editions-hache.com
Here's a pdf of Industrial Society and its Future
Make sure to read his two other books.
Reminder: Every problem stems from technology and the industrial revolution. Get rid of technology and you get rid of these problems
Globalization = cut the power and it stops
Propaganda = cut the power and it stops
Feminism = cut the power and it stops
Pollution = cut the power and it stops
Migration = cut the power and it stops
List goes on
Other urls found in this thread:
pnas.org
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
fr.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
I never agreed with his methods, but I respect this man and his opinions immensely.
Without justifying his actions, I am completely aware of this man's genious insight into the future.
His methods worked insofar as most of us would never have been in contact with his writings otherwise. He never claimed he would overthrow the industrial system by mailing bombs. He just did it to gather attention preceding the publishing of ISaiF. So he was succesful in his methods and goal.
I'm not getting rid of the technology. If I have to keep the kikes and sjws around to keep the technology, so be it.
>If I have to keep the kikes and sjws around to keep the technology, so be it.
they won't be keeping you around friend.
Praise Ted! Peace be upon him
The kikes will turn you into a mindless consumer drone through technology and the SJW will turn you into a docile, tolerant urbanite through technology.
You are a loser and a coward. Take a look at this recent study if you don't believe me. You are already being engineered to be the most tamed, degenerate, weak form of human life possible. Wake up.
pnas.org
>I'm not getting rid of the technology
Technology will get rid of you. Humans are increasingly obsolete. Why would the system allocate ressources for useless humans? This is certainly not how the system works. Techno-optimists are generally ignorant on the workings of the system, complex systems, technological progress, social implications of rapid progress etc.. Most scientists I know are very wary of the system actually. But most of them refuse to admit that they are indeed the number one cause of technological progess, therefore human degeneracy (meant in the broader sense, not just sjw bullshit)
Technology is merely a tool, and a tool isn't a tool unless someone makes it such. Every problem stems from people, not technology.
I support technological advancement, however. It gives us the means to clone only the best people and passively induce the rest of them into a coma.
>Technology is merely a tool
No it's not. And no thinker has ever said anything remotly close to this moronic statetment. You are parroting the most banal and mediocre myth surrounding technology. Unfortunately for you, nobody with a brain has ever said anything of the sort, even the pro-tech thinkers.
>clone only the best people and passively induce the rest of them into a coma.
? natural selection works way better than any system you will ever come up with. Technology is the SOLE reason the legions of degenerates, weaklings, undisciplined, tamed urbanites exist.
You want technology to fix technology's problems, as always. You are too coddled to imagine a life without technology, you know deep down you won't fare a week without tech so..... Aren't YOU the subhuman you want to get rid of? Ironic.
bump.
What are the titles of his two other books?
I read an article about a group of lads who are apparently like a modern day FC but remain in contact via technology. They were referred to as Pine Tree Club or something like that and use a pine tree emoji in their social media names. I guess one of the "leaders" was a guy named Rin.
Does anyone know anything about that or where the best place to chat with like-minded individuals would be?
>inb4 sure thing, cia nigger
Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How
Technological Slavery
>Every problem stems from technology and the industrial revolution.
thats what Henry George says in Progress and Poverty
>FC
?
Many people have come to the same conclusions. Ted Kaczynski is aware of it and says he couldn't care less about being original. Only academics care about this stuff.
Wow. An actual OP who brings information and food for thought. Thanks for the tedthread and exposing his work even if it's only to ONE more person. That's still important
He is absolutely correct, but for some reason he is being shilled a lot around here lately. I wonder if there is something to that.
Freedom Club. The name Kaczynski originally gave to himself in his manifesto. Probably to make the feds believe that there was multiple people behind the mailing. From there people picked up on it.
capitalism = cut the power and it stops
A lot more interest in him, but maybe it's a psyop?
nationalism = cut the power and it stops
degeneracy = cut the power and it stops
timidity = cut the power and it stops
>glorious east coast
West coast fags will never understand the connection to nature we have
cut the power or live the rest of your life as a slave
I discovered Kaczynski about a year ago and have been shilling him a lot ever since. Before then I thought the unabomber was a random terrorist, like many people do. It could be a psyop (chaos technique, flooding internet boards with as many different ideologies as possible) but it would be quite dangerous as Kaczynski is clear; we must concentrate ALL our efforts in the destruction of the technological system. Cut the power out = no more cia, no more gov, no more psyop etc...
Checked.
Ma nigga.
MESSAGE TO RUSSIAN ANONS:
German Sterligov, russian billionaire, staunch anti-tech activist, had videos on youtube subbed in english which were deleted recently. I would love for a bilingual russian/english user to translate some of his videos, no matter how short, because his point of view is really interesting.
If you turn back the clock, you just come back to where you were. If you turn back a video and press play, you get back to where you were. The goal is to develop solutions, technological solutions, to changing politics and culture. Seizing tech solutions as they appear, being the early adopters, that is what will get us the hearts and minds of whites.
y'all motherfuckers need to start reading john zerzan. he lays it all out, and backs up his claims w citations about how harmful civilization is for us, body, mind and soul.
He was nothing more than the edgelord of his time.
bump
OP so is there any limit to "safe" tech?
Can I use a saw? build a log-cabin? use a compass? At what point is a piece of technology part of this deleterious system?
Any hardware with silicon and transistors is bad. Wigwams and smoke signals are okay though.
the major problem with teds fantasy is that "progress" is somewhat unstoppable, we will always make thing easier for us, industrial revolution was a natural evolution in a way, sure it brought about a great deal of harm but it also made infancy mortality rate plummet and made medicine widely available, to turn back the clock would be "inhumane"
I had hear about Ted before (bombings), but many years ago I didn't actually read his stuff until I was watching a news story about an auction selling items of criminals, and one of the items in the auction was his mathematics degree from Harvard.
smart guy. what did he say causes over-socialization? why do some people get over-socialization and others don't? is it an introvert extrovert thing?
bullshit silly-con valley hype
>No it's not.
Sorry, I should have said: technology is merely a tool... for people intelligent enough to use it as such. For the rest, it either doesn't exist, or it's "magic." In your case, a form of black magic.
Tech on an individual level is perfectly safe. If you want a deeper analysis of technique, read Ellul.
The moment technology requires vast amounts of social reorganisation to exist, is the moment humans start to pay the price of technological progress. Cities, factories, phones etc.. all require a huge amount of reorganisation (logistical, social) and social engineering to force people into working for the system. In reality, like Ellul pointed out, it's not simply a problem of technology but a problem of technification. We have 'technified' every part of society, from education to the judicial system.
Our society is inhumane, way more than any type of society ever created. Is dying of dysentery inhumane? No, it's actually part of life and part of nature's self-regulatory ways (way more refined than any man made system) Is stacking humans in appartment blocks, with no sunlight humane? Is forcing children to sit for 8 fucking hours a day humane? No - it's deleterious to their development! Is injecting humans with oxytocin so they start loving migrants humane (see the study I posted above)? lol.
You actually bring the only possible arguments in favor of industrialisation, infant mortality rate. But that's the only one. And infant mortality exists for a reason (weed out weak genes) And as tech progresses, its inevitable collapse grows closer (no, a system is not immortal) and the bigger the system gets, the higher the consequences when everything comes falling down. If we allow the system to keep growing, its collapse might mean the end of ALL life on earth.
>auction selling items of criminals
One more reason to get rid of this dying civilization
>The moment technology requires vast amounts of social reorganisation to exist, is the moment humans start to pay the price of technological progress.
tfw agriculture ruined humanity
We invent a machine that does the work of a human more efficiently. Do we keep the human and ditch the machine? Has this ever happened in the last 200 years? No. Then humans are ALREADY being replaced by machines. It is not a fantasy, but has been the reality for the last 200 years. We are voting in politicians who claim that raising the GDP will benefit humans... That's basically my point. We put people in office who says; here, listen, I know life is hard and jobs are hard to come by, but I swear if we put all our efforts into raising the gdp by exporting our jobs to china and giving all of our taxes to the military and rich bankers, then life will be good again.
We literally think the system needs to be taken care of BEFORE humans. This is insane. Civilization has gone completely mad.
>for people intelligent enough to use it as such
haha what? reread my post carefully, you are the one who has obviously never opened a book.
It certainly did, most anti-tech authors recognize this fact, but it would be crazy to advocate for a return to pre-industrial society. Destroying the technological system is actually way easier since it is highly centralized. Getting rid of the technological system, some parts of the world will go back to hunter-gatherer societies, but most of us will go back to and harvesting food.
what about people who are born into power but still become leftists? they exist what causes it?
Base Ted poster
>Getting rid of the technological system, some parts of the world will go back to hunter-gatherer societies, but most of us will go back to and harvesting food.
Why stop there? That is still allowing technology into your life. And as long as it is there, it requires social reorganization to maintain. One cannot be truly free while it is there, free to live in unlit caves (since a campfire is a form of technology), drooling as an animal with no language (since language is a form of technology), fighting wild animals on a daily basis to survive (with no weapons, of course, since they are a form of technology). We must go deeper... human consciousness itself is the problem. But how can we be truly rid of that? Must we exterminate ourselves? I think so!
In his book anti-tech revolution why and how he stresses revolutionaries to remain strictly legal and be keep to exploit opportunities.
He also stresses a small group of dedicated people will always be better than a movement that compromises on principles in order to "grow the movement" as this always ends up with lazy leftist types subverting everything. You see this with the alt-right and sodomites for example or people trying to "red pill the normies"
>imagine never reading a book
Absolute retard with zero knowledge of technology and anti-tech thought in general. Every point you mentionned is addressed in the first chapter of ANY book about technology hahaha illiterate retard. I'd say compulsory education was wasted you since you never read a book outside of high school, but no, you seem like a good drone after all.
Books are a form of technology, user. Literacy itself exists due to technology. You should be weary of them like I am.
He goes into how a second industrial revolution would be impossible after a total collapse. Only vapid techies fall for the progress ad infinum meme. That we will just figure it all out once shit hits the fan, whatever the problem.
Which book did he mention this and what was his reasoning?
You are being purposefully disingenuous if your can't separate industrial revolution+ tech from primitive technology.
The only argument against tech in general is that once you reach agriculture "progress" can't be stopped, however depletion of resources makes another industrial leap impractical to the plateau will be much more reasonable.
Why is Ohio so barren?
>actually thinking keeping primitive technology around is okay
>giving a cold shoulder to your brothers and sisters who aren't smart enough to learn how to use primitive technology
That's pretty heartless of you, user. Why do your fellow humans dirty like that? We have to get rid of all technology, it is all biased towards the higher intelligence. We have to go further back, back to The Beginning of Time... it's the only way to not be cruel and oppressive monsters.
Anti-tech revolution, why and how.
But doesnt post industrial tech include mass produced antibiotics? That shit has saved countless lives. We've got to have a few exceptions somewhere
You don't understand Ted. He's not some faggot tree hugger. His works disparage anarcho-primitives as much as technies.
We aren't trying to save countless lives.
So if a white kid who could be the next isaac newton dies from a paper cut that's a good thing to you?
>Books
There will be no books in the AnPrim society user
First, like many recent (2018) scientific studies pointed out, there isn't enough oil on the planet to transition from a fossil fuel civilization a fusion energy one. Another anti-tech activist, German Sterligov (Russia's first billionaire, following the collapse of the USSR) says that we will never reproduce our mistakes out of sheer horror. Once we destroy the current technological system, we have 'monuments' to this dark period of history, oceans will still be polluted in a thousand years, cities would still stand straight, but have becomed unlivable hellscapes in which various chemicals render life impossible, thousands of acres of trash in India and Africa, etc... We will wake up from our techno-delusions and face the destruction we have caused. Imagine the shock. Imagine your great-grandchildren when they witness the atrocities we have forced upon nature.
Also we have exhausted almost every type of ressources which do not require massive use of energy and tools to extract. So we NEED oil and energy and technology to drill for more oil, energy and technology.
The book must be anti-tech revolution, I just gave you some ideas surrounding this reasoning, not exclusive to Kaczynski's, I'm almost certain Kazcynski talked about another perspective, but I don't remember which one exactly.
People's who reject technology will be destroyed by those who didn't.
If whites nations of Asia or even Africa will take them over and either exterminate, enslave or assimilate them.
But then again Ted didn't care if the future will be brown. Pretty sure he would welcome it.
Don't reply to the idiot in the thread, probably some domesticated urbanite or shill who wants to dilute interesting conversation. Anyways, cut the power out for a month and these people will die of thirst 3days in.
You should watch some Carrefour de L'horloge conference, one of them touches a bit this subject.
I am a computer programmer and thought like Ted for a while. But I'm starting to think he's wrong. Technology is literally void of any values, it's what you make with it. You could use acceleration of conversations and media to share to the world your own local culture, therefore emphasizing the differences and reinforcing nationalism. You can use abortion and maybe even some other biological engineering for the greater good (solve the future idiocracy, rich and smart ppl having less kids in modern times than during the aristocratic middle edges). For every bad aspect or use of technology, there is a good future.
I do agree that we need to master the technè instead of succumbing to it.
fr.wikipedia.org
I don't understand Ted because I don't read books, user. Books are a form of technology.
>AnPrim society
>one guy invents fire
>Melts copper into spear tips
>Conquers entire society within a month
But at least we didn't have evil cars and paper towels
>We are voting in politicians who claim that raising the GDP will benefit humans... That's basically my point. We put people in office who says; here, listen, I know life is hard and jobs are hard to come by, but I swear if we put all our efforts into raising the gdp by exporting our jobs to china and giving all of our taxes to the military and rich bankers, then life will be good again.
True. We have enough technology to live really comfy lives and yet people don't fight for their share of that cake and instead allow themselves to be sacrificed for "progress" and "development" by insane power freaks at the top.
Wrong and wrong. Did Kazcynski advocated for [your country] to leave technology behind? Nope. He said we must destroy technology on a global scale, at the same time. He acknowledges everything you've written too.
You don't actually think you've outsmarted a 160iq math genius who spent 18years perfecting his ideas and manifesto, right?
Hai R/DEC group chat
As based de Lesquen puts it, we actually need St. Louis + the computer. Only the spread of values and spirits such as St Louis's would allow us to master the technè, and thus the world.
Where are we when we need you Ted?
>He said we must destroy technology on a global scale, at the same time. He acknowledges everything you've written too.
>revolution must happen on the whole world or it's not real communism
You faggots don't even pretend anymore.
Sounds basically like communism
>My special ideology only works if everyone is on board and goes against their nature and not a single errant human exists to fight back
Go back to faggotville, faggot
The technological system is so interconnected it's not much harder to collapse it globally than regionally.
L M A O
Ask communists what they think about Ted and an astonishing amount of them will praise him. Really turns on those chestnuts, doesn't it?
Stop spamming this except. it just attracts vapid larpers.
>Philosophical views are so stupid that people can draw easy parallels between it and another stupid philosophy
Let me ask you something. Does Ted provide ANY data that people are happier with less technology? He just makes blind assertions with no data. According to Ted, people should be happier under technologically primitive societies, but the world happiness index puts First world countries at the top.
We have direct evidence that ted is full of shit.
So shutting down EVERY factory, every mine, every local manufacture down to garage with some weirdo building guns out of scrap is not something absolutly retarded?
Well, there will be no data in anprim sociaty.
I mean, advocating that we all go back to live in caves is kind of a shitty idea, you know? If you are serious though spread some super deadly diseases around so we can wipe out the majority of the population....about 90%-95% should do the trick. thanks!
Ok. Damn.
Kek, might as well get rid of people. it's possible Logh the caveman might chip a stone into a wheel
hahahah straigh up tech-infused insanity
>everything I dont like is red
pathological.
Kaczynski says explicitly that communism is worse than capitalism regarding human freedom, but that both of these systems are different variants of technological system. This isn't meant for your sick brain, but for others posters who would want to know more. He literally says communism is one of the worst system ever created. How will your pro-tech urbanite ass recover?
This. Stirner already BTFO of objectivity.
You just have to make it economically infeasible to continue.
I'm not going to bother talking to you anymore, who have no knowledge of either side and are just parroting simplistic and emotionally vested "common sense" arguments on a whim.
LOL
Read technological slavery. It's full of data. Literally just 200 pages of data. He's a fucking math genius not a women gender studies graduate hahaha.
That's the point, you wouldn't need books.
what's with all the tedthreads all of a sudden? not that I'm complaining.
iPhone fag here. Does anybody here know of an app that can store PDFs cause mine is giving me problems.
>muh freedom
Anarchists are fuckin cancer.
Bet let's think about it you french faggot.
The whole "everyone abandons technology" bit is akin to throwing two men into a room littered with loaded guns, force them to fight to death and expect that neither will grab a gun becouse it "wont be fair".
Or if all countries just decided that they don't really feel like having nukes and just gave them out. It would be retarded to assume that at least one didn't leave some of them and become a powerhouse in an instant.
It's absolute idiocy that only an autist who's brain was turned into a mush by human experiments that he was a part of could think makes any sense.
The internet was the reason why things haven’t gone to complete shit and why Trump won.
>You just have to make it economically infeasible to continue.
Only thing that would stop people from creating more technology would be something like mass lowering of inteligence... by mass migration from low-IQ enviorements for example.
Are kikes /ourguys/?
Why should I? His Manifesto is just assertion after assertion ,he never quotes a single citation in his entire fucking paper. Ted is so stuck up his own ass he never considers he might have to provide evidence for the claims he makes
Ted really is fucking insane.