>What the system subjects us to against our will: -porn industry -rap culture/hollywood destroying the youth -transsexual children -opioid deaths by the millions -mass abortion - profit driven - fetuses used to make body lotions -poisonous food, drink, and environment -spyware products everywhere -planned obsolescence -built by the lowest bidder -shallow materialism and consumerism -breakdown of family unit and gender roles -mother earns money to pay daycare to do her 'real' job -divorce business -generic mass appeal products -morals, laws, and culture subject to profit -sociopathy rewarded, decency punished -political and social systems fully controlled by corporations -manufacturing of endless proxy wars -manipulating money is a job in itself -debt based economy -constant inflation considered normal -race to the bottom wage slavery -manufactured identity-based infighting -illusion of democratic control -mass immigration for welfare and wage suppression -only frivolities get cheaper while necessities rise in price -false dichotomy of the only alternative being bread lines
So far the goals have been: >creation of FAQ >creation of /prep/list >make memes >keep threads alive >have informative, educative and entertaining discussion
Someone brought up taking away the Ted-centric FAQ components. The issue is that we’ll always refer people to ISAIF. Believe me. I’ve tried to get people to read ISAIF in sneaky ways, but they always care about the author. I don’t think ignoring it is wise, but maybe we can take the focus off of Ted. Word it so that Ted is secondary.
Dylan Thompson
>Still geting used to the new /ATG/ format!
Starting to think it fucking sucks. Maybe keep trying it for a few more days, and then consider going back to /TKG/. The quality of the posts and posters (not to mention quantity) has gone down sharply ever since the change.
>Someone brought up taking away the Ted-centric FAQ components.
If the Ted-cenric components of the FAQ were removed, there would literally be no FAQ left except for questions 5, 13, 16 and 17. Destroying past efforts hardly seems a good way to go.
A more reasonable approach might be to make a separate FAQ. The obvious down-side in the context of current year goldfish attention-span is that new-comers would have to read two FAQ's instead of just one, when just one FAQ is definnitely hard enough.
>Word it so that Ted is secondary.
Problem is Ted is not secondary to anti-tech..... this is a glaring Achilles heel here. Unfortunately, Ted is central, whether anons like it or not, specially in the current pop culture mindset, etc. i.e. Try making anyone read Ellul, see how far you get....
>but they always care about the author
It is very hard indeed to find a way around this issue. Very hard.
Justin Gonzalez
What an accurate diagram! It shows the way forward: Accumulate members from the rightmost portion of the curve Gain sympathy from the left section Highlight how ironically retarded the mid-wits are
Robert Flores
TL;DR
Evan Ramirez
I'm not a fan of removing Ted references in the OP entirely either. > Problem is Ted is not secondary to anti-tech I think he is at this point. We might need to repackage the ideas, build on previous work, and move forward. Just like Ted drew from Ellul, future work can do the same with them. Think about the goal of ISAIF: exposure. It's been almost 30 years or something. I think we can do better in terms of making something palatable in terms of the zeitgeist of today. Ted even said that ATRev should be built upon as well. Although that might be beyond the scope of these generals at this point in time.
Austin Jackson
>hurr durr technology bad >posts this from a PC on the internet
Brayden Martin
new format is proving to be less popular, also bump
Andrew Scott
Go live in the woods like a backwards nigger because thats somehow better than the comfort of the modern world
Thomas Mitchell
I don't know if he's ever been shared here before but Luke Smith on YouTube is definitely /ourguy/. His videos could help communicate the anti-tech philosophy to everyday people.
Why the change of mind? They fired you from the call center?
Ryder Allen
Im halfway ted’s manifesto, for the full 100% I agree.
Alexander Hernandez
He's anti-tech in so far as maximising independence from organisational dependant technology while maximising self-sufficiency, which is less radical than what most people would be comfortable with.
Liam Taylor
>I think he is at this point.
Mmmmmmhhh..... Have to disagree here. He did an excellent job of re-packaging Ellul for 'plebs', so to speak; even the numbered paragraphs, that was pure genius. Not sure how that PLUS the explsure his work got can possibly be topped.
>We might need to repackage the ideas, build on previous work, and move forward. Just like Ted drew from Ellul, future work can do the same with them. Think about the goal of ISAIF: exposure. It's been almost 30 years or something. I think we can do better in terms of making something palatable in terms of the zeitgeist of today.
This is all very true user, and 'forward-thinking' or whatever. You're right, all of anti-tech thought CAN be re-packaged for the current zeitgeist, it really CAN be done, no doubt. BUT, good luck getting that same kind of exposure. Don't forget that it would be competing with all sorts of 'alternative viewpoints', all of which are much more prevalent or whatever than anti-tech, and yet are still having one hell of a time getting 'out there'.... Look no further then NatSoc or the 'Alt-right' or whatever. In other words, if censorship is eating those anons for lunch, can you just imagine what it will do to genuine well-thought-out anti-tech thought....?
Not trying to talk rot here, but honestly, the TL;DR to this post would be: OK, it CAN be repackaged beautifully and concisely, made more relevant to the times and all, but how do you get anywhere near the same exposure as Ted did...?
>change of mind the correct idiom is 'change of heart' >kraut with poor sense of humour, nothing new
Josiah Perry
I've read his manifesto, what order should I read his other works in?
Ian Myers
explsure *exposure
Christian Reed
Where you learned that? On the shitting streets?
Jackson Hernandez
literally the only good thread on /pol. Keep it up m8
Eli Lopez
lmao "anti-tech general" brought to you by multiple layers of technology
LARPers
ted had good diagnoses and crackpot solutions. hurr let's LARP as neolithic agrarian fuckheads even though 99.9% of the world won't play along but hypothetically if they would we'd either just develop tech again or get wiped out by a meteor that could have been prevented with tech
drool-tier garbage go pay attention to something constructive realistic and important like the literal tens of millions of shitskins flooding your borders. something needs to be done about that. step one to any constructive future for humanity: eugenics
Cameron Hernandez
Noticed the same. If it remains like this in the tomorrows thread, we should return to /TKG/
I want to recommend a book called "Too Smart For Our Own Good" by Craig Dilworth.
It's an academic book and I don't agree with everything he says, but it explains the vicious circle principle and how it has shaped technological development in mankind. He steps through all phases of hominid development and agricultural/pastoral/industrial development. Even if you don't agree with his basis thesis, it's a treasure trove of information. Highly recommended reading for anyone ecologically aware.
Reads like pure cope And you fuckers believe this trash?
Carson Thompson
reminder your hero is a feminist retard
>"Here I should make clear that it is not my intention to argue against gender equality. I myself am enough a product of modern industrial society to feel that women and men should have equal status."
focus on actually important stuff. your kin are being farmed for their income like cattle and shitskins are flooding your nations. quit LARPing.
Nathan Garcia
It's not that all tech is bad, or that Ted was right in all things. It's that we need to understand and control the effects that tech has on the human psyche.
Yas Forums is actually the perfect demonstration of this. It's obsolete tech, a fucking imageboard that could have been used in the 90's p much as it is now. We use it because it is socially optimal for our needs.
Alexander Wood
HAHAHAHAHA Ted luddite cucks BTFO
Eli Miller
I see your point. However, that seems to be the goal of these threads anyway. You are disseminating ISAIF to those who have not already seen it. We are already tackling that problem of exposure anyway. I think what you mean is that we have no reputation whatsoever to convince people to read something (anything). Ted mogged the media to shitpost his ideas, but that was in the past. The effects of that effort are long gone (No one should misconstrue this as a call to violence). If these generals gain some more steam (we'll get through this hump), I'm sure SOME stray anons will read ANYTHING we may recommend.
Chase Cook
get your priorities in order. look around you. 50% white population in our youngest generation. these people are spreading their quality of life wherever they go in our nation, and the genetics that cause it. we are living in a new robber baron era. western democracy has failed in its entirety. and you're sitting here whining about cell phones because some guy who can't identify basic women's rights as a significant cause to the decline of the west wrote a persuasive essay
Owen Young
>because some guy who can't identify basic women's rights as a significant cause to the decline of the west wrote a persuasive essay LOL did he even call out jews? Havent read his shit but if he didnt figure out feminism how he could figure out juden?
