Ted needs your help.

https://www.forprisonersrights.com/ The federal prison system is (again) ramping up its efforts to confiscate all of Ted Kaczynski's collected writings - every written thought he has documented since his arrival at ADX Florence supermax prison. Not only that - they are preventing him from writing to the outside world. This is a major violation of his free speech and he desperately needs financial aid putting up a legal defense. Ted is in the process of releasing a series of books. The first part (Anti-Tech Revolution) was published in 2015. Ted is in his late seventies and wants to get his thoughts out to the public before he dies. This organized harassment campaign is violating his human rights and the legal battle is preventing him from using what time he has left alive. Please help Ted fight for the little freedom he has left.

>>18585 Thank you OP for bringing this to my and other anons' attention. Will donate to support one of my most beloved authors.

>>18591 Godspeed my friend.

OP here. Was derezzed from 4chan for posting a link to Ted’s donation page. Please consider supporting Ted if you can. He only needs about $2000 to get his legal counsel.

>paypal Sorry, but I can't help there, only prepaid debit card or crypto

Bump. Ted did nothing wrong.

This is where Ted stands, for those interested.

I am curious why people support a luddite on a hongkonger cartoon site, maybe its just the fixation on serial killers/mass murders that chan sites usually have, lainchan having more anarchist leanings obviously falling for a anarchist killer, idk though. this is amrchair psycho analysis

>>18844 armchair*

>>18844 Perhaps it may be that people here think about technology in our society a bit more than the average person. Some may come to the conclusion that technology has a bad influence, which leads them to Ted's literature and ideas. I'm sure most people who follow him / are a fan don't care much for the serial killer aspect. It's easy to dismiss him as a psycho killer, but he brings up alot of good points in his writings (in my opinion) and has clearly put alot of thought in them.

It's sad, but necessary, to recall how such subgenius can be perverted by the circus. Although I be luddite, too, I can't agree with his acts. It's so stupid. There are plenty less-traceable ways to damage the pernacities---and he was near enough to them that he could have learned through them until he figured out the most damaging untraceable actions. A sad day, indeed, is the one where one does personally what one could have done proxily. Sad either for the lack of proxy, or the insanity---the lack of minimum intelligence to know (how) to use proxies. >>18856 (Also, using flags is anti-anarchic, because such symbols are too-potent in creating false unity, but anarchy is the opposite of unity, where it's separate persons working with others, rather than a coherent socium working with itself.) Your photo misrepresents anarcho-transhumanism. Namely, that they're in a single machine. Really, it would be each person in his own machine, and that machine would be connected to his network, and his network would be selectively connected with other networks in a manner that has it easy to disconnect or reconnect. (An such network oughtta be autarkic.) The image is of each person at full control of his body (in the extended sense of all that his psyche (psyche being personal essence, the decider,, often mental) controls, i.e. his cybernetwork and all it controls)---his world. Being a luddite, I confess my lack of total anti-technicality. Technical innovation is not necessarily bad. The problem is when the technique is used to oppress a person---be it by another person, or whatelse.

>>18867 I agree with your statement about how technology can be used via oppressive regimes, but what I believe you fail to realise is how technology can be used to more effectively organize, agitate, and fight back (Jeremy Hammond, phineas fisher) against oppressive rule. I still have hope, that it can be used to give mutual aid, and collaborate across distances.

>>18867 >I can't agree with his acts. He notes in his works, that he primarily carried out these bombings in order to promote his ideas. And chances are that acquiring more sophisticated methods were not only too time consuming but also not as effective in gaining international media attention as literally sending lethal bombs per mail. I do agree though that his actions were indeed not doing anything to damage the current system.

>>18878 >And chances are that acquiring more sophisticated methods were not only too time consuming but also not as effective in gaining international media attention as literally sending lethal bombs per mail. And therein lies the problem: quick international media attention is not the answer, not the solution, and not even towards a solution. At best, it turns some persons' attention from whatever else they were doing, for a time. Maybe some would become interested in his ideas from this, but who? It wouldn't get many who are for constructive progress---they'd not want to do anything with someone who is performing purely destructive things. Perhaps a few will get through to his ideas, able and willing (and putting in the work) to separate his actions---which may or not be in accord with his ideas---from his ideas, or, further, his good ideas from his bad. But at this point, what comes of his ideas? If they are propogated attatched to his name, they retain the shade of his destructivities. So, then, what's left? propogate the (good) ideas having dissociated them from their author. But then, which his ideas (or combinations thereof) were new? No. International media attention is not productive. That gaining international media attention also requires some work, work which could have been spent elsewhere, makes it counterproductive. What, instead, is the way to go? If propogation of ideas is the goal, then it should start with finding, or creating (by gradual exposure towards those ideas) conferrants. If the ideas are any good, there'll be, perhaps latent, conferrants. The goal becomes identifying them, perhaps gradually awakening their latent agreement with the ideas. Then discussing, refining,, the ideas, eventually doing something constructive towards what they would have as their realization. >>18868 >I agree with your statement about how technology can be used via oppressive regimes No. You misunderstand. My statement is about how a person might use a technique in an oppressive manner. Whether or not the person is oppressive is irrelevant. An oppresisve person using a technique non-oppressively is not problemic. A non-oppressive person is using a technique oppresively is problematic. This latter oppression is especially pernicious because of the popular idiocy about well-meaning but harmful actions. Sometimes, it goes so far that >but what I believe you fail to realise is how technology can be used to more effectively organize, agitate, and fight back (Jeremy Hammond, phineas fisher) against oppressive rule. To fight back is ineffective. To organize, sure. To agitate, fine. To fight back is to lock each other in each other's grip. Perhaps it is necessary for parts to do so, while others work on a more durable solution. Nonetheless, it is important to not forget the fact that the work towards ever more durable solutions is more important. I fear there is too much emphasis on immediate action, which can only stall each party. I am curious about the way that you used to come to that conclusion, about my not understanding that techniques can be used for such purposes. >I still have hope, that it can be used to give mutual aid, and collaborate across distances. Could you expand on this sentence? It seems to suggest some ideas with which I do not agree, yet I would like to better understand your meaning before I come to any such conclusion.

>>18878 >He notes in his works, that he primarily carried out these bombings in order to promote his ideas. No, he primarily carried out those lethal bombings because he's a violent lunatic. Normal people who have deep concerns with how technology influences people and society settle for writing books on the subject. Normal people don't use goddamn mailbombs to murder innocent people. fuarrrk him.

>>18883 my statement was more about being against luddites-ism and how technology can still be effectively used to agitate and help one another, and that the myth we cannot fight isnt true. not so much about your thoughts about Ted.

>>18585 Write your uncle.

>>19087 how did you get his address?

>>19089 it's an old letter someone posted on the internet a while back, i think on 4chan

Erm, did anybody verify that the organization behind this is legit and real? I didn't find any info on it online, 0 results on jewgle.

I find it hard to imagine a world without technology, to me all alternatives seem to be local minimums, blissfully unaware existence for the sake of the existence, until our star burns up, and then nothing, until the next iteration of the Universe. I've read Ted works and feel that I understand the stated problems, but I think if I was in a primitive-but-happy society, I'd be one of those who reject this animalistic chemical satisfaction and would strive to do more, to become better, to loosen the shackles of my physical nature to be closer to what I consider myself - an unconstrained consciousness - and would invent technology to do that, restarting the cycle of technology-induced imbalance once again. Seriously, what's there to do without technology, apart from perceiving the nature and getting stuck forever in interconnections with beings around me? Getting drunk on wine and high on shrooms and tribal dances? I can do all that in this society. Religions answer this question by inventing some apocalypse that the followers await, merrily herding their goats and living in their mud huts for tens of thousands of years, but without religious shortcuts, what's there to wait for, arrival of an interplanetary technologically advanced civilization? We can become one if we choose to accept the problems of technological society over restricting our development just to make more people satisfied being animals... Besides, technological society is alright with you being a distracted satisfied animal if you participate in the economy, so why not let some get lost in the media, lose their minds, attention and intelligence? I'm not lost, you're not lost, overall the whole planet is getting smarter every day, children are going to schools, wikipedia is growing daily, so maybe just fuarrrk some of those lost people, let's walk over them and run headfast into whatever the future would bring? What's there to be afraid of? If we fail - we will rebuild, as we did countless times. I know I would be one of those rebuilding.

I am proud to say that the donation drive is doing well. Here’s to a swift movement through the justice system!

>>18844 The anons on Julay.world's /fascist/ also like him.

>>18867 I think he did it in such a noticeable way to get more eyes on the manifesto he planned 2 publish. As in, prioritizing the spreading of his beliefs over the most effective method of tearing down industrial society.

>>19217 >We can become an interplanetary technologically advanced civilization if we choose to accept the problems of technological society over restricting our development just to make more people satisfied being animals... Could you please clarify this point? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

I wonder how many people who deify Kaczynski have actually read his book. It is not very good. His arguments are based on very weird assumptions he makes and are not empirically proved, thus the whole thing falls apart. Him making a few good points does not mean his whole body of work is an example to anything. I feel like Industrial Society and its Future is a product of a person who had a very distinct life from most. Ted doesn't seem to be particularly insightful about the lives other people lead. You can almost smell the traits of personal resentment when you read his pages if you know his background too. If any of you agree with ISAIF wholly, you shouldn't even spend time on this website. I hope he regains his rights to publish his stuff, but I don't feel inclined to spend my money on this.

>>21493 >His arguments are based on very weird assumptions he makes and are not empirically proved, This is every political book.

>>18844 Have you ever actually read his manifesto? It's a great read.

>>21493 >>21496 So we disagree. I think his ideas are interesting and worth reading and discussing. Why do you accuse people of deifying Ted? You're making a pretty harsh critique of the paper, and of anyone that agrees with any of the points he makes in it. The paper was published in, I think, around 95 - the mid-90's anyway. I think his ideas about modern leftism and the influence of technology on modern society are really interesting, especially with respect to the way the world has developed since the 90's. The rise of social media is especially interesting in this light. What points do you think are good that he made? It's okay to take some ideas from the whole of a thing to accept and to reject others, things don't have to be an all or nothing thing. I doubt many people here agree whole-heartedly with the manifesto, as this site is focused around an appreciation of technology. For anyone that wants to read it here it is. I'd like to talk about this.

>>18844 Because he was right about the effect it has on sheep.

>>19217 Drug abuse was derezzed just as soon as technology shows up. With it the opposite reaction is for every problem it solves people merely create more rules.

>>21499 This is so true. Modern leftism is exactly as Ted projected. You need only read his words and look around at how leftists act. His reasons for this being the case also make good sense when examined in a critical light, as people have become further and further oversocialized, social collapse has ebbed closer.

>>21502 >Drug abuse was derezzed Due to hippies and niggers. It had nothing to do with technology >as technology shows up Technology has been showing up for the past two millennia AND then some. Drugs have only been made illegal in the past hundred fifty or so years. >>21493 I've read his book, and his arguments are very sound. You're disagreeing most likely with some of his premises, but if you pay attention and read some extra sources, you'll find them to also be sound. >>21495 Not all political books are created equally. Also, Ted's book isn't political, it's philosophical. >>21490 Despite some popular depictions, Hitler was a nature nut, and definitely an animal lover. He likely would've relished in reading Ted. >>19087 I read his letters, and it's so obvious he puts a lot of care and attention into them. Even if he's wrong, he clearly is dedicated to articulating his position clearly and with maximum respect. >>19089 >>19095 Google it, prisoners are reachable through the prison they're resident in.

>>21513 Look up when things were derezzed. Early 1900s is when drugs got the axe. It was not hippies nor racial issues. It was our getting weakened by technology.

>>21526 Incorrect. Weed was made illegal because there was a scare campaign about black men (jazz players in particular) smoking the reefer and raping white women. It was racial. LSD was made illegal in the 60s due to the hippie movement. Around this time, other psychedelics were progressively made illegal. You should read some history instead of brewing soykaf.

>>21528 Weed was first derezzed in the 13th century actually, in the middle east. But okay.

>>21535 >middle east Muslims have a religious reason, you're not helping your case any.

>>21528 >>21537 Chistians are the same. Also if what you said were true they'd have only derezzed it for the race and not in general. We had a blatant temperance revolution in the early 20th century, in the west anyway because that 13th thing was super early. Or are you going to expect me to blame orientals over 1909 ban on heroin along with the weed thing? It is far more likely that doctors just wanted to force everyone to be more christian and prescribe a low amount on everything. Calling my posts "brewing soykaf" is asinine. There is nothing wrong with conjecture. If some newspaper blames it on race in the early 20th and you take it at face value that's very closed minded. There are always multiple layers with political movements. The doctors, while enforcing abstinence of 'carnal' behaviors. were also getting rich by forcing people to buy everything from opiates to booze from them. You could say the Italians were fighting for control over the booze sales, but then maybe that is just what the powers that were back then wanted it to look like while they were the real people being tyrannical. Telling people how much they were allowed to have of X thing.

>>21538 >nothing wrong with conjecture Unless you present it as fact when it clearly isn't. You're revising history and calling it conjecture, but that's just brewing soykaf.

>>21493 >His arguments are based on very weird assumptions he makes and are not empirically proved Such as?

>>21546 History is just the story of the winner so conjecture is fair.

>>21647 This is patently untrue. If you ever took a history course you'd know this. There's significant study into the narratives of the so-called "losers".

>>21648 this is to a large degree impossible because often nothing exists but enemy sources. Half of the roman/preroman stuff is "well we have no direct sources and the romans talk about them as barbarians but they had this and that tech lvl so they couldnt have been that bad". Entire middle ages same soykaf. Inquisition purged everything interesting and a bunch of monks wrote fanfic copy from lost sources with a church friendly vibe which then served as the basis for history in middle ages.

>>21650 You clearly don't know what you're talking about. There are numerous, huge amounts of surviving materials from all cultures. This is why we know so much about the Reformation, for instance (there were many many fringe ideas, sects, etc. We have copious information about them despite oppression and repression. Many of them do not survive due to this). Also, there's ongoing transmission, such as with aboriginal americans. Stop talking out of your ass.

>>21651 >>21651 Show me all that written material from Druidic Gaul and barbarian Germany. Oh wait, it literally doesn't exist and all we know about those cultures comes from thé Romans.

>>21653 >I found an exception, that proves the rule You're bad at logic, aren't you?

>>21653 Cursory glance reveals these are preliterate cultures. Nice strawman though.

>>21502 I think drug abuse became way more common when industrialization "showed up", and certain drugs were derezzed because they make people unable to function. Which makes sense, because industrialized society basically requires a constant stream of drugs to deal with it. >>21537 weed was originally used in the middle east *because* it wasn't derezzed by the religion. There was a religious sect that used it regularly, but they were heterodox, hence why it got derezzed. This is of course utterly irrelevant to the topic of illegality of weed in the US.

>>19217 A1 post

>>21657 >Exception Ok. >Bronze Age: very little written evidence remains because Assyrians, Sea Peoples, Hebrews, and multiple others destroyed it during periods of hegemony. What is known about thé time has been painstakingly pièced togethee with fragments of stone tablets that were pulverized in ancient warfare. To say that we have "numerous" or "huge amounts" of evidences from this time is absurd. It would be safe to say that 99% of writings from thé Bronze Âge are Lost. And the main cause of this isn't from natural disasters or disrepair, but instead from deliberqte human destruction and vandalism. See the behavior of ISIS and the Talibans to understand how thé ancient world viewed the writings and architecture of other cultures. >Classical Age: 99% of thé writings are Greek and Roman (hegemons of the period). Suspicious lack of Carthaginian, Sassanid, Druidic Gallic, and Barbarian Germanic (all hegemonic or regionally soveriegn powers at various Times) written or architectural evidence. Why? Because their civilisations were deliberately destroyed by the ultimately hegemonic Romans and Greeks. >>21659 the reason you think both of those groups were "preliterate" is because that is what thé Romans wrote about them. Not sure how its à strawman when thé person i responded to said: >There are numerous, huge amounts of surviving materials from all cultures. If anything my "strawman" is less absurd and incorrect than thé actual post. Our understanding of the classical period comes from thé RULERS of thé classical world. We dont even have many evidences from non-hegemonic powers that SURVIVED, let alone thé cultures and powers that were VANQUISHED. Show me the "numerous" and "huge" volumes of Carthaginian texts that historians study. Oh wait they dont exist, and everything we know about Carthage comes from thé Romans. >Dark Age: Show me the "numerous" and "huge" volumes of pagan texts. Oh wait, that culture was vanquished and subsumed by Christianity during this time, and only a few fragments of contemporary pagan writings and architecture remain. And of those that remain, most were preserved and studied and interpreted by Christians. In other words, most of what we know about pagans comes from Christians. Are you seeing the trend? Truly vanquished and génocided cultures and powers have much fewer written and architectural evidences than thé cultures and powers that destroyed them. And, indeed, what little is known of them often comes from informations created/provided by the "victor"/true cultural-political hegemon. >Middle Âges One of thé reasons that the Islamic world fell into decline after thé Middle Âges is that thé Mongols sacked Bagdad in thé 1300's, and deliberately destroyed thé Great Library therein. It was said that the waters of the Tigris ran black with ink on that day. Now, the Islamic world/culture survived and in many ways triumphed over thé Mongol Empire, but here we have direct evidence of a conquering force deliberately destroying written and architectural evidence. If thé Mongol culture had triumphed over and subsumed the Islamic culture, we probably would not know about the sack of Bagdad nor the destruction of the Great Library. If you want more examples, please ask. But your dismissal of "History is written by the victors" comes off as a sort of attention-seeking "hipster" argument when i take these examples to mind.

>>21668 history is fake https://www.bitchute.com/video/MAhnDM3crW4/

>>21670 I dont care about whatever that is

>>21676 >disregards anything put in front of you what was that about "show me"?

>>21677 >Pretty poor form trumpeting success without an iota of evidence. My whole post was évidence. >I dont have access to historical databases What a pethetic cop out hahahaha. YOU are thé one who asserted that: "There are numerous, huge amounts of surviving materials from all cultures." If you dont have access to thèse "historical databases" filled to the brim with the writings of pagan and Carthaginian philosophers, why did you make that statement ? >However, I've actually taken history and seen the evidence Ok so you have seen all the evidences, but you cant shoz them to me. So i need to take your word for it, because you "took History classes". >ideological perspective What is ideological about my perspective ? I provided like 6 examples of cultures that we have very little to no direct written or architectural evidences from, as a résultats of being conquered by another culture. At no point did i talk about my ideology. You argue like a redditor or an atheist.

>>21679 Okay im watching it now, i forgot bitchute is a video site

>>21683 >My whole post was évidence Literally zero evidence. The rest of your post is a strawman so I won't dignify it with a response.

>>21685 You seemingly have mental impediments so i will once again ask you to défend thé following statement : >"There are numerous, huge amounts of surviving materials from all cultures." Which you made in this post: >>21651 Defend thé aforementioned statement by reconciling it with thé lack of evidence that exists for the following vanquished civilisations and cultures : >Pre-Bronze Âge Collapse Canaan >Classical Carthage >Pagan Europe Three différent time periods. Three different continents. Three different cultures. All EVIDENCE that refutes thé assertion that you made in your original post. i know that you are incapable of doing this... I'm just laughing really hard at how much of a hipster you are. Protip: the Victor Writes History

>>21689 >Three not a very strong case, there's literally thousands of cultures throughout history, most of which we know significant about. >>21683 >You argue like a redditor or an atheist. That's exactly what you sound like.

>>21683 >>21689 >>21690 You sound like a 4ch twerp the way you write. There's significant amounts of history written by the defeated. Look at the Protestants, Radical Confessions in Christianity (utterly defeated), The American South (try going there and tell me their side of the story is "forgotten"), Natives in the Americas, New Zealand, Australia, and so on. For every example you can dredge up of some history being lost, there's literally thousands of counter examples. You're mistaking the exception for the rule, which is an understandable mistake for somebody who's as clearly ignorant as you.

>>21689 read marx.

>>21691 I présentéd more than three examples in my original post. I narrowed it down for YOU so that you can défend your argument (which youre still not doing). Once again, please défend thé following statement : >"There are numerous, huge amounts of surviving materials from all cultures." When most of what we know about conquered cultures comes from the conquerors. I'll add more to thé list: >Druidic Gaul >Pre-Saxon England >Scythian Steppe Culture >American Indians

>>21695 >ééééééé somebody's mad >American Indians see >>21693

>>21695 lol, pretending Indians don't exist anymore. How classy.

>>21693 Finally! Some counter-arguments! I am légitimately happy. >You sound like a 4ch twerp the way you write. I cant tell If youre thé same person or someone else, but either way just défend your argument and dont spill your soy-caffeinated beverage all over next time. >Protestants Not defeated. Educate yourself on thé Thirty Years War, then get back to me (should take you about 3 months) >Radical Confessions in Christianity I'm not sure what this is. I will look into it. >Confederate South Defeated militarily, but not culturally. Southern culture still exists. Also, MOST widely available informations on thé South is written with Northern bias. Also thé "accepted truth" is thé Northern perspective (slavery bad, South raciste & evil). Also Southern statues are being Torn down right now (destruction of architectural evidence). Pro-confederate books are increasingly taboo. History being rewritten, against Confederacy as we speak. (Before you ask, i am pro-north). >American Indians 99% of thé information comes from white American accounts, despite many of thé tribes having written languages that exist to this day. >>21697 thé American Indians of today are a pale spectre of what they were before their defeat/génocide. From even just à purely population based argument, they have been decimated and vanquished. >Aborigines I dont know enough about thèse to be very confident here.. but i am not aware of any serious wars between Australiens and Aborigines where thé intent was to wipe out or vanquish thé Aborigines. Also, my impression of them is that they were extremely primitive, but maybe ive been tainted by mêmes. >inb4 thé American Indians were just as primitive as thé Aborigines Incorrect. >>21696 >é My keyboarf is broken. Also i am not mad. This discussion is interesting to me. Already There are several things that i have learned from your replies (i.e. thé radical Christian things, and googling à little about Aborigines). i just wish you guys would engagé in it with more evidences/Logic/intelligence.

>>21707 >Original argument remains undefended No u

>>21706 >not defeated significant sects of the protestants were utterly defeated. Calvinist for instance. The thirty years war is only a tiny sliver of protestants >statues They're less than fifty years old on average. >pro-confederate You're presuming history necessarily has to be pro- to be their history. Germans write their history condemning the nazis. Also, they were harshly defeated, and still writing their own history. >American Indians You're shifting your stance, 1% at a time. The fact is they are writing their own history, you're just choosing to ignore it. >Aborigines You don't know enough to be confident in anything you're saying >inb4 thé American Indians were just as primitive as thé Aborigines >Incorrect. >I don't know enough about these [Aborigines] What was that? I think you should stop with your bullshitting, it's becoming inconsistent. >more evidence/Logic/intelligence >inb4 insults ah yes, more of your low life dreg. the fact is you're just bullshitting and pulling stuff out of your ass and insulting people for pointing out the obvious flaws in your bullshit.

>>21693 >American South The civil war was a hoax. There are no photographs of battle. There are only photos of people posing and camping.

>>21715

>>21715

>>21716 >>21717 Where's the gore? It's just a bunch of people lying down pretending to be dead. First image has people shooting while others are just strolling around - it's clearly just shooting practice.

>>21709 Seriously, finally we are having the discussion that we should have had 10 posts ago. This is all i wanted. >significant sects of the protestants were utterly defeated. Calvinist for instance. The thirty years war is only a tiny sliver of protestants The culture/civilisation needs to be defeated as a whole. Were there sects of protestants that were wiped out? Yes of course. In fact probably more than we think, due to their Books being burned by thé victors . But Protestants as an anthropological group of people were not ultimately defeated/vanquished/eradicated. In fact, they ended up being extremely successful and powerful to this day. And that is why we know so much about them. Do you see what i'm saying? >They're [confederate statues] less than fifty years old on average. That isn't important. When thé Romans tore down a statué of Hannibal, that contributed to thé éradication of thé Carthaginian people/culture. In 200 years, there wont be a statué, and there might not be a recognizable Southern/Confederate culture. >pro- to be their history. Germans write their history condemning the nazis. Also, they were harshly defeated, and still writing their own history. This is a good point. And i guess it really shows that a culture/civilization can be defeated/destroyed without killing all its people. Nazism was soundly defeated, and thé victors have solidly written the History. Idk... Thé other thing is it takes Time for a culture/civilisation to be fully defeated. There were still Carthaginian people who would have felt fully Carthaginian even after their home was destroyed. It takes a few générations for the ripples to settle. >You're shifting your stance, 1% at a time. The fact is they are writing their own history, you're just choosing to ignore it. Show me a pro-Comanche account, written about thé Comanche Empire before 1900 by à Comanche... Obviously thats à ridiculous request. Thé Indian accounts that survived and are taught come from thé peaceful, coopérative Indians (Nez Percé, 5 Great Southeast Tribes, post-7 years North East Indians). The ones that didnt submit -- Comanche, Seminole, Sioux, & more -- arent taught about in school. Thé conquering force, thé USA, has only recently embraced thé promotion of American Indian history out of SHAME. And this is unprecedented in History, to m'y knowledge. But its still thé victor producing thé History. If American élites were less libéral, American Indian culture would be 100% eradicated as oppsed to 95% eradicated (when compared to what it was). >Aborigines >You don't know enough to be confident in anything you're saying Ok. If you are well informed on thé subject then tell me what part of what i said is wrong. >Stop bullshitting about Aborigines Calm down. We're all bullshitting here. You dont know anything about them either. If you know about a European vs. Aborigines génocide/war, thén please direct me to informations that will improve m'y knowledge on thé subject. >ah yes, more of your low life dreg. the fact is you're just bullshitting and pulling stuff out of your ass and insulting people for pointing out the obvious flaws in your bullshit. You are thé only person who has pointed out obvious flaws in m'y bullshit. And i am appreciative of that. And thèse last few posts between us have been reasonable and interesting, at least to me. Everyone else refused ti défend their claims and scoffed lazily, just because they cant fathom being wrong. I have no insults for you, but i am disdainful of some of thé others itt.

>There are numerous, huge amounts of surviving materials from all cultures.

>>21651 >using existing material as evidence that nothing is missing thats not how it works. You need some math classes instead of history. More practical while the internet never forgets meme was spun anyone who spent a decade on the net should've seen things vanish and official net history (as in what most believe and get retold) be rewritten from what you factually know in just this short decade. The whole idea of no loss is stupid af.

>We have some updates for everyone! Thanks to all of our donors so far, we have reached the initial goal of five thousands dollars for Dr. Kaczynski's legal defense. We are in the process of enlisting legal support for Dr. Kaczynski. The initial 5k drive is going to be replaced by a supplemental fund-drive - see the Donorbox link for more information. More news coming soon! Welp, we did it boys but nonetheless I'll still make a donation when my paycheck comes through. I'd like to help Ted in any way I can. I hope you lains are also going to donate.

>>21727 Plenty of better uses for your money than a silly criminal fetish

>>21729 I don't have a criminal fetish, I want to do a good deed for a person whom I admire.

>>21733 >whom I admire >a criminal definitely fetishism. It's one thing to want an equitable outcome for him, but you admire him. That's a fetish.

>>21735 I'd admire his works even if he wasn't in prison, I'm not sure what are you on about.

The debate from the last day has been interesting. >>21722 >thé USA, has only recently embraced thé promotion of American Indian history out of SHAME. And this is unprecedented in History, to m'y knowledge. This is because modern American liberals (and their not-necessarily liberal funders) are looking for anything that can be used against white men as they see white men as in the way of the cultural dominance they seek. >>21490 >>21513 Found these

>>18585 The 3DPD Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the waifu race..

>>21741 >even if he wasn't in prison There's no conceivable situation where he wasn't in prison. Crazy is as crazy does.

>>18844 I mean I think that superficially cyberpunk culture seems pro-tech, like it's a cool aesthetic or something. But if you actually bother to understand it, cyberpunk is pretty staunchly anti-technology. There's not really any other way to interpret it. But some people just see some wires and guns and ѕһіt and are like "whoa cool robot" and miss the whole point of dystopian speculative fiction.

>>21743 I'm all for saving nature from being destroyed but can fascists please just get their own imageboard?

>>21757 Nah... they spread everywhere with this weird syncretism bullѕһіt. Like cancer. The life and times of Savitri Devi are one of the weirdest and most interesting stories I've ever heard, but damn she was a complete nut. Idk why Ted always gets lumped into this kind of stuff. Like there are parallels but it's really obvious that this is just syncretism doing its thing: scooping up everything in culture and stripping its meaning so it can be added to a hypnotic spectacle in service of other ideologies.

>>21757 Define fascism please.

>>21771 Not him, but please let's not let this thread with an honestly pretty important purpose get derailed into debate about fascism. I understand his works are treasured by some self-described fascists out there, but I think his ideas come from outside of most established schools of thought (he's a classic outsider artist, a brilliant mad hermit at that) and his writings can be applied to so much more. We have so many threads right now which have devolved into insufferable debates about divisive, baity subjects not related to the original purpose. I want to be entirely respectful while saying this, just asking nicely and hoping for understanding.

Has anyone seen that new doc on Netflix about him? Think it's called Unabomber: in His Own Words or something along those lines. I haven't seen it yet but heard a few things about it, thinking about checking it out today. Supposedly has a good bit of narration and interview with the man himself, or at least that's what I've heard. Goes a bit into the angle of him being an attempted CIA asset that got away from them because he's (among other things) very bright and self-possessed. They weren't quite able to turn him into a good, obedient spook. Or at least that's the theory.

>>21774 >Don't derail pls Yeah, ok. >he's a classic outsider artist Can you please explain what you mean by "artist"? >>21775 I saw the first episode, I liked it. The trailer has this guy holding a parody of the Ted Talks slogan "Ideas worth sharing" with Ted's head on it, which I found funny.

>>21781 Ha, that is funny. I'm gonna find some non-netflix mirror of it and check it out. I guess I meant to emphasize outsider over artist, but with how diffuse and subjective art is I think one could consider some or all of his work to be that. I mean writing is definitely an art, and he's usually very eloquent. Building IEDs?... Perhaps an art.

>>21757 I agree on this it's getting tiring, but the syncretism >>21760 described is very apt. I'm not in agreement with Ted but I think his ideas have some credibility, I don't really see how he is appear in nazi literature I was under the impression he was more of an anarcho-primitivist, to avoid derailing though I do stand with his rights, has anyone got a particular passage I should check out from Ted's work? How do you all rationalise the killings?

>>21785 Not able to say if it can rationalize killing; not sure if anyone can say they have the authority to objectively rationalize violence. But I believe he got to the point that he was no longer able to try and escape the system he found intolerable because it kept catching up to him and subsuming him into itself again, so he came to the conclusion that fighting back was the only viable option. His ascetic life should have been perfectly sustainable, but because of the nature of modern industrial society it was not. In his manifesto he talks about how people can't be brought to peaceful revolution easily (or arguably at all; lots of factors in even Gandhi's pacifist revolution are mythologized and threats of violence papered over) so he views his only available tactic as increasing tensions in society until it causes it to weaken and crumble to a point that people are spurred to action. It's essentially accelerationism. Which I'm not totally sold on either, but I do see his point. I personally think that violence is going to be unavoidable. Could be that a little early violence could prevent a greater flood of it when the decay hits a critical mass, but I haven't got a crystal ball.

>>21786 I agree that I think eventually violence will become unavoidable, I've never really been big on accelerationism though. I looked into the killings a little more, seeing people like "president of united airlines" and "timber industry lobbyist" as victims, I have a lot more sympathy, but can't quite understand the attack no graduate students. I like the point about Gandhi, liberal society tends to paint these great figures as pacifists, think Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks vs The Black Panthers. The average American probably still believes that the panthers were terrorists, Mandella's violence is very much covered up. So would you desire to go back to a pre Industrial Age?

>>21787 Yeah, also not big on accelerationism as I said. I think they have a fairly good goal, but I think stepping it up faster won't only force change, but it necessarily will increase a lot of the rate of horrors as well. But maybe that's inevitable. I think he attacked grad students because of his experiences in academia. They really messed with his head and did some messy psychological experiments which are very likely to have been part of MK-Ultra, so I kind of get it. I think he, like anybody, was vulnerable to holding grudges and projecting. I think it would be nice if we could have an age of technology that was sustainable and wouldn't lead quickly to collapse after a tumultuous series of wars and economic booms and busts. Like if we could have some kind of ideal AI god that managed the world and industry out in space providing plenty for humanity without pollution or scarcity. But I don't think we can make it; no path leads to there from here. And I'm beginning to think that's a fundamental flaw in the system. If we only have the choice between pre-industrial society and massive societal and environmental collapse (which, by the way, will also lead to pre-industrial society eventually. Just way worse.) I think I'd go with pre-industrial society.

Acceleration is the way to go. We need more sanity crippling, soul crushing capitalism and corruption in our governments to really rile up the population by deflating them to such a degree that they're basically serfs. Take away their guns, make everybody right-to-work, cut all social expenditures, hand out corporate subsidies, raise the war budget, reinstate McCarthyism, reinstate the draft, bring back police and military action against strikers, kill unions with prejudice, and much more. This will definitely lead to desirable results.

>>21786 >>21787 Can you guys give me some links proving Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, & Mandella were not pacifists, please? >>21787 >The Black Panthers were not terrorists Proof, please? >>21725 Take your "ur dumb" crying-soyjak-tier "arguments" back to 4channel where they belong.

>>21841 So Martin Luther and Parks were pretty standard nonviolent activists, didn't get round to addressing the root cause of the problems (capitalism), so are heralded as THE black rights activists by our liberal society, they don't want you to look up to people who use violence. Just search 'Mandela Violence' there are a few articles. Winnie Mandela was worse, "During a speech in Munsieville on 13 April 1986, Winnie Mandela endorsed the practice of necklacing (burning people alive using tyres and petrol) by saying: "With our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country."[49][10] Further tarnishing her reputation were accusations by her bodyguard, Jerry Musivuzi Richardson, and others, at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, that she had ordered kidnapping and murder during the second half of the 1980s.". This link is good for Nelson, bit more nuanced, https://popularresistance.org/mandela-violence-vs-nonviolence/. The core practice was to arm the black people, which was fair, especially considering the issues with black people and the police 60 years later, but is a concern if you are the white rich ruling class. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Breakfast_for_Children "In 1969, a variety of community social programs became a core activity.[7] The Party instituted the Free Breakfast for Children Programs to address food injustice, and community health clinics for education and treatment of diseases including sickle cell anemia, tuberculosis, and later HIV/AIDS." The problem is that they are a revolutionary group, anti-capitalist at their core, which the red scare still leads people to believe means that they are terrorists despite their goals and the good that they have instituted. Martin Luther never went full socialist in his time so he is a much more favourable person to hold. up as a role model.

>>18585 How comes Ted's anarchoprimitivism is used by sincretic neofascists/dark enlightned? I wonder what would he think if he figured out all of this

>>21843 >ThE RooT cAuSe: CapItALisM fuarrrk off with your bullshit. Political problems don't require us to uproot a successful and highly functional and adaptable economic system.

>>21851 Any "economic system" is inherently political. Economics is a branch of political science. You cannot meaningfully have an economy without a political context for that economy to exist in, otherwise it's just people. There is no market without someone to enforce the rules. Hence why trade is one of the most important functions of diplomatic relationships. Capitalism is "highly functional" in the sense that it is very good at causing a rapid accumulation of material wealth. But it is extremely inefficient at providing for human needs. I reckon that over 50% of all work that is done today is completely wasted effort. Billions of dollars are spent every year trying to convince people to waste resources on things they don't need. Buildings stand empty while homeless people roam the streets. A bag of saline solution costs $20. Do you consider this highly functional, or highly dysfunctional? I think it's the latter.

>>21854 >muh capitalism *yawn*, this communist drivel is so 19th century.

>>21855 yeah, sure, pointing out problems of the modern world is so 19th century. Why would I think critically about the world around me when I have Netflix, right?

>>21857 >pretends to have a point even though he doesn't very good sir, you've made a compelling case.

>>21858 >>21851 >>21855 If you aren't going to present a proper counter-argument, why bother responding to him? That kind of low-effort commenting merely drags the discussion to the level of meaningless brewing soykaf, and I think we have plenty of platforms for that kind of crap, so no need to turn this place into one of those.

I dont support ted because I think his attacks put too many innocents in danger. However when serial killers like ted bundy or john wayne gacy jr were freely allowed to release writings and paintings there is no way this has anything to do with morals. Its entirely done out of fear that the Unabomber has something to say that could challenge the status quo. Ted killed three people, and not out of some psychopathy or sickness but because he felt he was doing the right thing, even if he wasnt or even if there was better ways. He was evidently someone who saw a pressing issue and felt he needed to act in a drastic way to stop it. Meanwhile serial killers with body counts in the tens and twentys, purely for their pleasure with no remorse at all, are frequent subjects of interview and publicity. I dont care if you support ted or not there is no way that is right.

>>21855 >>21857 >>21858 >>21861 God damn it. Keep the baity ѕһіtfights out of here. This isn't a capitalism debate. Maybe related, but it's not about that. How much debate do you maniacs want? Don't you ever tire of this endless, neurotic debating?? What's wrong with you people? Why does every thread become the most pointless, pedantic debate that fails to ever convince anybody, wastes enormous amounts of time, and completely overrides the original topic? What do you even get out of it? Debate doesn't even find a way to the truth, it's mainly a test of who is more stubborn and good at writing owns and take-downs. You can debate your way into a lie just as easily as prove a fact. It's not worth anything.

>>21843 >>21854 >>21857 1. The labor-theory of value is simply wrong. A tractor that took two years to build by hand is no better than one built by robots in a factory. 2. Materialism, though important, strips the purpose and happiness out of human life when it is the focus of a society. Humans are not rational creatures by nature, but rationalizing creatures. Religion, and other such things people can have faith in, that are inherently impossible to prove true or false; give the emotional-stability necessary for humans to run on an optimal level to meet the goals of survival and happiness.

>>21884 >labor-theory of value You don't actually understand what it states. It states that value derived from labor is intrinsic and inseparable from the commodity. If a robot produces the good, the value ("cost") goes down which benefits all of society. This implies that, as labor-value is attached to a commodity, the worker's labor is valued at that value ("cost"). In capitalism, labor-value is exploited, and siphoned off by the capitalist class, and the worker sees little of their labor-value. >materialism Materialism is all that is essential. You're essentially claiming atheists can't and don't exist - this is false. Certainly humans are "rationalizing creatures", but presuming this is incompatible with materialism is plain wrong: you can rationalize material reality as readily as woo magic unreality. People do this all the time to justify bad behavior.

>>21895 >Materialism is all that is essential. I disagree, see my point about how faith provides emotional stability. >You're essentially claiming atheists can't and don't exist I didn't claim such a thing, and I'm frankly baffled how anyone could conclude that I was implying that, reading what I wrote. Perhaps our thought processes are alien to one another.

>>21899 >I disagree, see my point about how faith provides emotional stability. >>You're essentially claiming atheists can't and don't exist >I didn't claim such a thing You just did again

>>21919 >>21919 Do you think, that I'm implying, that faith is the only way someone can acquire emotional-stability? Because, that's not what I meant to imply at all! I meant to convey, that faith is a method (one among many) of achieving emotional-stability in individuals and society's at large. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Ted would be against vaccinations. They're a subversive technology that works in combination with radio technology to drop IQs and increase risks related to illness and death, partciularly autism.

>>21880 >On a website full of autists. >Why is this like this?

>>18890 normal people werent subject to mk ultra

>>22004 >>22078 Sigh.

>>18890 >violent lunatic He was neither violent nor crazy, he was lacking empathy and was egotistical though. Like any propagandist that rages wars to prove a 'point'. If he had not killed all those people no one would have read his writings. He had the mind of any asshole kind of today or the past.

>>24473 *king not kind

>>24473 Eh he was quite violent. Bombing people is a violent act, especially on a plane which would indiscriminately kill dozens. He also wrote about wanting to shoot his neighbours (and their young children, who regardless of your political views, cannot be at fault). He wasn't killing just to get his writings out, what kind of stupid apologism is this? Remind me again how long he was at large for... You make no friends by supporting this view, if you care about his work you would do best by focusing on it, and not Ted's actions

Pentti Linkola He died in his sleep at his home in Sääksmäki on 5 April 2020. He was 87. He is best known for his book "Can life prevail?" Uncle Ted send him a letter once but Linkola didn't know any English so he burned it.

>>24517 Very cool guy so this isn't trying to be disrespectful, but he looks like an old lesbian in this picture. Also one of the few people who actually thought through what is means to be an environmentalist. Not using plastics straws, pushing the button.

>>24523 Pushing the button? Like the nuclear button? If so I agree—we've sadly reached the point where continued civilization is worse for nature than even a full-scale thermonuclear exchange. Which, contrary to popular belief, would not glass or irradiate the whole world for eighty thousand years. It would not come anywhere close to killing off all life. Even at the peak of the cold war, we only ever had enough nukes to destroy a small percentage of Earth's landmass. If anything, it would be a boon for nature. Look at Chernobyl and Pripyat today. It's one of the most verdant places in that entire region. Because the worst nuclear disaster in human history is still less damaging to the environment than mundane, everyday human habitation of that area. We should launch them all. It would actually prolong the existence of our species, not end it. I know that's a bit blackpilled or whatever, but what's truly blackpilled is how absolutely fuсking horrible stewards of this planet we've become. And nobody does anything. Nobody cares. We let it get to this point. All of us. https://www.wired.com/story/the-chernobyl-disaster-might-have-also-built-a-paradise/ The worst thing that happens in the zone today is wildfires driven by climate change. It kicks up all the radiation again. Let that sink in for a minute.

>>24530 This was proposed shortly after the disaster happened, a group of scientists advocated for turning the world into a nuclear wasteland to let nature take over. There was a group of scientists who pointed out that the nuclear disaster zone may have some mutated wildlife, but that nature was more resilient than humanity. Some famous scientists actually were instrumental in forwarding this idea, although some only on a hypothetical level (only a madman would actually want to end civilization). Another scientist proposed using Ebola to get rid of most of humanity a while back. Most people just say he is crazy, but a number of people have supported his beliefs. Contrary to what many believe, total nuclear destruction would not end humanity as you said, but it would not prolong the existence of our species, at least as we have it now. In fact, it would just make the environment even more hostile. There are a number of scientists who try to archive and prepare for the possibility of total nuclear war, and one of the things they want to prevent is the vast environmental hazard created by chemical and nuclear facilities that would be damaged by the loss of infrastructure following such a conflict. The truth is, humanity would probably survive, but civilization would end. We would be back where we started thousands of years ago. At least in our current state of the planet, we still have a chance of working together to expand civilization to the stars. As Einstein said about World War 4 being sticks and stones.

>>21884 >neurosuggesting that any person could build a modern tractor by hand

>>24563 Nah, there's no chance for humanity to ever make it to the stars. Total dead end. It's too far for any meaningful travel, and there's likely nothing there anyway. To go back thousands of years would be preferable, and we likely have no choice anyway. Civilization is almost certainly a temporary anomaly, something that can't last long on a geological or evolutionary timescale. To think our civilization will persist into the stars is irrational exuberance. It would be best if we regressed in a way that didn't wreck our ecosystem, or at least damaged it as little as possible.

>>24571 >To go back thousands of years would be preferable, and we likely have no choice anyway. Here's an intestinal parasite that will give you stunted growth, intellect and stomach problems. You're welcome.

>>24569 >build forge by hand >forge tools >tools become drill >drill becomes lathe >lathe makes more complex shapes >suddenly combustion engine >suddenly tractor The factory is just a way for a rich guy to own land. It's the same as hiring a ton of the factory workers to do the farming, yet it makes you forget the land may as well be the farmers if no one is a farmer anymore except for the one guy that actually is rich enough to drive the tractor while laughing his ass off when he thinks of how ironic a position it is to be on his ass farming while everyone works hard in a non AC factory to build the tractors 'automatically' for his rich farmer ass family that owns the assembly line of the damned thing AND the farm. Not him by the way. >>21884 It's way different because if you built the tractor by hand you are independent and truly own that tractor you built. If not you could. If you don't get my comment then ponder the above part to the other guy. The farmer didn't own the land, nor does the factory worker but they can't make the tractor NOR farm, ergo they are less powerful than their ancestors.

>>24597 Seeds and the outlawing of competition on quality is the bigger issue in farming. Metrics that would identify modern seeds as garbage are outlawed while growing old sorts is made harder or even illegal. Hybrid sorts are hailed for their growth speed and robustness but they also lost in nutritional value. Allergies can be partially also linked to this. Old grain is completely different to modern variants.

>>24597 you could make a soykafty tractor after years of back-breaking work that way, sure.

>>24605 Food is food. Humans were never 'meant' to have perfect health nor perfect supplies. >>24606 >years Not if the patents are a thing of the past. What is a tractor anyway? Four motors and a bunch of levers and wheels and gears basically. And bolts and a frame, but you get the point. Nothing magical that would dictate that it must take time unless you are dealing with the legalities and patents of today's times. That and the means of production, no one lets you do it. It's too loud to do it, it's not enough metal that you are allowed to own to do it, it's illegal to steal the patent, you have no land to begin with, they won't let you drive it on the road to begin with. No one tries so people think things like cars are magical when a lathe is all it took pretty much. Even if it took years it'd be yours forever. It'd not take years to fix whenever a part broke if you made it to be fixed and had the ability to do so, unlike in today's non-independent times.

>>24596 lol >neurosuggesting that doesn't happen in the modern western first world Here's fetal alcohol syndrome, you're welcome. We really haven't come that far, at least not the average individual.

>>24609 Meant? Nothing is meant. Its still a goal. Nobody aims for worse than possible. Material science for rubber & metal is a real hurdle if you want to build from scratch. As for production itself the challenge will be precision in manufacturing.

>>24635 >>nobody aims for worse than possible If that were true we'd be making our own tractors independent of the powers that be rather than acting like lazy and incompetent sheep. >>nothing is 'meant' Unless you personally agree with it, then my statement would not trigger you to try to make me 'get over' my own triggers. You can't tell me what to do. The other sheep will work in the factory. I want to make the object myself so that it can be MINE and so that no one will have power over me. That is what is meant to be when a real man rather than a member of b00tl1ck1ng cattle. I DO want to build from scratch, but I am surrounded by sheep that ban me from trying. >born into city >metal is around >build fire for forge >arrested as fire not legal in city limits >be in woods >no metal hence why it's still woods nothing of value is there to make from scratch >eat acorns you remove tannins from and die of lyme disease or get arrested for trespassing and get an automatic felony for having a weapon with you (survival tool) Doing it yourself is only difficult really because half of the battle, or more, is even getting in to a position that you could be even allowed to do such a thing. LEgally allowed? Did you steal the materials? No? then how much time hav eyou left after earning them with your job that was actually literally pointless and meant to waste so much time that in fact you have no time left? It's all damned. They own the mines, and the extracted materials that came from them. The system likes the chain of command of the licking of shiny black footwear made of dead cow skin as it is functioning currently and RIGHT NOW they are trying to trick people into enjoying it by pretending there is a deadly virus. They will change policy to further make independence impossible after all is said and done, and it will only ever get worse as the robot watches you try to find a way, a loophole, that the land and the materials could be yours to do with as YOU please rather than just being a drone for your king(s). I am genetically evolved to NOT be told what to do. I was meant, as a man, to tell my wife and chlidren what to do and to argue with my equal males over if we should go hunt that giant beast together or help one another build an object by trading materials with one another. No money, no temples of the many, just MY house. MY tool. YOUR ore. MY tool. MY ME MINE and NO ONE telling me what to do. Humans took millions of years to evolve, slowly, into what they are. 200k years we have been what we are and in only the last maybe 5-10k suddenly a system of overlords look at the fellow man as an insect, a drone, a sheep. WHAT THE fuarrrk DO YOU MEAN IT'S MEANT TO BE THAT WAY? Society, it's cultures, it's echo of it's learnings being tehcnology eovling TOO to be that robot that gives the rich an all seeing magic eye, all hearing ears, it is unnatural. An accident. A cancerous side effect of our instinctive natural intelligence. If we lived to be thousands of years old it would be okay, but this technology has evolved too quickly alongside men. IT IS NOT MEANT TO BE as MY programming SAYS NO N O NO

Bump for Uncle Ted

>>24637 >I am genetically evolved to NOT be told what to do >I was meant, as a man, to tell my wife and chlidren what to do >and to argue with my equal males over if we should go hunt that giant beast together or help one another build an object by trading materials with one another. Dam nigga when is your next fantasy novel coming out? I love your world building here. You are close to being correct, we are not meant to be any certain way, and we are certainly not meant too 'argue with fellow males' while dominating our families like your emasculated brain believes. If you want to learn more about this then read the attached book, it goes through about how the family has actually developed throughout human history.

Anti-tech sentiment has always been a suicide cult. Technology provides the only means to prolong the life of our species. We live in a hostile universe where we are one asteroid, rogue black hole, disease, or volcanic eruption from extinction. To confine ourselves to pre-industrial society is to accept defeat and forever submerge ourselves in blissful ignorance, never being able to understand the universe we live in. People who oppose technology should be killed. They are a big a threat to our species as meteors, diseases, hostile intelligent life, etc. They are a suicide cult that cannot be reasoned with, and who only understand (and always resort to) violence. Using violence against the anti-tech cultists is an act of self-defense on behalf of your species.

>>27843 What if I told you that nature as a whole, was itself a suicide cult? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medea_hypothesis

>>27844 I don't buy that hypothesis, but even the source you provided states that its author believes humanity may be capable of preventing such extinctions. That would only be possible through the application of technology.

>>27843 >just nuke my planet not everything possible is desirable. And change is not a sign of improvement. We are full of examples where we hit a good solution and then make it worse cause "new is better".

People like Ted are half right. Industrial society has been disastrous for the human race. However the solution is not to abandon all our technology. There are very specific things involved with industrial society which are extremely destructive to the human spirit: -enclosure of the commons, leading to a patchwork of 'private property' and making access to the bounty of the land a privilege controlled by whoever has the most money, or the state(which is hardly better). Without commons to collectively own, we have little connection to our neighbors, the land, or our ancestors. -hyperspecialization, which has the effect of making almost all people replaceable. Being irreplaceable in the modern day makes you a liability to your boss, so it is important that everyone only knows how to do one thing and is completely unable to do anything else. It should be no surprise that this leads to waste and mass stupidity. -constant hyperstimulation. Don't think I need to explain this one. I've been a screen junkie for years and I am absolutely certain it has damaged my brain. There just doesn't seem to be any other socially acceptable way to exist though, at least among my caste. -population too high. This one has actually been fixing itself, turns out people start having less kids when they have birth control and access to abortions. -cars. They take up way too much space, pollute, and provide an artificial barrier for social advancement. There should never be a reason for anyone to travel more than 5 miles daily, using a bike or their feet. A decent light rail system could handle the rest. None of these are a requirement for technological advancement. We could enjoy a decent standard of living and connection to the land, while also having modern medicine and a decent transportation system. So, so many of the things we waste our lives doing are completely unnecessary.

>>27858 wow it's almost like peoples' attitudes change as they age

>>27859 I think the joke is supposed to be that Ted's message (or Jacques Ellul for a better example I guess) isn't actually that different from what any given normal person thinks already. Most people are pretty luddite by default on a wide range of topics. There is almost nothing interesting or novel going on in Ted's writing that isn't just pure derivative ideas.

>>27862 would work better with friends. Parents are the classic target to avoid listening to or intentionally doing the opposite. So the joke might as well be about parenting even if not intentional.

>>27862 >Most people are pretty luddite by default on a wide range of topics. weird, I always get looked at like a crazy person when I say I don't have any social media and am intending to get rid of my cell phone.

>>27865 No different than saying you gonna quit alcohol completely tomorrow. People know its bad. Youre just a weird fuarrrk for making such statements.

>>27870 >No different than saying you gonna quit alcohol completely tomorrow. considering how many people I know who have announced that they are going to quit drinking or smoking(or heroin), and have immediately gotten support from friends and family and even fellow addicts, I don't understand how there is no difference.

>>27872 Well you have a different crowd then. You would just get teased for your unrealistic claims here.

>>27873 your friends must be assholes.

>>27874 Lying for comfort is just not our style. If you wanna do it do it, you will get even help but we still make fun of each other.

>>27875 Then it is true that people treat computer use differently, because they will often be unwilling to use a new form of contact even when it is trivially easy to set up.

>>27881 convenience is King. In reverse people will tolerate a lot just to stay lazy. Just look at them. People complain about having to visit multiple online-stores. Dumbfucks demand a monopoly cause its more convenient.

>>18844 Ted did nothing wrong, even thought I don't agree technology is always bad it's development can only be detrimental for humanity as long as it is in the hands of those who are powerful today.

>>21645 his analysis of leftism only includes liberal first world leftism which makes sense considering his life experience but his conclussions are pretty subjective

>>29518 This is fair. The only counter I could offer is that first world leftism dominates the west, which is currently where the direction of technology (and thus society) is decided. China might shake things up, but trading western liberalism for Xi Jinping & friends sounds like a frying pan to a fire. >>27862 >isn't actually that different from what any given normal person thinks already I think the central difference is that the average joe thinks: "X way in which a technology is used is bad, but we can fix it with (laws, regulations, more technology)" Ted thinks: "Technology is bad, and will always be bad. You cannot regulate progress (ie technical developments) and you cannot control a fire with more fuel (tech to fix tech)." Or the classic: "Man with technology is like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine." (roughly paraphrased from ted himself) You could argue it is a difference in scale, but I think there is a fundamental shift from issue with feature to issue with the object.

>>27851 >There just doesn't seem to be any other socially acceptable way to exist though, at least among my caste. Don't give up lain! Find friends who will accept you regardless of your level of tech-subservience. Real friends don't let friends succumb to the machine. >We could enjoy a decent standard of living and connection to the land, while also having modern medicine and a decent transportation system. I agree these things are theoretically possible, but I do not think they are achievable without insane restructuring of society. I am inclined to think without either a strong religious aversion to industrial technology, an aggressive fascist/monarchist anti-tech regime, or both maintaining a balanced low-tech society is impossible. Unfortunately, authoritarian regimes will do anything to maintain power, and will sell your soul to the machine god in a CPU cycle. And we all know how long true religious conviction lasts in the masses (1 generation +- 1). Also >modern medicine I'd argue most of modern medicine is not so hot and is focused on fixing issues that the modern society produced. The good parts beyond that are mostly relatively easy to backport or already existed. Take lifespan as an example: For primitive societies you have a high infant death rate, but if you make it past that the mean is ~60 (At least, I recall a study of african? hunter-gatherer's that found mean lifespan post-youth of ~56). I can dig up a citation if you want, I think Ted gives at least one in his essay on human health etc. If you take english aristocracy in the 1200s as an example of an individual with low external mortality risk (ie: warfare, etc.) and basic medical care, once they passed infancy they could expect to hit a mean of ~64 [2]. Mean lifespan nowadays is 75-80 in the "good countries" and 50-60 in the bad ones [1]. So all of modern medicine (and the technological side effects and requirements to achieve it) can get you an extra 10-15 years mean lifespan post-youth. Not that great of an accomplishment if you ask me. The easiest modern medical technique to backport is also arguably the most important: antibiotics. Careful genetic design could easily yield a strain of brewer's yeast that exports simple biosynthetic antibiotics ready for use. Application would just be drinking a glass of the yeast after growth. Even without biotech you could just grow penicillin bacteria in a low-tech society, no need to worry about resistance because low-contact levels mean no spread and no pressure to gain resistance. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Variation_over_time, here is the actual source available via preview: https://books.google.at/books?id=T4DLK7zLxYMC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

>>29547 >Don't give up lain! Find friends who will accept you regardless of your level of tech-subservience. Real friends don't let friends succumb to the machine. I'm *almost* there. In the mean time I'm going to root a phone, put a spyware-free OS on it, and keep it in a faraday pocket. Put that graduation money to good use. I can also still have a phone number using a IP phone service, most of them even support FOSS clients! (plus it's cheap as hell). I think most of my friends wouldn't be that surprised to be honest. >I am inclined to think without either a strong religious aversion to industrial technology, an aggressive fascist/monarchist anti-tech regime, or both maintaining a balanced low-tech society is impossible It doesn't need to be strictly religious, the culture just needs to value the land. Part of the reason why industrial society is so cancerous is because of the warped way people view land. Indians, for instance, were well aware of how to properly manage their land and its true intrinsic value, and would never have industrialized and raped it as the white man has, even if they had the technology to. You could argue that this was religious, because it was in a way, but it's not like they thought God would smite them for building a train. >For primitive societies you have a high infant death rate, but if you make it past that the mean is ~60 (At least, I recall a study of african? hunter-gatherer's that found mean lifespan post-youth of ~56). I can dig up a citation if you want, I think Ted gives at least one in his essay on human health etc. oh I'm well aware. With a proper diet it's even longer, like 70. >The easiest modern medical technique to backport is also arguably the most important: antibiotics. Careful genetic design could easily yield a strain of brewer's yeast that exports simple biosynthetic antibiotics ready for use. Application would just be drinking a glass of the yeast after growth. Even without biotech you could just grow penicillin bacteria in a low-tech society, no need to worry about resistance because low-contact levels mean no spread and no pressure to gain resistance. absolutely (although penicillin is a fungus, not a bacterium). This plus some surgical methods and a lot of water management concepts could easily be backported. A lot of people forget that there are many many wild-growing plants with medicinal properties as well. In fact they are where most of our medicines are refined from.

>>21880 yeah ok but thats the whole point of image boards that and brewing soykaf about animu tiddies

>>21884 > Humans are not rational creatures by nature, this is false our brains evolved for thousands of years to be able to rationalize the universe, anyways that isn't even materialism, dialectic materialism is just the school of thought that claims societies are deffined by their material charachteristics first and their ideals second thats why describing a society as feudal is more accurate than to call it a christian society

>>27843 Technology can be used to destroy humanity too and it's way more effective at that than any "suicide cult" would ever be, if you care about prolonging human existence then you should care about how this technology is used too. Those who misuse technology are the true enemies of our specie.

>>27843 Buuuuullshiiiiiiit. Get your nose out of science fiction about asteroids and black holes or whatever and look at the real threats and real probabilities we face. Don't ignore the mundane and certain for the spectacular and rare. Technology has brought so many real, credible threats to the existence of our species at break-neck speeds. It's frightening how much more quickly existential threads have emerged from industrial society than from the natural world. We existed for hundreds of millennia without this trash and did just fine. With it, we have had constant near-misses within a couple centuries. And climate change has become all but inevitable. Technology is the suicide cult. One of its delusional sacraments is this unexamined idea that it's our only hope, that without it we are lost—something that isn't just dubious but historically proven to be impossible. How do you believe in this crap? Then you say that they're a cult that cannot be reasoned with and who only understand and only resort to violence, which is hilariously stupid because you only squeeze that baseless assertion in to justify the fact that you think they should all be rounded up and summarily executed in an extremist totalitarian way. You're retarded; totally divorced from reality and rational thought. >>29560 Yeah, this is basically why Ted was right and therefore the internet should be dismantled. It's useless and obscene.

I have been reading some things posted in this thread. However, in this reading I can see this guy is a antisocial narcissist. He presents his personality and how this personality perceives reality as reality so he obviously lacks empathy and understanding. I don't see the appeal?

>>21492 >>We can become an interplanetary technologically advanced civilization if we choose to accept the problems of technological society over restricting our development just to make more people satisfied being animals... >Could you please clarify this point? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. People can gain pleasure through their animal side, their primal instincts and basic desires. Anarcho-primitivists wish animal lives upon us: we are supposed to live in the nature instead of our artificial environment, get our food on our own instead of delegating this task to the food industry, live in packs or tribes and spend time watching children grow and dance around the campfire. Human animal life, the never-ending rave, the childish hippie dream, made expensive by industrialization with its duties and obligations and other complicated things. It's fun and satisfying, but ultimately pointless, we've lived like that for thousands of years and decided to grow out of it, build this civilization, stop being afraid of ghosts and shadows and avoid dying of preventable diseases. Ted wants none of that, he believes that every step beyond our human animal desires is a step on a path to the technological slavery, he wants everyone to be a satisfied human animal, projecting his own disillusion and desires onto 8 billion people, who, every day, choose technological society over just being an animal. People still can be animals in the technological society, just not exactly how Ted imagines it. Being an animal is no longer the way of being, it's just a leisure. Advancing the technological world is the new way, and problems arising on this path are to be solved, not to be seen as a reason to degrade back to campfire dances, even though it's the suicidal wish of those who have failed to adapt. Ted failed to adapt and ran to the forest, but massive ego is incapable of accepting defeat, it would rather form a worldview in which it is right, and it would try to impose this worldview on others.

>>29560 Why do i feel sadness in your post?

I don't like primitivism but I think industrial society is pretty much garbo. Science without technology pls.

>>29566 The problem with technology is that as it exists right now it is not a tool, it is the final product. So you use technology as a tool to produce more technology that makes faster and better production of more technology to use to make more technology that will aid faster and better production etc. etc.

>>29576 I do not like primitivism either but I think that, much like a virus that eats its hosts until it cant function and just dies, the better humans get at exploiting their resources, the harder they will do it. You are assuming that technology will solve our issues, but what if it mostly brings more issues that require more technology (and thus industry) to solve? A simple example of that would be plastic. We needed a cheap, light and strong material, so we created plastic. Well, a hundred years later plastic is everywhere, and it's impossible to remove it from our production chains as it's a necessary material for the construction of pretty much everything... But guess what? We now know that it's toxic as fuarrrk and, at best, will only fuarrrk up your hormones, while at its worse will blow you up with tumors. But this is only plastics, what if we also discovered that using mobile phones caused cancer? How would we get rid of a staple of modern world's communication? Oh wait! They do! Agricultural lands are fuarrrked because of the use of pesticides, and the only way to heal them is to ironically go back to farming ways that are less reliant on chemicals, but are people will to have less food on the table? Just the other day, I was reading about a team of scientists that looked at the dying bees and how they couldnt pollinate plants anymore... Their solution? Using chemical bubbles to carry the pollen from one tree to the next. See the problem? Technology is a drug that solves one issue by introducing artificial systems and mechanics to the environment and blindly hoping that this wont have an effect. Spoiler alert: Any action will have an expected reaction. The only question is are we good enough to predict everything? I think we all know the answer to that one. >>31712 What's worse is that it is in human nature to consolidate power. The only reason we have survived this far is because we took from others (animals, plants, tribes) and kept for ourselves, at their expense. But this happens within society as well. There will always be a rich person and plenty of poor people. There will always be the very powerful small elite club, and the rest. So, we can gloat and clap our hands about how much power we have over the planet and the rest, but honestly do WE have any power? People are excited about colonizing Mars and the outer edges of the galaxy, thinking that they will get plenty of space to explore, live in and leave their mark, just like the discovery of the Americas. But how did that turn out for modern day Americans? We will be the serfs building castles for our overlords, just like the history of mankind has always shown. Except that with technology, you will have no chance of escape.