Reading the follow up to Industrial Society And Its Future as a festive treat...

I recommend reading Ellul, especially The Technological Society and Propaganda.

A good article on Kaczynski’s background and influences.
theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/06/harvard-and-the-making-of-the-unabomber/378239/

I've read all of Kaczynski's works. After years and years of philosophy, literature, science and other subjects, I was blown away by Ted's honesty. He tackles actual problems at their roots. Unlike Freud and Marx who had all the insight necessary to formulate a coherent 'revolutionary' ideal but didn't, (Except Marx is as incoherent as catholicism is, in that its application is completely contrarian to the original ideal) and instead chose intellectualism over more .
For non american readers, the first part of ISAIF may appear contrived. His stance on politics, while right, is deeply engrained into the american ideal, which most people who have never lived in the US or had extensive contact with the culture cannot fully comprehend, therefore easily discardable. Also the power process isn't as fleshed out as some other philosophers wrote about(Late 19th/Early 20th). The rest of ISAIF reads like a mathematical proof though. It is why people will only argue about the first part on leftism and the power process.
>He should have stayed in his cabin
The entire appeal of Ted is that he didn't hide like the rest. He took it upon himself to spread his ideas, no matter the cost, no matter the consequences. Unlike Land, who expresses ideas similar to Ted's, but walks in the opposite direction, and actually embraces the inevitable outcome of Industrial society, Ted's course of action is pragmatic, honest and grounded. It's what's scary with him, most of what he did seems too intelligent at times. He started bombing shit because he realized bulldozers would come eventually. There is no point in hiding, like every philosophers do, whether it is physically or behind a desk, if you want to alter history. Kaczynski is the mathematical application of Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud.
Civilization is hell on earth. The perfect Hell. The one nobody will say no to.

Sorry for poor grammar and weird structure. Wrote this in a hurry before christmas eve dinner. I'll probably post some more later

Should I read it? Is it worth it?

There are similar threads here if you're curious:

__________

Biographies
__________

>Adolf Hitler - Youth (Age 0 - 25)
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/86086584/

>Adolf Hitler - First World War (Age 25 - 29)
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/134340484/

>Adolf Hitler - Rise to Power (Age 29 - 43)
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/150760491/

>Joseph Goebbels
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/142878351

>Rudolf Hess
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/152757392/

>Ted Kaczynski
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/104495239/

>Timothy McVeigh
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/118541028/

>Anders Breivik
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/87875112/

>H.P. Lovecraft
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/141773539

>William Cottrell
desuarchive.org/r9k/thread/30930679

>Adam Lanza
desuarchive.org/r9k/thread/24985710/

>Christopher Thomas Knight
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/122023099/

>Christopher McCandless
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/122167113/

>Christopher Harper-Mercer
4archive.org/board/r9k/thread/31293613

>Bill Hicks
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/128627797/

>Dylann Roof
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/139008559/

__________

Books
__________

>Julius Evola - Ride The Tiger
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/147654247

__________

Read The Technological Society instead.

for

interesting

stupid and naive
>why do we even know about Kaczynski? He should done nothing noticeable so we wouldn't be talking about him right now. But I'm going to talk about him anyway!

Are you the poster of those thread ?. I remember reading the one about kazinski last year, fell like it was last month and i remember that i had a real pleasure, same as the one about anders breivik and hitler. if you are the poster of those thread you are doing a great user. Thank you

*job

I don't see how anyone can read his work and honestly disagree with him. I find myself reading, looking for flaws, and the instant I've become aware that I've come up with a counter-argument, he addresses it within the next sentence. I read both works within two days because his writing is so clear, logical, and flowing. It scares me how right he was.

The bombings were not needed. These views are nothing shocking or special, Ellul wrote basically the same observations about technology in more detail in the 1950’s, Mumford, Spengler and others had similar even earlier. His political stances have been a cliché for the last century. If he was not such a mediocre and uninteresting thinker, he could have had a much wider audience without the bombings and the following discreditation as a crackpot

Inb4
>muh 160 iq
>reads like a mathematical proof

>Dude just let Chinks and megacorps rape the earth and your own asshole
>Look how enlightened I am letting things happen to my asshole
You don't really have a choice.As a civilisation there are so many chokepoints and we only need two to coincide to bring this whole thing down. I don't even mean black swans like solar flares, I mean dead certainties like ocean acidification, the looming lack of phosphates (which means an end to modern agriculture), the depletion of the water table, the poisoning of the water table thanks to the green revolution, demographic/ethnic tensions, the burgeoning third world, disease, plastics in your air, water and food etc etc. Nothing can stop the end from coming but we should want to throw a spanner in the works to prevent this inevitability. Preempt the disaster with an intervention to grind the machine to a halt before it is truly too late

Civilization won't go down for good, it will only adopt, maybe regress at best. You cannot change the nature of power or humans. Technology will always make its users more powerful relatively and humans will always crave power and comfort.

>the poisoning of the water table thanks to the green revolution

Care to elaborate?

Fella this isn't like a bronze age collapse or something. This is not just a systems failure this is a depletion of finite resources on this earth that make civilisation possible. You may very well live (30 years tops) to see the end of life in the ocean. Look at the shrinking of the Caspian Sea. Now imagine the increased acidification that has occurred and will continue to occur in the other oceans. That is just one irreversible possibility that will have disastrous ramifications for any future attempt at a civilisation. As much as we might want things to go back to normal they forever will be changed.
The use of fertilisers and bug sprays has seeped into the water table thanks to post-1960s/70s agriculture. The green revolution was supposed to feed the 3rd world by modernising their agriculture. It did change things a bit but caused a host of new problems. Look at the health crisis in places like Punjab and Kashmir thanks to people drinking from ground water in agricultural areas. Even in the US you probably shouldn't drink from groundwater near those horrible corn farms

I remember reading Elliot and Manson’s autobiographies in 2015 on twitter, I had almost no connection to these movement. Completely alone in my own schizotypal bubble, and then I found these people. And Ted too. You can see how they were all pressure cooked into evil by a psychotic environment. Manson was raped and abused as a kid, Elliot was emotionally neglected and humiliated by an invasive woman in his life, Ted was persecuted and isolated, betrayed and ignored by women and his peers. I don’t know that they would’ve been good had they been helped but they certainly were nothing like the people in power who do pure evil without blinking an eye. thanks for sharing. Also Hitler’s story is sad, Goebbels’ is pathetic

Nothing is spent. Matter does not disappear. Either future civilizations will pick through our trash or human life will cease completely.

Which of those got published by WaPo?

>Matter does not disappear
No but oil, groundwater and phosphates do

The vast majority of newspaper readers didn't read the manifesto, it was too long and complicated. At best he reached a similar demographic that would have been subjected to his views trough academia, but without any staying power in credible intellectual circles. Add to that the negative effect of the discreditation as an insane person by the media and no one remembers him as anything else than the Unabomber and the only people interested in his thoughts are the ones who don't have the motivation or capability to move on to more serious thinkers that covered the same subjects.

This will only reduce the size of the population. Nothing fundamental will change.

I' m the user who wrote the post you replies to. I know, and I will miss a lot of things too. Honestly, I doubt mankind will have to start from absolute zero after SHTF. We have a lot of knowledge and many smart people will survive. Anyway, a collapse MUST happen, and it will, wether in 5 or in 200 years. Yeah, the modern civilization is rotten, but our parasitary lifestyles need the rot like maggots need rotten flesh.

entropy degrades materials into an unusable state. even metals. you'd need to reforge many metals using nuclear heat to restore their industrial properties

are you retarded?

phosphates literally are impossible to recover once lost. the global temp fantatics are brainlets. phosphates are the biggest problem

>Nothing fundamental will change.
No fish, no bees, no flowers, no pollen, hardly any fruit, difficulty getting cow feed, less dairy products etc etc Things will never be the same. That is my whole point. There wouldn't be an issue if things were just going to scale down. They won't. It'll be exponential growth right up until it falls off a cliff and likely basically overnight too. There will just be more wants than suppliers for those wants and then what? An Earth of 10+ billion people and maybe only 2 billion have access to anything remotely resembling acceptable living standards.
Global temp is its own issue but the phosphate thing is even more under reported than ocean acidification.

bc people are idiots adn democracy is a mistake

people are dumb monkeys that feel affinity for trees and think climate change is going to kill (not help) trees. they cant emotionally get behind mlecules, but only emotional issues can be implemented by democracy

I'll make the redditfugees of r/thedonald very mad by saying this but a society driven purely by attainment of capital and democracy are going to invariably destroy itself in this way. The only motivator in society is to get rich or die trying and there is no incentive to do anything other than that. Capitalism requires raw input and that input has to be taken from somewhere. So we're in a situation where the best you get is some vague platitudes about trees because our society is fundamentally democratic, industrial and capitalistic. People would have to vote for things which would change their lives forever. They will literally no matter what they think elect to have poorer or harder lives. That isn't how people think. It isn't even an opinion that eventually we'll totally run out of the resources on earth. Long before that we'll be in a poison barren dust ball earth where only a tiny slither of the people on earth live a good life. You see "trends" like soylent drinks, eating crickets, living in communal housing emerge. I can't see these trends as anything other than a thin advertising shine applied to the dystopia of the very near future. It is a future which is being forced upon the other creatures of earth, not to mention future generations who will judge us very harshly, by the masses of third worlders wanting to live like decadent soft Americans. As well as by a wilfully ignorant western population who want to order another martini on the titanic before the kitchen floods. Thanks to democracy and capitalism I do not see a peaceful off ramp. A minority will have to enforce a new order on the majority or else we have to hope that the bottom falls out sooner rather than later. Otherwise get used to acid rain Wednesdays

I blame democracy more than capital. capital countries like israel and japan sterilise criminals and impose population limits in order to afford people better lives, regardless of "feelings"

it is really america/europe that fucked up, and mostly democracy, moreso than capital

israel started off as a quasi-communist commune so that relationship to capital is weird to begin with. Japan is hardly a good example as though they're better off materially than pre-war they're an utter wreck socially. If you follow the logic of capitalism then you wind up with the western position of the past 200-300 years. There have been various deviations and limits on it over time but ultimately it is a system which invariably subverts everything else to its own service, it makes itself the be all end all. Which is why a little nothing like an ecological Armageddon doesn't matter so long as the shareholders keep getting theirs

Hi mk4, you should start a blog or something

I agree ith you in principle and also understand the history of both coutnries reasonably.

I think our divergence is that I don't believe capital is in control yet. it influences some social instituions by distorting incentives (marriage)

but for the most part I think the typical bureuacracy is in charge. the bureaucracy contrls capital via state regulation and bends capital to the demands of democracy/bureaucracy. bureaucracies dont care about ecological armageddon either, they care about promotions

I have written stuff on a few forums, used to be active on twitter but deleted my account. I'm not sure what the readership of blogs are these days desu. Wouldn't really know how to shill it either
I can see that. Its a bit of a cop out but I think its both. However, bureaucracy in my opinion is just a powerful set of institutions it doesn't constitute a system anymore than a gearbox is a car. Capitalism is what has defined particularly anglo-american civilisation for centuries.

The bureaucratic control of capitalism is itself an unfolding of capitalism. Without heavy state involvement (its absence is even more utopian than communism) capitalism could not exist.

This. In Ted's 2016 follow up to ISAIF he outlines how various managerial societies become unwieldy and collapse under the weight of their own complexity. So I'd say something that routinely implodes can't be the main driving force. Whereas capitalism has just grown and grown since its inception.

I keep agreeing, but also think you are copping out a bit

capital has defined anglos for nearly 1.5k years. correct. it decoheres natural human desires, structures, etc (bureaucracy isone such structure)

but if capital is really, curently, the driving force of american/european, then tell me hy capital is currently fleeing to singapore?

instritutions of regulatory capture, such as the fda, occupy a plae that forces capital to bribe them/become cooped by the fda in order to maintain dominance. this is no logner capital, but rule by bureacracy, as the market mechanism decoheres

people like pournelle, land, and moldbug can clearly define the ruling mechanism of bureaucracy. it generaly happens to be "promotion of the dumb nd loyal that cannot threaten my position/usurp me"

I don't think you're being honest i you are telling me a "set of strong and immovable institutions" is not system. they negotiate ith each other, theykill rivals, they induce the military to threaten to bomb china, they fight the elected president, they make free speech illegal.

sounds like a system

take facebook. you think facebook is capital? they get 0% interest loans from the government. they're no different from an arm of the state department. if they had sudden loss of huge amounts of money, they'd still be in operation. they're a government institution.

capital did fine in rural england for 800 years under a system of nongovernmental decentral manorialism

capital needs the scaffolding of intelligent people that resist central forces in order for price mechanics to funtion. hence israel/europe are not actually very capitalist, nd russia/china cannot seem to get it right, EVER.

Well seeing as you brought up land I basically subscribe to his view of capitalism but rather than trying to find a Chinese boot to lick I see it as an unholy terror. His very vivid description of capitalism as some Lovecraftian monster that reached back through time to facilitate its own birth and success is, well interesting. Fundamentally I think the difference is that these institutions, states and pen pushers are transient things. But capital is forever. That it is fleeing to Singapore like you say or whatever is entirely the point. If it can't find a way it will make a way. Taleb says that capitalism is so robust because it rolls with the punches and adapts. More than that it is antifragile. Again i take the praise someone lavishes it with and interpret that as just an apt description of a self propelling ideology that crosses all boundaries with impunity in furtherance of itself.

So yes these immovable institutions are part of a broader system (the managerialist system emerged in Nazi germany, stalinist russia and FDR's USA basically simultaneously as a response to technological advances allowing greater organisation control) but what truly gives it a distinct flavour is capitalism. Otherwise there would be no meaningful functional difference between contemporary America, 80's China or Franco's Spain.

I've gotta go now because tis the season to contribute to the great pacific garbage island and so on. I will be checking the thread in a few hours. I don't think you're necessarily wrong about anything I just don't think you've got the hierarchy down right. Some residual loyalty to capitalistic notions is inescapable coming from what I suspect is probably an upper working class to upper middle class background. As a bona fide anglo this stuff is basically in my blood so it has taken a long hard road to undo this kind of thinking. But I have arrived at what to the best of my ability I've reasoned is as close to the truth as a layman is going to get

Which of these metals were necessary for civilization again?

>An Earth of 10+ billion people and maybe only 2 billion have access to anything remotely resembling acceptable living standards

So? I'm not saying it will be nice. A lot of people will die. Civilization won't still go away.

Countries do not exist in that way. They are all together. Israel would not be the same without the US and vice versa. Same for Japan. Same for Bangladesh. Because underlying the barriers of the lands and the languages and cultural things there is also the fact that investors from one place transform the other. This is why I can't get by any discourse that basis itself on "see, in here they are alright!" or "see, that country is not working out". At what cost are they doing alright? Who is paying the bill, so to speak?

How does sterilise criminals help in anything? That still sees criminals as some sort of people with a moral deficiency, but that's not the difference between a criminal and a "good citizen", the difference is in opportunity, risk, social and political differences. Someone from the middle class would never think of stealing from someone, it sounds more absurd and evil to us because when we don't do it, things are alright and if we did it, it's risky and violent. To someone who has nothing to lose, there is a bunch to gain. If you look from a distance, they are doing the same as everyone else, calculating gains and losses and acting accordingly. If you're from a favela you can choose between a shit job with no opportunity to grow, no room to study a profession, no security because where you live is dangerous anyway and health care is of low quality and expensive, or you can follow the cool kids who have weapons and thus the only glimpse of the power of choosing in sight, a more risky but more rewarding opportunity of gaining a lot of money with drug dealing for example, because it's profittable, because it is forbidden. And just like in anything, only a few make it, but in their case, those who don't just die in gang battles or by the hands of the police, or they are left in great debt to other dealers. Their choices in life are fundamentally different from the ones we have, their ethical problems are totally different. If we magically got rid of all the criminals in the world right now, as if they simply vanished over the night, things would still be the same, because the "room" for it would be open, drug dealing would still be profitable and with no contendantes, arms dealers would still want the police to raise their weaponry, etc. The problem is structural, not particular.

Just focusing on capital or capitalism seems like an awfully reductionist way to view it. I think it is more the ever accelerating co-evolution of technology and culture. Technology gives power to its users, which in turn promotes cultural adaptations that promote the use of technology, which leads to more power etc. Capitalism is just the manifestation of this. Less people tied to agriculture, more consumers, technological advancements, more production, more cultural changes (breaking down of institutions, ideologies, social relations, basically Weber's rationalisation ), less and less of anything to do than feed the cycle ad inf.

youtube.com/watch?v=j_K_79O21hk

I think it will interest you guys, if you haven't seen it already. I'm not sure it's there because I'm posting without rewatching it, but it's a zizekian pov anyway.

Things will go on even in the face of disaster and that's totally awful.

I feel a lot of people think of resource scarcity or natural disasters as some fatal situation. But when you see the state of the air of some cities or if you have visited a dumpster before and seen this with your own eyes you see it is already here and yet we go on.

Have you ever heard of a complaint/joke that one day we will be selling bottled air? Decades ago people were doing the same joke with water.

Microwaves ease our lives so much, but they also allow more premade food and the plastic that comes with it. That allows us to eat quicker and perhaps that gives an excuse for a corporation to reduce your lunch time. Since the food is premade, it can be made with cheaper ingredients and counter balanced by cheaper chemicals that could make it more bright colored and look healthier. On a personal level, I love microwaves. But when I think about it for real, perhaps they are a bad idea altogether.

Industrial farming puts a bunch of animals together in poor situation, but it's cheaper to do this and treat them with antibiotics. To feed them you use soy that is planted on the other side of the world because their ecological regulations are poor because rich farmers bought the local deputees to work on their favour. This soy is transgenic, but if there is an issue you have to buy it from the same company. etc.

This next generation will be raised on virtual reality. How are they going to be politically engaged? How are they going to even care about anything going on in the material world around them? It's not different from facebook. It's not different from television in the past. Capitalism adjusts itself all the time, mediating all of those relationships so that they remain. You are not allowed to be hired for more than a certain given hours a week because it is inhumane and we are not in the 19th century anymore, but your "nice boss" will send you a message about work at 3am on sunday. That is still better than working at 19th cent. factory you'd say, but only at a particular level, on a global level, we haven't moved much.

Democracy is just a step in this as well. It destroyed the old authorities and structures to make way to new culture that allowed for new technological development, and now it is being replaced by technocracy that works by puppeteering the old structures of power that used to be driven by ideologies, now replaced with just seemingly aimless rationalisation, which removes more and more barriers from the way of further progress.

youtube.com/watch?v=zI5hrcwU7Dk

Technological optimism is just too easy and appealing to the masses. We'll just need to come up with a way to collect uranium from seawater or just fusion for free energy, GM to make plants survive with less phosphates and no insect pollination, using free energy to synthesize phosphates, or just make GMO's that collect them from the environment. Just invent an AI, if you can't come up with solutions yourself. Ecological fascism etc. is a hard sell compared to that.

land is moving in the direction (and I generally agree) of believing in the stark possibility the monkeys (as he puts it) could put an end to the entire globe and possibility of higher structures permanently via giving niggers the keys to the u.s./european nuclear arsenal

imagine a grievance based political system tellin china to pay up for their privilege or else.

is that capitalism in control? is it morphing? not likely. niggers have done this for 10k years, but using spears and camels instead of nukes. the likelihood of their bureaucracies breaking a 10k year cycle of grievance harvesting is very unlikely.

it does eist in this manner. and no, cross investment is not a "thing" bc investments in bangaladesh fail 100% of the time if it is by the market. fi it is NOT via the market, then it is a feudal investment, not capital

further, jp/cn/kr FORBID by legal code foreign investments.

>sterilise
moral failings are generally 80-90% genetic failings in terms of potential/range of behaviors. morality is created by evolution. killing naturally and ndeniably changes the evolutionary nash

>favela boo hoo
this is not the planet in reality. certainly not the reality of spics that live in fucking america and still behead people

>moral failings are generally 80-90% genetic failings
Care to elaborate?

are you familiar ith iterated game theoretic schema?

So game theory for infinitely, or arbitrary finitely repetitions?

*infinite and finite.

If I want my product to be made in the cheapest way possible I go to Bangladesh for their work force. Which means that literally if Bangladesh was any better than what it is that would be bad for some rich people's business. Countries are all the time discussing embargos and regulations on each other based on them being undemocractic and so on, whatever they claim. But they overlook countries they actually do business with and these normalized situations are never shown on tv as news. All situations of poverty arise from a position in relation to other powers, it's never "they are just not good enough at it", ever.

>moral failings are generally 80-90% genetic failings in terms of potential/range of behaviors. morality is created by evolution. killing naturally and ndeniably changes the evolutionary nash
Geez, what are you a phrenologist? Take that pseudo science to /pol/

>this is not the planet in reality. certainly not the reality of spics that live in fucking america and still behead people
I really don't understand what you mean with this sentence. You are basically saying "no, that's not how it is" and that's all?

okay. then you understand the theoretic payout of any stable nash is genetic. that genetic payout is in the form the game is played in, e.g. genetics

the behavioral strategies are inherently tied to genetic predispositions. if behavior isnt genetic, then by definition, behavior cannot evolve to be enabled

thus moral failings are genetic strategies that are commonly interpreted to be "cheating" the nash

people that are afraid run in the face of danger as the brave people fight nd die. this is "cheating" thus a moral failure. fear is obviously a genetic trait that falls on spectrum. same for lying, murder, etc.

you have a prevalence of a genetic trait in a population in the same incidence as the likely payout for such a strategy (e.g. rape, murder, islam, etc.)

you're an ideologue

poverty, murder, starvation is not relative

rome, having no electricity, less tech than modern bangaladesh, less animal poer than the arabs, less fucking food, etc, managed to build piping for seers in their cities. modern india/bangaladesh cant build toilets and they have MORE food MORE everything today than ancient romans

this is a problem of competence, not some resouce deficiency. or compare to nk. they have NOTHING, less food, in fact, than bangaladeshis, and a less competent government, but can still make nuclear missiles

How do you account for morale failures being present in both sexes, even though the reproductive strategies are widely different between genders in the evolutionary environment? What about sexual selection in addition to natural selection? Do these moral failures manifest in the phenotype on an instinctual level (eg. aggression, fight or flight etc.) or on a psychological/cognitive level (lying would imply this)?

females clearly have a differentiated set of moral standards, survival conditions, therefore moral failures. they are mediated by their separate genetic behaviors

mate selection obviously takes place on the basis of observable genetic characeristics. this is part of all signaling theory

>or cognitive level
cognition is bottom up, not top to bottom. if you arent up to speed on that, look at the ability of neural scanners to see decisions taking place BEFORE the subject is conscious of it

by the time a decision reaches the conscious level, it has been made by the bottom up aggregation of phenotypical neurological pressures

e.g. the marshmallo test. it is very hard to impossible to resist hypothalamic pressure, but very easy to give in. the amount you can do either is directly caused by frontal cortical volume (genetic)

you fools
earth is hell

He's underrated, but shouldn't be taken literally

>cognitive level
I might have phrased it wrong, but what I meant that are these more advanced cognitive processes only made possible by our advanced neocortex (so limited to hominids or equivalent nervous system) or are they just refined reflexes, homologous to the kind that are in animals?

Your example is excellent to prove my point though. Rome was nothing without its army, and without its taxes, it demanded the labour of a lot of poor people to produce its richness, it had two sides just like any empire.

>not some resouce deficiency
Here I know it kind of went over your head. Indeed, it was never about resource deficiency. I never said Bangladesh is poor because they didn't have with them some sort of natural luck, but because they are in the position of being explored. Poverty is a relationship in itself. It cannot be measured by the ammount of things one have or does not have, but by the ammount of things one does not have in relation to what others have. Consider all the indigenous tribes in America and Africa and how they lived before encountering the western civilization and how they live now. That is, even if it may appear to us they had nothing, they effectively only have nothing once it is absolutely necessary for them to have what we have. Study this.

And still about Bangladesh, it's not about the people or the place. Who knows, maybe in 300 years, a turn of events could make them king of the world. Still, for them to be kings of the worlds they would have to explore someone else. The issue is totally structural. Hate the game not the players or something of that sort.

I don't like talking about NK because everyone thinks they are experts about it, either pro or against them, it's ridiculous, people have a caricature of it in mind. I don't know how they are with their resources and I think you don't either. But you do know that if NK didn't have a bomb, it would have been completely destroyed by the US and its allies long ago. They cannot afford not to have it. And while we like to say NK leaders cannot be negotiated with, because they are "loonies" or whatever (that's all a show anyway), we think that it is somehow okay for western countries to have an atomic bomb.

George Orwell in his famous essay in which he coined the term cold war talks of democratic and authoritarian weapons. A machine gun can be used by a government to oppress or by a revolutionary to liberate, but an atomic bomb will never be a revolutionary weapon. And yet we allow governments to have it "for our protection". Just like NK can say to itself the same thing. But when you think about it, it does not serve anyone. If the US nukes NK it would be just as bad as the NK to bomb the US, because if we dislike anything about NK is how they oppress they people and an atomic bomb would not go against a government, but it would go against the people. We are willing to create narratives that justify things like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but they are unexcusable.

Also, the fuck is an ideologue

>implying we are not all taken by ideology whether we like it or not
>implying ideology is the same as values, ideals or opinions and not something that runs underneath the apparent neutrality of our acts
>implying ideology does not appear precisely at the points in which we think we are just being rational and "normal"

We have had massive shifts in the relative frequency of these behaviors (murder, rape etc.) in the western world in the last few centuries. Surely selection can't work that fast?

>the fuck is an ideologue
A person who does not acknowledge your points and does not partake in ideological self-critique.

you really got off the rails

poverty is not "relational"

chinese people that don't have plumbing or heating can learn differential calculus after coming hom efrom their slave factory jobs and blacks that get free food cant learn to read.

roman armies did not build their plumbing. they didn't even have fucking digital numers but still built plumbing. bangaladeshis have plenty, in fact, if you arent retarded you'd figure out that resource differentials FUEL economic productivity in developing countries because cheap labor makes infrastructure very easy to build. the VERY fucking first thing japan, china, nd korea all did to boost industrial productivity is CUT pay for laborers. in the 1910s japanese laborers took a pay cut to make their earnings less than indians, making jp corporations fantastically rich

your "relative poverty" argument should have made the japanese murder each other in the street. instead they became the most militarily potent nation on the planet after america and germany.

there is no "relative" poverty. bangaladesh is shitty because their people are dumb and very bad at ny job they do.

I can post bangaladeshi test scored in america for you, for second gen RICH families. they are under the scores for 1st gen DIRT poor chinese and koreans

your thought process is a complete mess. you blame imperialism for everything.

I don't like engaging people like you because YOU think you understand everything

the reason bangaladeshis dont build plumbing is because they cant

this is such horseshit, you’re dressing up lolbert arguments with appeals to Land and Moldbugs conspiracy theory that conveniently excludes the corporate councils and subversion of market principles. end yourself you fucking coward.

lol maoism

it can and it did

if you arent current, the english and japanese took fantastically detailed records of government hangings detailed by type of crime, area, date, and total crime rates, etc

violence fell in direct proportion to the number of violent criminals that got removed from the gene pool. in england that happened roughly 500 years ago, in japan roughly 700. the industrial revolution became enabled by the lack of violent people roving around killing merchants, the ability to build cities that didn't need castles, the reduced need for grain taation to feed armies to police your cities, etc.

user, i think that was a rhetorical quesiton

the fuck?

I never argued corporation don't rule the roost. but that isnt a market based rule if they rig the legal system to guarantee them profits

are you incapable of reading?

I'm not that user, but what happened in Japan is very different from Bangladesh. Japan was a powerful nation and imperialists on their own. They did not start from nowhere. They are not a paradise either, they work too much, they have no room, they have the latest technology cheap but food is expensive, etc

And you are being rused by megacorps who will defend cutting paychecks to improve productivity but would never reduce the profit margin for the same reason.

Not the same guy, but you don't seem to understand the actual genetic mechanisms behind intelligence. Hint, it is a polygenetic trait determined by a large amount of recessive genes, which has a tendency to regress towards the mean over generations even in relatively pure lines. Why does the distribution fit so well with a normal distribution?

Also, pretty much all comparative IQ-research between countries is methodologically extremely shitty, even relative to the bad general standards of psychometrics.

I never argued about paradise

the discussion is this and ONLY this: forces of production

he argues relative poverty PREVENTs production even if material abunance is obvious. the evidence historically is that relative poverty augments production because rock bottom pay acts as a subsidy to industry

japan DID start at rock bottom in the late 1800s. stop being illiterate. they enslaved their people to labor to death in factories. this caused their country to industrialise. uner his/your argument, enslavement prevents industry. this is fucking incorrect

the japanese industrialised bc the jobs necessary to industry need people that could read and do math. the japanese COULD, so they DID

bangladeshis cannot, so they DONT.

look at their gre scores for the ones livng in america or europe. their engineers are less capable at math than korean art students

that is neither relative nor absolute poverty. that is incapability. they come here rich.

it is a market based rule because the market only has or ever will exist as long as corporate entities exist which can protect investors from liabilities and fucking pool capital together for investment and production you lying sick nigger. Capital has raped our fitness as a species, you think its a coincidence that fertility drops, color acuity, grip strength, visual acuity, g and conscientious all freefall in nations where Capital takes precedence? What is that all govrnment jobs and rent control? You silly toothless snake.

I understand it perfectly fine the discussion had been about productive capacity. I understand that intelligence is polygenic rather than a collection of snps

none of that even remotely refutes my point

please detail for me the process that pooled capital uses to influene the government to defray risk if the government has no influence or control over markets or compensatin

are you telling me jp morgan is going to force disney shareholders to bail out bear stearns? or that jpm is going to force an irs thats been abolished to collect revenue from people that have no obligation to pay it?

or is jpm only capable of taking capital from.... the people that voluntarily give them capital? oh god, the horror

So it is not polygenic, or it's affected only by a few genes, and dominant? Otherwise it's pretty hard to see how it could have been so quickly removed from the population by only targeting the one's who manifest it in their phenotype.

Then how do we develop such massive differentials in productivity between populations in such a short time?

by killing the criminals that manifest the traits, you very fast, over time, reduce those that have the most of the polygenic locii

height is polygenic. if you shoot every short person in the head height goes up VERY fast

I feel like you're being intentionally dumb

500 years is NOT short. a russian guy domesticated arctic foes in three generations

just fyi, england and japan killed roughly 1% of the ENTIRE population every generation via legal hangings, thats 2% of males, roughly

2% compounded takes 20 iterations in order to double a given magnitude

are you intending to use industrial production as an obscurative variable? (it is not)

do you intend to argue genetic inteligence?

state your issue more plainly

Makes sense. My intuition just screams in opposition, the stuff I used to study would have significant changes only on a geological timescale. Do you have any age statistics for the hanged people, I would presume they would have reproduced in pre-modern times before they were executed, of course you would probably keep having children for the whole fertile age of the female. Are there any estimates on how efficient the legal systems were in finding the right culprit?

marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/03/politically-incorrect-paper-of-the-day-death-penalty-eugenics.html

keep in mind other factors reduce violent people from reproducing. children of criminals are often left in the cold to die, criminals got conscripted to teh front lines to fight in the most dangerous ranks, violent people are less intelligent on avg and less capable of planning out farm labor over time, preserving farm assets.

manorialism began much earlier in england/japan than germany/italy/most of china. manorialism, being a form of contract labor that builds connections neceassary for commerce and training, disfavors criminals because the family has a reduced incentive to defend violent family from true accusations. if no one lets your violent son into their manor voluntarily, you sink to the bottom of the social order as a person that cannot maintain a salary large enough to rent farmland

it is esimated that only 40% of adult males left living offspring. that is a very strong evolutionary force against violence in free systems of contract labor

so much so that today anglo nd japanese people remain the most productive, least corrupt, least violent people on the planet. only a couple other, very small populations even come close

continental europe, not even bad by any metric, is still much more corrupt on almost every measure than the english or the japanese

OP here I'm back. Thread has taken an interesting turn. Some shitflinging but hey I know where I am. If anyone would like to ask me some questions or something I'll be around for a while.

I am currently on a joint venture with a friend to purchase some land out from the city. Not rural Montana but the best we can afford. He's actually leading the charge here I consider it his project but i'd like to try my hand at permaculture as I've just ordered some texts by Masanobu Fukuoka

I was offered the book for free but was spooked the fuck out by it. I read the chapter on self-propagating systems that is available online. I think cultural-evolution, evolutionary biology, complex systems and so on, can explain what is going on and where it will end. Oh and psychology too.

I think human psychology is not functional for the problems we face. We are good at facing direct risks but not risks that build and build. I wouldn't be suprised to see a slow death and disentigration of civilization. Things like sperm quality dropping, those sort of things. But climate change will mess up things too, in a direct way, making certain regions uninhabitable.

I wrote this fast but would like to make a more insightful and longer post in this thread.

>I was offered the book for free but was spooked the fuck out by it.
Half my personal library both pdf and paper is contraband lmao

The biggest problem with this seems to be the classic one for evopsych, you have an interesting hypothesis, which is not at least immediately at odds with biological realities, but you have no actual proof.

>he argues relative poverty PREVENTs production
>his/your argument, enslavement prevents industry.
I never argued any of that, how can you interpret that way?

>the evidence historically is that relative poverty augments production because rock bottom pay acts as a subsidy to industry
> they enslaved their people to labor to death in factories. this caused their country to industrialise
This is totally correct and it's actually my point. That you can only create rich stuff at the expense of someone's poverty. There is always someone to be enslaved so that you can profit on top of it. Poverty is relative to someone elses riches and vice-versa.

What I think you are confused is that you are thinking each of those countries are little islands (okay, japan is literally a little island tho lel). Bangladesh's poverty is the source of other countries production and profit. Actually we can't even think of countries like that anymore, there are some companies that profit on it and if you track them you'll see who owns them is not from Bangladesh, that the difference between their labour and the price of the product they produce (and in this sense they produce a lot) is kept elsewhere and not in Bangladesh. That's why it's not a matter that they should work harder for them to get out of that situation, they already work as hard as possible but at shitty low salary jobs. They are hostages, they are owned by other people. That's not to say it won't ever change or that they can't fight the corruption of their politicians and the regulations that keep them at shitty jobs and stops them from acquiring expertise or developing social programs, but that in any baby step that they take towards that they'll encounter the greatest resistance from outside their country. You are right that they are incapable, but not for the right reasons.

Historically there are several situations in which either a country enslaves its own people, or enslaves another or suck natural resources from some other place, etc. To the US, WW2 in Europe was great business. To Europe, african slaves and american natural resources worked wonders. England of the 19th century was supreme, but because of their colonies and because they had their own children working at factories. To every rich man there is someone in misery that is totally connected to it, within or without their country. In Japan, as you said, they enslaved their own people, but there were also rich people in Japan accumulating wealth from that work and negotiating with others from the outside.

What is absurd is for you to think this has anything to do with genetics or because some people are just not trying hard enough. If you were born in 1500 you'd say Portuguese people are just naturally more competent than the rest of the world, they are just more intelligent and so on. But no, it's always about context.

Ever think of writing Ted? I've read most of his works and some of Ellul's as well, but I can't think of anything to write to him about.

He got pissed off because there was some construction near his cabin

The anglos are a nation of pedophile aristocracy and ultra violent hooligans, they're the utter scum of the earth

Y’all need to read some Linkola.