He was right. It's too late now

surrogate activities is literally repressive desublimation with a different name

Ok. I'll read Marcuse's work then. Thanks.

>They printed it. It was just an excuse the murder.
Do you really think this? I've read his writings with some interest and while I do not agree with his philosophy nor condone his actions I have never for a second figured him to be merely sadistic and using anarchoprimitivism as an excuse for murder.

if he was doing it to ensure his message was printed and promulgated, it was a pretty stupid approach to be honest. No matter how erudite his manifesto was, nobody would take it seriously because he immediately entered terrorist serial killer territory by bombing shit

Yeah, that's why 20 years later we are having a heated discussion about his legacy on Slovenian indie babysitter website.

Well he was a paranoid schizophrenic, but in his defence he did attempt to get it anonymously published beforehand and his terrorism began with more benign acts like vandalism and attempted sabotage of technologies destroying the environment. I believe he first bombed a lumber mill and hurt noone. Also keep in mind he was sending his bombs to computer science centers which were supposed to be strategic targets in a war against technology, not means of mass murder. If all he wanted to do was kill he could have left his bombs in a public place and walked off.

yes, we neets of such wide influence

killing irreverently as opposed to maliciously isn't much better desu

This. Ted Kaczynski will be remembered historically not for his manifesto, which is but a footnote idiosyncrasy to how he will be remembered, for being a domestic terrorist. It's not surprising that a board known for its penchant for being interested in literature written by the depraved and mentally ill would be discussing the Unabomber manifesto. There are also weekly threads on the inane juvenile babbling of Elliot Rodger, who is not remembered anywhere else for anything but his sadistic murder-suicide

>It's too late now.
What do you mean? He clearly stated in his manifesto that there is no way back and the only way is to crack the technological society and its legacy is to wait, since the system catalyzed by the technological progress will eventually break down. Thus, it can't be too late yet, and everything is going according to the plan. One can only prepare for a revolution, which shall explode once the society will get to the point where the system will trouble people that much that it will be blamed for everything. Mao once said 'Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent.', you get the gist but I'm citing Ted's words below. One of his thesis is that unfortunately results of the revolution will be completely unpredictable, but anyway literally every change will be good for humanity.

> fice and the revolutionaries would have suffered a severe setback. For
> this reason the revolutionaries should not try to acquire political
> power until the system has gotten itself into such a mess that any
> hardships will be seen as resulting from the failures of the
> industrial system itself and not from the policies of the
> revolutionaries. The revolution against technology will probably have
> to be a revolution by outsiders, a revolution from below and not from
> above.

Nigga how the fuck is modernism real like for real nigga just ride the tiger

j e j

What wasn't he right about?

This I feel is more true with lit than any other board

Personally I think that he concentrated overly on the analysis of the modern left. I do understand that it was done for a sake of giving an example of products of the technological society, but it overshadows in some places the central (and for me the most insightful) thought in his manifesto, namely the analysis of the power process and the surrogate activities. I was shaking when I read it for the first time. 60 years before Ted's manifesto the same thing was observed by Peter Zapffe in his The Last Messiah. However, Zapffe's conclusion was antinatalism. I like especially how nicely these theses interfere with Nick Land's thoughts but it is a completely different topic.

> 44. But for most people it is through the power process-having a goal,
> making an AUTONOMOUS effort and attaining t the goal-that self-esteem,
> self-confidence and a sense of power are acquired. When one does not
> have adequate opportunity to go throughout the power process the
> consequences are (depending on the individual and on the way the power
> process is disrupted) boredom, demoralization, low self-esteem,
> inferiority feelings, defeatism, depression, anxiety, guilt,
> frustration, hostility, spouse or child abuse, insatiable hedonism,
> abnormal sexual behavior, sleep disorders, eating disorders, etc. [6]

> 80-82.) Modern man must satisfy his need for the power process largely
> through pursuit of the artificial needs created by the advertising and
> marketing industry [11], and through surrogate activities.
> 64. It seems that for many people, maybe the majority, these
> artificial forms of the power process are insufficient. A theme that
> appears repeatedly in the writings of the social critics of the second
> half of the 20th century is the sense of purposelessness that afflicts
> many people in modern society. (This purposelessness is often called
> by other names such as "anomic" or "middle-class vacuity.") We suggest
> that the so-called "identity crisis" is actually a search for a sense
> of purpose, often for commitment to a suitable surrogate activity. It
> may be that existentialism is in large part a response to the
> purposelessness of modern life. [12] Very widespread in modern society
> is the search for "fulfillment." But we think that for the majority of
> people an activity whose main goal is fulfillment (that is, a
> surrogate activity) does not bring completely satisfactory
> fulfillment. In other words, it does not fully satisfy the need for
> the power process. (See paragraph 41.) That need can be fully
> satisfied only through activities that have some external goal, such
> as physical necessities, sex, love, status, revenge, etc.

You'd be surprised who's reading Kaczynski.

>the analysis of the power process and the surrogate activities
You made me read that bit. It's laughable nonsense.

Also
>Nick Land
Holy shit lmao, this is almost parodic.

>not knowing butterfly
Truly a newfag indeed.

>greentext
[insert smug "critique"]

not an argument

...

>Reactionary, Luddite
Only retards think this is a valid criticism. You are blinded by ideology if you think technological "advancement" and social "progress" is always good.

>he killed people so he's wrong! Killing people is bad!
Feminized cucks.

You're the one blinded by ideology if you think you can stop it though.

>fice and the revolutionaries would have suffered a severe setback. For
>> this reason the revolutionaries should not try to acquire political
>> power until the system has gotten itself into such a mess that any
>> hardships will be seen as resulting from the failures of the
>> industrial system itself and not from the policies of the
>> revolutionaries. The revolution against technology will probably have
>> to be a revolution by outsiders, a revolution from below and not from
>> above.

*[...]would be (voted out of of[fice])

It'll stop on it's own once the West falls to Islam.

ted k is my hero

180

I love how tax money goes to keeping pieces of shit like this alive.

ted k = prophet

he should legit be canonized

legit cr 180 titcr not flame

Go find the dullest knife in your drawer and shove it directly into your adam's apple.

Then sit down and think about your life choices.

I only call him for what he is. If you hear "Luddite" and go "oh, sweet", that's your business.
Of course advances in technology aren't all "good", but they happen and you can't stop it. The Muh Culture reactionaries are the biggest fools of civilization. You must learn to flow through the times. You must adapt. We all have no choice.

>I'd rather have Islam than adapt.
Up against the wall.

>he was a paranoid schizophrenic
No he wasn't lel.

you speak in such unnecessary absolutes, swallowtail

gradate your thinking and you'll achieve bruce leeness

be like water (at its gas-solid-liquid triple point)

A little bombastic at times, I know. And terse.
At least I'm not a tweeter.

And form that other thread warosu.org/lit/thread/S8902453
>Rederpillars