LEARN THE TRUTH!

It's completely impractical and stupid. How are you going to convince everyone in the world to abandon technology? No country or group with intelligence would do that because you'd immediately be enslaved by literally anyone who still had their tech. Even if you succeed, how are you going to stop people from inventing things? That is what people do, they discover, build, invent, etc. How would you stop that? Industrialization has certainly spiraled out of control a long time ago, so I agree with those grievances. But technology is never going away.

Technological Slavery (2009) contains Industrial Society And Its Future (1995) along with many supporting articles and correspondence Kaczynski wrote for it afterwards. It is a must read. Anti-Tech Revolution: Why And How (2016) will need to be obtained separately. The links to multiple formats are provided in the OP, or can be physically purchased in all major bookstores.

How does this work in a community sense?
From what I've read of him he was a loner.
But community is often the only strength we have.
read.gov/aesop/040.html

Uncle Ted, my personal hero

>It's completely impractical and stupid. How are you going to convince everyone in the world to abandon technology?
You don't. That's not what he proposes. If you would have read his work beforehand, you would know this.

>No country or group with intelligence would do that because you'd immediately be enslaved by literally anyone who still had their tech.
Kaczynski spends a lot of time covering this subject, factors it into his equations, and proposes the only possible solution to it. Again, if you'd read any of his work, you would know this.

>Even if you succeed, how are you going to stop people from inventing things?
You don't, and that's not the aim.

>That is what people do, they discover, build, invent, etc. How would you stop that?
You don't. It would be impossible to take measures to guarantee what future generations may or may not do, but one thing is for certain; if you truly smash industrial civilisation and sufficiently disrupt the large scale organisation that it depends upon to function, it may take hundreds if not thousands of years to reappear, if it ever does at all. Again, READ KACZYNSKI. He explains this far better than I do.

>Industrialization has certainly spiraled out of control a long time ago, so I agree with those grievances. But technology is never going away.
His grievance isn't with technology. It's with the industrial-technological machine on which all advanced modern technologies are dependent upon. There is a very big difference.

See paragraphs 207-212 under the subheading "TWO TYPES OF TECHNOLOGY" at the following link for more information on that:

washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm??noredirect=on

Good morning.

2. The industrial-technological system may survive or it
may break down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve
a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but
only after passing through a long and very painful period
of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently redu-
cing human beings and many other living organisms to
engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine.
Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will
be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying
the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of
dignity and autonomy.
3. If the system breaks down the consequences will still
be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more
disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is
to break down it had best break down sooner rather than
later.
4. We therefore advocate a revolution against the in-
dustrial system. This revolution may or may not make use
of violence; it may be sudden or it may be a relatively
gradual process spanning a few decades. We can’t predict
any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the
measures that those who hate the industrial system should
take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against
that form of society. This is not to be a POLITICAL revo-
lution. Its object will be to overthrow not governments
but the economic and technological basis of the present
society.

If you've read it and that was your response, you're a moron. If you haven't read it and responded anyway, you're also a moron.

He was a loner in an advanced industrial society, but he didn't advocate for individualism. He argued for local community and the return of autonomy to local communities, which have been decimated by the centralisation and large scale organisation required for advanced industrial societies to function.

Read his work. It's all there.

Exactly. How could someone with those beliefs not end up a "loner" in modern society? He was actually fairly involved in the nearest community by his cabin. Shunning densely populated hyper-urban communities is not equal to being a loner. That's the media for ya... They always find the right spin. I'm going to bed. Glad a Ted thread is up. Keep it up, friend.

Good thread OP
Understanding ISaiF is the first step to understanding the relationship between technology and capitalism - and why we fight international capitalism.
It voraciously devours everything in its path, innovating new ways to remove natural human processes and replace them with artificial surrogates just soon enough to pacify us.
Politics in 2019 is a Chinese finger trap. They will only resolve it by relaxing, which is why Trump will win.
Corporations import labor to suppress wages, the same reason they pushed for feminism to double the workforce. The machine has to keep growing.
Consider the destructive power of a nuclear bomb. We managed to rig that up to a voting machine and call it just.
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT WE AS HUMAN BEINGS ARE NOT YET WORTHY OF THE POWER WE POSSESS.
THAT IS THE SOURCE OF OUR PAIN.

Attached: kaczynski3.jpg (500x741, 449K)

Agreed. You keep it up too, sir.

While I agree with what you're saying capitalism is just the same as communism with regards to its reliance upon advanced technology and the large scale organisation of the industrial-technological system. They're both just different approaches at attempting to govern that system, so singling out capitalism as the problem wouldn't be correct. It's the industrial-technological system and any ideologies that attempt to govern, maintain and expand it that are the root cause. That's what we're fighting against.

I've read it but I don't remember it all. He was very smart and made very good points, but what he wants is unrealistic and undesirable. The only path to his end goal would be the destruction of civilization. The majority of people would starve (which he acknowledges), we'd be back to tribal living. It might seem romantic when reading about it but it probably isn't that great. I don't think it's necessary to abandon technology or industrialization, and if we do than you are going to have a really hard time convincing 7 billion people to starve to death.

>I've read it but I don't remember it all.
Then you need to reread it, and you should also definitely consider reading his subsequent works. They explain in great detail the futility of reform, which is what you're proposing.

>He was very smart and made very good points, but what he wants is unrealistic and undesirable.
It's not as unrealistic as it seems, and I can assure you that the continued expansion of the industrial-technosystem will be far more undesirable and severe.

>The only path to his end goal would be the destruction of civilization.
The destruction of modern industrial civilisation. Not necessarily the destruction of all civilisation. Look at the current state of affairs and the direction we're heading in. Is the destruction of modern industrial civilisation, however painful and catastrophic it will be, really such a bad idea in the long term? Especially when you consider the alternative.

>The majority of people would starve (which he acknowledges), we'd be back to tribal living.
A lot of people will die in a variety of very terrible ways, yes. But a lot of people die in a variety of terrible ways now, and it goes without saying that the continued expansion of the system may actually lead to the earth becoming uninhabitable for most complex organisms for hundreds of thousands of years. That sounds like an apocalyptic doomsday theory, I know, but in actual fact it's a very real possibility now. Now more than ever.

>It might seem romantic when reading about it but it probably isn't that great.
There is no other alternative.

>I don't think it's necessary to abandon technology or industrialization
We wouldn't abandon technology, just destroy the global industrial-technological system (which has escaped rational human control) that all advanced modern technologies are dependent upon. If you don't think we need to deindustrialise, then you don't understand the extent of the problem. Reformation is impossible.

(1/2)

If you were paying attention at all when you were reading Kaczynski, then you would have a very hard time refuting the arguments he presents as to why reformation is impossible. Even just the arguments in Industrial Society And Its Future, let alone those in all of his other articles contained in Technological Slavery and Anti-Tech Revolution: Why And How. It's all very well you saying "I don't think we need to deindustrialise or abandon (advanced modern) technology dependent upon the large scale organisation of modern industrial society," but it's something else entirely to refute Kaczynski's arguments as to why that won't be possible and present a strategy of reform that could ever work.

>and if we do than you are going to have a really hard time convincing 7 billion people to starve to death.
If you'd have paid attention when you read your Kaczynski then you would know that he doesn't suggest that anyone try to convince them of that. He doesn't propose a democratic vote as if he's trying to win an election or persuade people to vote for his cause in a referendum.

It is not that capitalism relies on technology so much as they birth one another. Competition is the essence of capitalism, and in the midst of competition come forth innovations which establish themselves as new technologies - providing purchase for further expansion and tyrannies. Communism is irrelevant in this respect. The only way to control capitalism is to contain technology. There is no need for an ideology to explicitly attempt to maintain or expand technology for technology to be maintained and expanded - it can only be stopped by an explicit counterattack.
A few months ago I predicted that the first step towards this would be the destruction of the Chinese economy. Without first removing the Chinese economy, it would be impossible to tactfully technologically disarm the West - it would simply slip through the fingers into Asia.
It is my belief that we are headed for global economic collapse of a scale incomprehensible. The only question is whether you will be let in to the technology-maintainers, or left to either farm or rot.
Global warming is an excuse for implementing Kaczynski's ideas. It's like how in the Matrix, it was originally supposed to be that they were harvesting human consciousness and thought, but got dummed down to using humans as batteries.
Global warming is that for implementing mass de-teching.

Well I'll read his stuff again and pay more more attention this time. There was one other thing though. He talked about revolutions and how they never worked because they are unpredictable. Any revolution will inevitably be taken over by people with alternate agendas and the original goal will be lost. I totally agree with that, and the evidence is all over the history books. But then at the end he still wants a revolution. His only solution I remember was 'We just have to really make sure that the revolutionaries will stick to the plan'. That also seems unrealistic, most people are not trustworthy. They go power hungry too easily. You just aren't going to be able to stop that.

>Well I'll read his stuff again and pay more more attention this time.
I strongly advise that you do that, because that post is another misunderstanding and misrepresentation on your behalf of what he actually wrote. I could go into detail explaining to you why that is, but unfortunately I've run out of time for this morning. Luckily you seem thoughtful, inquisitive and concerned with the problems we face as a society enough to take the time to read up on this.

I'm sorry but unfortunately I've run out of time to address your post this morning. If the thread is still up when I return, or perhaps if we come across one another again in another thread, we can continue this discussion then.

Unironically quoting St. Theodore in my dissertation.

Based.

Attached: j.jpg (1200x1200, 214K)

Mumsnet finally had enough of you?

The amish are tedpilled

Climate change has nothing to do with the main motivations behind his ideas, so I have no idea what fantasy land you brought that from. It's about what it means to be human. You seriously need to re-read his material before you continue to comment with poorly considered ideas. At this point, you don't even seem interested in actually understanding it. Intentionally or not, you're a useful distraction and anyone who actually has read the material and doesn't hide from the obvious conclusions is wasting their time taking to you. Saged. Read and then come back.

In Ohio the Amish shop at Walmart. Look into it if you think that's a joke. The arm of Industrialization can and will reach anywhere unless it's purposefully stopped.

I believe it. They will be just fine when that Walmart closes though.

Bump.