralization of language/culture.
what happens after is none of our business, its left to those who witness the second wave of technology
I actually did read it. He doesn't say what he imagines or wants it to be like except that there's no tech.
Like not even running water? That's tech. But he doesn't say.
he says that his philosopher king is impossible to attain.
but it's literally the kim dynasty.
>How would you maintain that globally without force?
In his work 'Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How'(ATR), Ted addresses the seemingly insurmountable problem of successfully bringing about total global collapse, AND KEEPING IT COLLAPSED.
He states that -given the globalized, highly coupled and interdependent nature of the different nations- once collapse has been realized in one nation, -say, the US- this would precipitate collapse in all other nations, given the catastrophic and immediate damage and generalized disruption this initial collapse would cause to the global economic order as a whole. He also argues in ISAIF
that a collapse of the system in any of the great nations would precipitate the collapse of the industrial system in all remaining nations.
>What’s to stop som other country from saying “Fuck this, let’s industrialize and take over”
There just won't be enough 'steam left in the engine' to jumpstart
industrial society ever again. Fossil fuel consumption and utilization requires much technical knowledge and efficiency, logistics and high-organization which will be very hard to find if tech-civ does in fact collapse. Machines will rust and
decay; whomever is leftover -including the occasional technician here and there- after collapse will be too busy eating grubs and getting tetanus
while trying to get their garden going to even worry about lighting, central heating, etc., much less bringing the decaying dams, electric plants
and other generators of energy up and running again.
Even if all these psychological/sociological/anthropological difficulties were to be ovecome, Ted -and others- posit
that there will literally not be enough raw material (fossil fuels) left to bring another Industrial Revolution about.
That’s why I started the thread. I’ve been reading more about him recently because of these threads, that and there’s been an increase in wildlife around where I live because there’s less people about which made me do a think.
The turning point was the steam engine. And again, you have not assailed the point that technology has shaped societies, and not the other way round.
Based poo tedposter.
Have to half-disagree with you there; yes, that seems to be the turning point that sparked Industrial Revolution.
But the true turning point for humanity as a whole, on a wider scale, was the development of agriculture.
I think he knew that there was no possibility of reversal and so he resorted to terrorist acts out of desperation for productive action
We are all real lucky to have the release valve of the internet to vent our frustrations. Imagine knowing that the world is sick and having literally zero people to talk to about it
I didn't disagree with that, I disagreed with the belief that society will inevitably collapse. Based on the history we know, it seems like human civilization will keep going mostly in the same direction it's gone before (and this is what Ted seemed to think in his essay - unless it's stopped by him and his ilk.)
Ted’s a commie fag
yeah but teds obviously never been to /diy/. wonky tech know how and jerry-rigging solutions has been major subject for peppers, survivalists, and hillbillies.
i understand thats not full 'industrial civilization', but nevertheless it demonstrates that the blueprint is there, in mans nature.
and im saying this from a position of basically agreeing with teds basic premise, but i think the best we can do is overthrow capitalism and aim for a start trek type post-scarcity economic system, which does not rely on environmental degradation.
He was intelligent, however due to his serious lacking in knowledge regarding the world in general and the fact that he was a victim of CIA mind control programs, he suffered a total shattering of his worldview and then he was looking for reasons to put it back to justify why he was "right" (only in his mind) and as a result he felt the need to prove to the world that he was "right", he was seeking validation and confirmation for his views, because they were crucial to his being, his ego (they defined him), while it was in reality an attempt at regaining control over his mind and beliefs. CIA in Operation PaperClip has captured a lot of ex-Third Reich officials and scientists who were experimenting with mind control and when they were taken to USA and given total immunity, CIA forced them to test methods of destroying peoples' worldviews (officially program was to turn captured KGB and other communist assets into capitalism-friendly mindset) through extremely inhumane methods like experimentation with drugs, electroshocks and especially destroying peoples's ego in order to make them doubt themselves, so that they would be easier to mold into whatever CIA wanted them to become. Kaczynski was a victim of it, a perfect example of how CIA mind control programs were dangerous due to their willing to take huge risks and essentially disregarding all safety-protocols and a child-like willingness to experiment with things just to see what happens without a care for the consequences.
Kaczynski was right about the fact that humans evolve much slower than technological progress, effectively making the evolution of an environment (due to technology) too fast for humans to catch up to it, resulting in an environment being incompatible with the needs of humans to feel relatively happy. That's why depression and suicides plagues 1st world countries.
Also, Kaczynski while being intelligent, was not enlightened and didn't realize that absolutely ONLY CONSTANT IS CHANGE.
>it demonstrates that the blueprint is there, in mans nature.
It is; but the human desire for freedom -as well as dominance- is also part of that blueprint. Freedom and highly organized technological civilization are anti-thetical; complete opposites.
>the best we can do is overthrow capitalism
Not really. Technological civilization (whether ancap, commie, or NatSoc, the actual ideology is literally irrelevant) will eventually subjugate all of humanity and possibly all living beings as well (look no further that genetic engineeing, AI, high tech surveillence, etc.).
Technological civilization depends on the self-directing forces of efficiency, efficacy and 'the one best way', as clearly described first by Jacques
Ellul and then touched upon by Ted as well in his works.
In the face of technology and its intrinsic laws of self-directed development and progress, ideological models such as Capitalism, Communism and
National Socialism, Monarchism, whatever, are little more than just slightly different social representations of technological civilization.
Industrialization and the economy at large do not depend exclusively on any authoritarian regime, no matter how authoritarian it may be, nor do they depend on any democratic regime, no matter how 'benevolent' it may strive to be. Technological progress is a self-directing semi-autonomous force, no matter what the purported ideological context may be.
I don't use disc*rd but there is no such groups to my knowledge. We have had a /Ted Kaczynski General/ every day for the past two weeks because we want to elevate the discourse.
Being anti-tech does not conflict with pro-white or anti-semitic ideology. However it does elevate one's political perspective, once one realize that we won't have white ethnostate utopia only by fixing the demographics problem
is this an answer to..
?
It certainly rings true- this is actualyl definition of demonic- when man no longer answers foer something, the devil does.
The whole question of technological development is never asked: what for? what is purpose of our entire effort?
They exist, I've seen twitter posters trying to subtly recruit people to them. Unsure of whether it's actually discord or another platform. That's not to say there aren't legitimate non-shill TK-posters here
>F-fi-finnanon, i-is th-that you, bro...?
Maybe they do exist, I can't prove otherwise.
Hitler's Germany was at the forefront of environmental protection and the Tedpill logic fits nicely to far-right thinking, so I don't know what these ''eco-anarchists'' are supposedly trying to achieve.
Yes... good day.
eco-anarchists would probably believe the eventual outcome of fascist societies would still be boredom, psychological suffering, meaninglessness, losing touch with nature, etc., due to the belief that technology is the true governing/driving force rather than ideology and political system.
Yes, it can be.
Basically, the technological system is self-directed. The very rules of cold logic, efficiency, efficacy, always resulting in a fixed tendency towards 'the one best way' to do anything, determine that the tech sys is in fact semi-autonomous, and NOT under the control of humanity, no matter how much democracy or authoritarianism you throw at it.
For example, the best way to mass-produce a car is the same whether it be in a Constitutional democracy or in a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship.
Another example: the problem of optimal production and distribution of wheat is on a strictly technical level the same in an Anarcho-commune as it is in a Fascist ethnocentric white community. The keyword here is 'optimal'; anything less than optimal is just a hinderance, a hinderance which no ideological gymnastics can improve; within any industrialized society, no matter what the underlying ideological tenets, only pure technical solutions can in the end address technical problems.
Obviously there are at least two finnanons in /TKG/, not an idiot here, but good day to you to finnanon.
Fire as well, as we can see from ancient deforestation practices like in Scotland and Australia
>due to the belief that technology is the true governing/driving force rather than ideology and political system.
Not just a belief, bro.... High-organization and efficient logistics are the same everywhere, no matter what the incidental ideological/propagandistic context may happen to be; in all cases, ideology and its propaganda will soon enough effect and accomodate changes to the ideological infrastructure as the needs
of technological progress may eventually require. Technological progress abides by its own intrinsic laws of reason and logic in a self-directed and goal-oriented manner.
i meant that industrial society would eventually collapse, not society in general
we need to have a freedom club asap
Very true, fire was an ABSOLUTE mile-stone in human development.
we are talking about the dawn of industrial society, not the dawn of society
fire was the first invention, agriculture came second
Ted was blasted with LSD by the CIA. he had prophetic visions of the future and didn't like it.
You may call me OG-Finn to separate me from other Finnish tedposters. If I recall correctly I've been in TKG since the first thread and posted quantitatively the most alongside you and Germanon.