Isaif

Fuck off Leftypol brainlet

>Implying Kaczynski doesn't destroy leftist trash like Bookchin

>Isn't that just another surrogate activity
Good Lord, did you even read the Manifesto? Any activity that directly correlates to survival cannot be considered a surrogate activity.

For an unironic /a/ answer, Dr Stone.

If it’s not a meme, I’ll check it out.

Kaczynski definitely is not an anarchist, but that may actuakly be a good reason to read Bookchin.

Does he disagree with Kaczynski’s assumptions, reasoning, and/or conclusions? Specifically w.r.t. technology (because I’m not really interested in arguments about hierarchy, for example, and I know many anarchists frame critiques that way).

He actually makes no statements that preclude what you have described here (some aspects of civilization existing or reemerging).

He merely argues that revolution is necessary to stop the current loss of freedom. This could result in a hunter gatherer society. There is a strong case that at least some period of social life approximating hunter gatherer/early settlement life will result. However, any new social order could emerge over time.

Hunting and gathering would not be a surrogte activity in any case. The power process is essentially the fulfillment of necessity, and surrogate activites are the abstractions and remappings of that primal process that occur under present industrial-technological society. Going back to what you stated, there is nothing in ISAIF that says that a small community of homesteads with appropriate technologies and a local assembly is invalid (maintenance of the homestead would be a legitimate manifestation of the power process, and small, localized insitutions can exist without eating away freedom). The argument allows for these things, but merely puts forward that these things cannot even come to exist without complete revolution.

I think Kaczynski's viewpoints are outdated, and his points, barring the descriptions of industrial society, are shaky at best. Just take the Land-pill

What's the outside?

>If it’s not a meme
it is

We don't talk about it, user

It is definitely a meme. And by all means you should still go for it anyway

Sounds fun, where do I sign up?

In the entropic end of garbage time, right near the total obsolescence timeframe

his bit on leftists is spot on though

Not anymore imo, considering the psychology of leftism can now be applied to other political constituents, which I would go as far to say, have been subject to similar industrial affects (the power processes, the need for power, the complaining after the end of the power process, etc)
Also I found his defense of the US, in the face of leftist attack, odd, considering the US was one of the main facilitators of the industrial societal system. I'm aware that America beforehand had cultural sustenance, and should not be of blame, but to call the facilitator in its entirety, "great and good", while being staunchly anti-Industrial Revolution (not to mention that the criticisms of the US are increasingly of a post-IR manner), is peculiar. But I haven't read that chapter in awhile.

Kaczynski is boring shit for people without 2 thoughts to rub together, just read literally anything else to get yourself "out of this shallow hole"

Don't mix up Ted with Ellul. Ellul went to the trouble of trying to refute Marx and the social anarchists, Ted only ever addresses liberals because when he was active there weren't anti-capitalists worth a damn.

wrong, he only addresses liberals because he was far too short-sighted and by extension, stupid

For someone with so little exposure to other thinkers I think he did a decent job. He's at least on the level of the utopian socialists.

Sean Goonan The Foundation for Exploration

Shhh the culties will hear you.

I know he doesn't define those as surrogate activities, but if you are artificially avoiding technology and society in order to create an artificial survival game, isn't that sort of the same thing? Once again, I know he doesns't say this. I am arguing that his solution is really a form of the same thing, which is a challenge to spend our time on which isn't meaningful.

transhumanism

quality post

>D-don't ruin my illusions!

Read Nietzsche and Freud then quickly discover what a sophmoric mish mash his ideation truly is. Not that he's incorrect here and there in principle, but that there are far better thinkers, and infinitely better writers.

>freud

Point is that K was saturated in F, ranchero.

A cosmopolitan libcuck pussy with a veneer of eco-agrarian communalism, the fact that you even suggest this shows that you have absolutely no knowledge of biological-ecological thought and just want a return of neolithic village morality.

>Kaczynski only ever wrote one text

There is no antidote OP. This thread is the very exemple as to why. People can only attack ISAIF on its claims about leftism (which is true, but still pervasively 'american' throughout the analysis) and the power process and surrogate activities. The rest on technological progress and industrial society is pure mathematical facts. Kaczynski is brilliant.
He doesn't claim to have a solution, as he explains it in his other texts. As revolutionary theorists analyzed, revolution can only destroy the current system. It cannot build something new willingly. Anyone with a vague understanding of historical materialism comprehends this fact. He advocates for hunter gatherer type society, because it is the exact opposite of technological society. Therefore making it a fight to death between two systems with incompatible values. He acknowledges that post-revolution society will not model itsef to the will of the revolutionaries.

Good post.

liberal and maoist

>which is true, but still pervasively 'american' throughout the analysis
It is only 'pervasively American' at the time of writing. Now that approach and strain of leftism has come to dominate the entire western world. He is simply calling out the 'slave morality' (as another fella termed it) which lies underneath all leftist appeals and makes them rotten.

>I found his defense of the US, in the face of leftist attack, odd
it isn't odd when you take nuance into consideration and also realize that the reasons why we reject something are just as important as what we reject. Leftism is toxic at its core because it is anti-life and anti-power in principle.

Having a triple-digit IQ. His arguments are so fucking terrible.

>I do not enjoy surrogate activities, such as marine biology. Therefore, surrogate activities are categorically unfulfilling. Therefore, it would be preferable to die of exposure and simple infections in a primitivist society

I get it, he hates liberals and makes a pretty poignant diagnosis of what's wrong with US liberals. But going from that to letting him feed you his embarrassingly shitty arguments without any reflection what so ever is a gargantuan faggot leap.

Well pardon us, Mr. Gucci loafers.

But he literally said leftists were always seeking power

I am sorry I was not clear: by anti-power i do not mean they eschew power (such a philosophy would not persist), rather they are ideologically bound to resent those who have it. By anti-power i mean they labor under a terminal ressentiment

I don't mean 'pervasively american' as something pejorative. You actually make the very same 'mistake' in your post. does as well. This strain of leftism actually comes from the enlightenment and french revolutionary ideas. Nothing inherently american about them. I've lived in france and the US, so this is something I've come to realize and internalize quite deeply.

i'll quote what I wrote 3 posts above
>People can only attack ISAIF on its claims about leftism (which is true, but still pervasively 'american' throughout the analysis) and the power process and surrogate activities. The rest on technological progress and industrial society is pure mathematical facts. Kaczynski is brilliant.
We get it, his analysis of leftism and the power process is not all-encompassing. The rest is just irrefutable though.

More Kaczynski. Hair of the Ted

In the mid to late 2000s i was pretty involved in green anarchist and primmie stuff and it is so funny to me that that milieu liked Ted so much. He is a premier CIS WHITE MALE and is pretty homophobic and utterly dismissive of leftist idpol stuff. Not sure if he has the same pull in those circles any more as I stopped drinking that kool aid long ago (I've moved on to different flavors), but if he does I'm not sure how he could without some serious blind eye turning. Especially given how the milieu viciously turned on Derrick Jensen for saying that after the collapse trannies were gonna be hard pressed to get their HRT or whatever he said.

The only other adjacent contemporary guy like him I like is Bob Black, another crotchety old white guy that trannies hate.

Anti-technological sympathies are just one expression of the reactionary psychological recognition by the petty-bourgeois of their declining significance. Destroying any form of progress is their only hope of maintaining their social status, if you're so easily swayed by fascism you've probably got vested interests.

adventures-in-dialectics.org/Adventures-In-Dialectics/Zero_Growth_Is_Suicide/Zero_Growth_Is_Suicide.htm
adventures-in-dialectics.org/Adventures-In-Dialectics/Anti-Ehrlich_ThePopulationBomb_PeopleAsPollution/Anti-Ehrlich_ThePopulationBomb_PeopleAsPollution.pdf
adventures-in-dialectics.org/Adventures-In-Dialectics/Crises-by-Nature/Crises-by-Nature.htm

>Destroying any form of progress is their only hope of maintaining their social status
Do you realize humanity does not have its place in an industrial and technological society? You're absolutely proselityzing to the wrong crowd here. Antitechies are pure marxist theorists. They completely agree with what you said, but also realize there won't be any questions of social status and bourgeoisie when humanity becomes extinct. You're just spouting dated marxist dogma. You are going to defend technological progress until it literally replaces your useless ass. think about it for a second.

>Do you realize humanity does not have its place in an industrial and technological society
Define "humanity", do you mean the historical man of some particular hierarchical class ordered societies? There has already been biological revolutions in the history of the human species, perhaps morphologically/psychologically/etc man may be engineered into something "post-human", in a sense, but that's our conscious responsibility now to engage in.

>Antitechies are pure marxist theorists
Technological advance is what necessitates the superstructural changes that will transform society.

>there won't be any questions of social status and bourgeoisie when humanity becomes extinct
Extinction can only be the result of collective inaction.

>Define "humanity"
Humans. Complex living biological organisms. Men, women, children. You're overintellectualizing the subject. But what if you're right and we can engineer 'post-human', well humanity still dies as Kaczynski limpidly explained the implications of bioengineering. If we ever change the genetic makeup of a person as to 'correct' the genes responsible for violence, antisocial behavior, rebellious impulses, etc... Then you successfully anhilated natural biological phenomenons of self regulatory purposes. You build an army of docile drones, which won't survive AI and full automation anyways as humans, even if completely reengineered, cannot compete with the system. But anyone with an objective look at progress admits that we cannot foresee the implications of such reengineering of the human race.
>Technological advance is what necessitates the superstructural changes that will transform society.
Yes. As I said above, we both agree on that. You just accept this historical trend as finality, where Kaczynski refuses it and preaches for its total destruction before it inevitably kills us.
>Extinction can only be the result of collective inaction.
Yet another argument in favor of what Kaczynski says. The technological system is independent from humans. It's our collective inaction that allows it to grow and supress our freedom. The belief that progress and the system's livelihood is inherently more important than that of human's. Which is true, because it is the technological system that feeds us today. If we stop it, there will be millions of death. But what's better, millions of death today? Billions of death tomorrow? Or the total anhilation of Humanity?

I am not going to repeat myself. Kaczynski and Ellul are obviously Marxist theorist. They just advocate for the destruction of the technological system, as it will lead us to what I said above. The analysis is the same, it's the attitude towards its conclusions that's different.

>He's at least on the level of the utopian socialists.
He's already a level above them, because he acknowledged that there is indeed such a thing as "human nature" and thus not everything can be reduced to materialism.

It's not "overintellectualizing". When did "humanity" emerge? You can look at the palaeontological record to find evidence for the historic emergence of the first morphologically "modern" humanoids but you can't necessarily impute our psychological motives/desires/perception/etc into them as if they were like us in any meaningful way. You're not going to be able to situate the exact point when something "went wrong" if you can't even point out where "we" began. Are those early humanoid animals even really "human" in any meaningful sense? What separates us from other animals is our cognitive abilities which, perhaps, a revolution occurred in quite recently, e.g. see Julian Jaynes Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind; this just hasn't been preserved in fossilized form so it can't be analysed easily.
You fetishize "natural selection", just one particular historical mode of organic reproduction, which came into existence and regulated earth for billions of years, the problematic is that consciousness is literally taking over the biospheric reproduction of the totality of earth and the full ramifications of this must be consciously understood. Kaczynski answer was to limit our cognitive abilities and returning to a form, which is most likely largely a mythological creation, and it's forceful maintenance by fascism. The return to Eden at this point isn't possible and its suicide to attempt it.

Basically an embrace of a mythological creation and rejection of natural science. You don't know what a human is, you can only project a myth because your epistemology is degenerate.

Dan Bilzerians Instagram page

>You can look at the palaeontological record to find evidence for the historic emergence of the first morphologically "modern" humanoids but you can't necessarily impute our psychological motives/desires/perception/etc into them as if they were like us in any meaningful way.
Genetically a human from 20 thousand years ago is no different from a modern human. It's the same animal, with the same instincts and base desires, just living in a different level of technological and societal advancement.

>Basically an embrace of a mythological creation and rejection of natural science. You don't know what a human is, you can only project a myth because your epistemology is degenerate.
What did the author mean by this? The world wonders.

>Fascism is anti-technology
What kind of stupid fucking nonsense is this?

>You fetishize "natural selection", just one particular historical mode of organic reproduction
How detached from life do you have to be to make this claim? You are the embodiement of western ideology. A man so dissociated with his instincts, he cannot differentiate between life and death, nature or machine.
This is the power of Western thought, and its true face is finally shining through its false premise of 'progress'. A natural impulse towards suicide, a correction of cosmic order.

ur dum