I agree with this. Where do I go from here?

Ted advocates the use of current technology for communication and organization

To the mail office

Off the internet, Into a shitty cabin in some damp backwoods, enjoying the misery of exposure and starvation, waiting to die of simple infections from your first scratch because antibiotics somehow fuck up the power process and are a surrogate activity, just like marine biology.

Kaczynsky is such a fucking retard. I mean how the fuck is anyone convinced by his arguments? The ones about surrogate activities are blindingly stupid.

Give Evola a try.
Men Amongst Ruins and The Doctrine of Awakening are breddy gud.

he’s alive and cozy to this day you retard trap

>The two arguments that are absolutely not relevant to the technological problem are dumb.
Why do you imbeciles keep attacking Kaczynski on the power process and his stance on leftism? Yes they are shit. Yes everyone knows it and it has been pointed out a million times. Now how about you refute the other 80% of the book that talks about the technological problem? Wait, you can't. Hence why the only argumentation against ISAIF you'll ever see is the same old useless one one the power process.

Explain what is wrong with the his theory about the power process and surrogate activities?

Neck yourself
The entire manifesto is built on the assumptions he’s made at the beginning about the power process and how you’ll only be happy if you’re going through the power process to ensure your survival
He even says himself that these are assumptions and he can’t prove their veracity
Attacking his assumptions is a perfectly reasonable thing to do because without them the rest of his argument is baseless

Not the fag you're replying to, but the power process/surogate activites is just a weak excuse of a theory when every late 19th century philosopher wrote their take on the subject. It isn't completely wrong, it's just not fully fleshed out. Same goes for his stance on leftism. It's basically historical materialism through the lens of an american. Rest of ISAIF is just too damn solid. Nobody dares arguing against it, that's why they resort to talking about the first 20% of the book. Just ignore these people.

Seriously, check out Jacques Camatte if you are curious about intersection between ultraleft Marxism and primitivism. He was talking about capital as a runaway cybernetic system years before Land did.

>In its perfected state, capital is representation. Its rise to this state is due to its anthropomorphization, namely to its capitalization of human beings, [1] and to its supersession of the old general equivalent, gold. Capital needs an ideal representation, since a representation with substance inhibits its process. Gold, if it is not totally demonetized, can no longer play the role of standard. Capitalized human activity becomes the standard of capital, until even this dependence on value and its law begin to disappear completely. This presupposes the integration of human beings in the process of capital and the integration of capital in the minds of human beings.

>Capital becomes representation through the following historical movement: exchange value becomes autonomous, human beings are expropriated, human activity is reduced to labor, and labor is reduced to abstract labor. This takes place when capital rises on the foundation of the law of value. Capital becomes autonomous by domesticating the human being. After analyzing-dissecting-fragmenting the human being, capital reconstructs the human being as a function of its process. The rupture of the body from the mind made possible the transformation of the mind into a computer which can be programmed by the laws of capital. Precisely because of their mental capacities, human beings are not only enslaved, but turned into willing slaves of capital. What seems like the greatest paradox is that capital itself reintroduces subjectivity, which had been eliminated at the time of the rise of exchange value. All human activity is exploited by capital. We can rephrase Marx's statement, "Labor, by adding a new value to the old one, at the same time maintains and eternizes [capital] " [2] to say: all human activity "eternizes" capital.
marxists.org/archive/camatte/wanhum/index.htm

Why don't you try and refute the actual arguments of the book then? Instead of the shitty assumptions Kaczynski makes. Did I ever say you were wrong? No, simply that it's not worth one's time to talk about either the power process or leftism. The book itself is a mathematical rehash of Marx and Nietzsche. Ted isn't dumb. He took the relevant parts of two of the greatest philosophers of the last centuries and applied them into a coherent book.

Thanks for sharing, I had never heard of him.

The only real assumption is that 'going through the power process' is what will make you happy. But indeed, even if it would not, or only to a lesser extent, then the faster than ever advancing industrial society will -eventually- lead to either our extinction, or -if it collapses earlier under it's own weight- to world wide mass starvation/chaos. The more the system can develop, the harder the collapse will hit. Ted rather sees it collapsing this very year instead of in 200 years, mainly out of what I'd dare to call 'humanitarian' principles.

Walden by Thoreau if you want an idealised acount of what living in the woods with no tech or bullshit might feel like for you. Albeit when the planes fly over your forest there is a risk that you will attempt to form a one man terrorist outfit targeting the unwitting instigators of industrial capitalism.
Good luck.

he meant radio, telephone and the written word. not web 2.0

John Zerzan’s Against Civilization, Future Primitive, and Twilight of the Machines.

Y'know I actually watched the Manhunt Unabomber thing on Netflix (thanks for helping me with my linguistics essay Netflix!) and I heard some of the concepts.

Murray was an asshole, but he was right; many of the concepts are pastiche, dull, and half baked. This sort of 'we've gone too far' has been echoing since the fucking Amish decided they only wanted to mill flour by hand.

Technology is not the inherent problem, the problem is a society that functions by making wealthy people richer on the backs of other people's labour. I'm not saying capitalism is entirely wrong, strict communist ideals don't function well either for motivation; we need to have a harmonious middle ground where social mobility is a reality.

Education is great, much more widespread, but social mobility isn't a reality. Teddy isn't wrong in all capacities, to get free you need to move up the social ladder, and in a 1 generation span, it's incredibly unlikely you'll move up the social ladder in a way that grants you freedom. You could be some bigger fish's patsy and yes man, but you're not free.

Because the other 80% is LITERALLY JACQUES ELLUL.

The only original contributions Kaczynski made to luddite theory were bad ones.

Read Ellul's The Technological Society, read his book on Propaganda too.

Against His-story, Against Leviathan - Fredy Perlman
Elements of Refusal - John Zerzan (earlier Zerzan is generally better, he got less scholarly and more rant-y over time)
The Technological Society - Jaques Ellul
The Wandering of Humanury - Jaques Camette
Tools for Conviviality - Ivan Illich
Endgame - Derrick Jensen

>Technology is not the inherent problem,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestell

Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How

p174
"30. A revolutionary organization will need a section or a committee devoted to studying technology and keeping up with technological developments, and not only for the purpose of attacking technology politically. The organization also needs to be able to apply technology for its own revolutionary purposes. [...] Revolutionaries therefore need to be well informed about eavesdropping and spying technology, and need to have the technical capacity to defend themselves against its illegal use."

Finally he says that the organizations use modern technology against revolutionaries, to which he writes:

"Of course, technology can be used by rebels, too, against the established power-structure. Thus, a future revolution probably will not be carried out in the same way as any of the revolutions of the past or present. Instead, the outcome will depend heavily on technological manipulations, both by the authorities and by the revolutionaries. The importance for revolutionaries of technological competence is therefore evident."

Finally he references to a couple articles by Acohido in several magazines covering "Hacktivist groups", including this one:
content.usatoday.com/communities/technologylive/post/2011/03/anonymous-actively-probing-koch-brothers-corporate-networks-/1

I think he really means to use modern technology.

I'm not familiar enough with Gestell to argue it poignantly; what I will say is, many fears around technology circa AI overlords 1984 have since long been dispelled, challenged, and met. We already have plans in place for AI interventions etc., people have a fear of AI that means it's unlikely to ever be in the big picture. Therefore, it's a reasonable assumption that perhaps not everything in this paper is pertinent to modern times.

To the middle of the woods.

Or prison

Fake and gay

This, here is the quote:
>By the time he encountered Ellul, Kaczynski recalled in 1998, “I had already developed at least 50% of the ideas of that book on my own, and … when I read the book for the first time, I was delighted, because I thought, ‘Here is someone who is saying what I have already been thinking.’”

Just read Ellul. Start with The Technological Society, then read Propaganda.

Have you actually read Marx or Nietzsche?

>his stance on leftism
>Yes [it is] shit

His assessment of leftists is spot on. Must trigger you, huh?

What if the AI already won? what Capital itself is already a rouge AI?

Any other essential anti tech works not already mentioned?

Bed.

>I agree with this.
Then you're a retard who used it to validate his pre-held beliefs. That's not to say those beliefs are wrong or misplaced, just that, that text is bullshit.

Thanks for your valuable insights.

supermax isn't very cozy at all user

Did you read/listen to Charles Stross' keynote?

The major thesis is that current AI hype is unwarranted since global companies are already AIs in their own right, like hive superorganisms

antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/01/dude-you-broke-the-future.html

No

>be bomber
>be sent to prison in the bomber's row
>meet other bombers
>befriend them, talk about beliefs and whatnot
must have been at least a bit comfy talking to timothy and ramzi yousef

checked trips and good suggestion

this should at least be a comforting read with ted's mindset

>Inmates spend 23 hours a day locked in their cells and are escorted by a minimum of three officers for their five hours of private recreation per week.[17] Each cell has a desk, a stool, and a bed, which are almost entirely made out of poured concrete, as well as a toilet that shuts off if blocked, a shower that runs on a timer to prevent flooding, and a sink lacking a potentially dangerous tap. Rooms may also be fitted with polished steel mirrors bolted to the wall, an electric light that can be shut off only remotely, a radio, and on rare occasions, a black-and-white television that shows recreational, educational, and religious programming.[18] In addition, all cells are soundproofed to prevent prisoners from communicating with each other via Morse code.

whats your point? that they did not communicate?

My point is that a supermax prison is strictly solitary imprisonment, so no fraternizing with your fellow bomber inmates like the user I reacted to seemed to suggest. This might be comfy for someone like Kaczynski but not for many others.

Pretty good stuff. As is Against His-story, Against Leviathan. Basically a primitivist history/myth of the world.

>strictly solitary
maybe not so much before 2000...I know they didn't spend the afternoon chatting, but they did have SOME time to talk to each other.

In 2016, it was reported that early on in his imprisonment Kaczynski had befriended Ramzi Yousef and Timothy McVeigh, the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing, respectively. The trio discussed religion and politics and formed a friendship which lasted until McVeigh's execution in 2001.

there are several reports of this.

and obviously its not comfy, its fucking hell, user was just avin a laff

So neet life without a nagging cunt of a mom around for 23 hours, sounds like heaven

good gif user

>reading a book and simply agreeing with it

Don't do that

I didn't know about all that, user, I stand corrected.

it is interesting. Ted talked quite a bit about this in the letters he wrote to respond random people that sent him letters. Some of those letters are available online I believe

/thread

Jump off a bridge

Try a friendly anarcho-primitivist as well.

Primitivism and general luddism are of course silly pipe dreams. The forces you're up against are tidal waves, no individuals or even organised groups are going to make a difference, certainly not competing with opponents who embrace technology for the simple fact that they will always be more empowered by technology.

There's no escape from the zoo. Just focus on the best way to make yourself comfy. You can unplug in different ways on a personal level while still not being at odds with the system. Just get a simple smartphone for your digital life and emergencies (text, calls, email, banking) and dump the rest of your tech. Start making plans for moving out in the countryside and getting a little land to start permaculture on.

You can get quite a bit off grid while still being on grid enough to reap the benefits of modern civilisation without getting into edgy terrorist territory.

>where do I go from here?

Y’all need to read some Linkola. Accept no substitutes.

He's like a Ted without the MK Ultra and more Finland.

...

pentti is now on NEETbux in his cabin though

seems like he made the better choice. ted is more well known I guess but his efforts were equally futile.

I don’t think you can call a pension NEETbux, he worked as a fisherman for most of his life.

>He's such a 167 IQ retard

>Just focus on the best way to make yourself comfy
lmao I don't think Luddite theory was written for you.

I've read so many books, and I've heard so many ideas, and this was the only I've ever agreed with.

It's the truth.

Kaczynski actually wrote to Linkola in 2014, but he didn’t bother to respond.

>muh 160 iq
>muh mathematical proof

You people are like clockwork.

If you actually were well-read and impressed by this, that would be pretty sad.

I've found it to be true in real life.
When I draw, I plan, craft, and realize ideas. This is why I love it so much, and I feel the same fulfillment from weight lifting.

He's not wrong about these things being surrogates for what we should be doing.

I feel the same thing when I make a window sill and install it in someone's house. It's a universal, will to live and move.

I think, on a lower and more primordial level, it ties deeply into will-to-power.

It's one of those old age government pensions that everyone gets regardless of working.

So basically NEETbux for the elderly.

Luddite people was written for LARPers desu. Can't stop the tech train.

>Can't stop the tech train
It's the entire point of every luddite writer ever.

Unironically

Read SIEGE by James Mason.

Charles Manson cultists taking to ott Pulp Hitlerism as the ultimate counterculture.
youtube.com/watch?v=oo64nlKdA0k
youtube.com/watch?v=vjY0synjmvs
youtube.com/watch?v=JrWhpSbVmmE
youtube.com/watch?v=fLe2muuJ9fs

So why would they oppose the inevitable? It's a waste of time and effort.

>Pulp Hitlerism
sounds like /pol/

You can tell the guy was a paranoid shut in fantasising about apocalyptic racewar scenarios. Mason sincerely thought Charlie was some sort of prophet and the greatest National Socialist since Hitler. He thought Nazis should stop pretending to stand for law and order and bourgeois values and embrace chaos and violence for their own sake. I like the folk nihilist aesthetic it shares with people like GG Allin, some 90s hip hop, Manson, it's what makes America America.

youtube.com/watch?v=JeJCjifFIuI

It is. Have you read Nietzsche? He gives good insights into the nature of 'suprahistorical' beings. Some people can change history.

I have, but I think great man theory is vain bullshit.

Why is Weird Al on that book cover?

>here's a thorough critique of everything wrong with the activist left in America and the failings of an industrialist socialism
>now to become a Marxist

>zoo
Try "rules for the human zoo" by Sloterdijk

rekveld.home.xs4all.nl/tech/Sloterdijk_RulesForTheHumanZoo.pdf

>Marxist.org
I'd rather put my cock in the meat grinder you refer to as your mother

Marxist analysis is useful for understanding the crisis of industrial society . It's not my fault your mental illness makes you think of a bluehaired dyke screeching KILL WHITEY! whenever you hear the word 'marxism'. your loss. What was the workers movement, a movement once capable of mobilising millions and steering the course of history, and why did it vanish into irrelevance? Marx believed that the factory model itself disciplined workers into an organised political force, however, modern processes of production are globalised and desegregated, they tend to atomise workers instead of drilling them into an organised political mass. Check out the work Endnotes, a communist collective from the UK, their conclusions are often rather apocalyptic. Also read Edmund Wilson's To the Finland Station.
endnotes.org.uk/issues

An intro to the life and work of Marx and Engels. what was industrial civilisation?
marxists.org/archive/riazanov/works/1927-ma/index.htm

>Marxist analysis is useful for understanding the crisis of industrial society
No it's not, it's a misinterpretation compounded by a misunderstanding.

> It's not my fault your mental illness makes you think of a bluehaired dyke screeching KILL WHITEY! whenever you hear the word 'marxism'. your loss.
Wow great psychic ability there you fucking dud.

The only answer.

Is Jacques Ellul or George Grant worth a read.

Ellul definitely is.

HURR HURR FUCKING NIGGER SAVAGES HURRRRR
Ted was a leftist. Leftists at the time were still stuck in orthodoxy and refused to crash the boat.

He's a moron, not an anarcho-primitivist. Fuck off, Letzter Mensch.

>Leftists at the time were still stuck in orthodoxy and refused to crash the boat.

aren't they still? modern american 'leftists' are either unironic sjws, trust fund irony twitters, or old fucks holed up in some trot rape cult.

Delusional.

link me to the fabled american leftists who don't fit in those categories.

>You can get quite a bit off grid while still being on grid enough to reap the benefits of modern civilisation without getting into edgy terrorist territory.
Or, You can read SIEGE by James Mason and dedicate your energies to bringing about Helter Skelter

no