INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY AND ITS FUTURE

>Hides flag
>Schizo
>Coomer

Bye

Based.

I'm not hiding my flag, just my country won't show up

>unknown flag

The fuck kind of glownigger are you?

Attached: 1560450529755.jpg (800x800, 141K)

Attached: FUCK THE SYSTEM.jpg (335x425, 50K)

Reminder to bomb your local power plant

It's not the ones we see that are the problem, it's the ones we don't see that are the real threat. The recruitment and selection process for their online shills eliminate practically everyone with any intelligence or common sense. You can just singlehandedly massacre them all.

Anyone can read it for themselves, faggot. It is well written with highly logical arguments.

alright go ahead turn off your computer and go in the woods and make ur schizo cabin!

And anyone who has read any of it for themselves will know full well just what filthy liars and disgusting alphabet shills the vast majority of his detractors here are.

>reeeeeeeee stop posting kaczynski and btfo'ing the shit out of us

Yeah you didn't post proof that you are innawoods and you only use tech for fighting the technological system. FAGGOT

Attached: nujak2.jpg (992x940, 90K)

>can't even read an id let alone a masterful work of genius like anything written by kaczynski
The absolute state of you "people."

Attached: (You).jpg (1200x800, 267K)

based and tedpilled

You switched your geolocation off you lying shill.

he literally explained that its perfectly rational to use tech to destroy tech you glow in the dark nigg

Only if it is to destroy tech, so no shit posting, no toaster, no TV, no stove. GO INNAWOODS NOW FAGS
nope.

Attached: green nujak.png (680x680, 265K)

>if i hate tech i now gotta bang rocks
whats so hard to understand about wanting to live in a pre industrial society? ya know 17th century for example?

>what's so hard
I'd say defending yourself from the hordes of Chinese goblins living in a pre-industrial society will be pretty hard.

Right, also nukes.

living in a post-industrial society*

>GO INNAWOODS NOW FAGS
That isn't an option for a significant number of the populace, due to the environmental degradation and rapid expansion of the industrial-technological system, and using advanced modern technology in an industrial society is no longer voluntary.

The Chinese can barely project their army globally now, with advanced modern technology in and in the presence of an industrial-technological system with vast infrastructure. How harder would it be for them to project it without advanced technology provided by industrial society? The answer is much, much harder.

You didn't get my point. If every non-Chinese goes back to a rural pre-industrial lifestyle, the Chinese will just steamroll everyone. They aren't steamrolling everyone now because the rest of the world combined can easily beat China in a war.

he was right, but he missed a point. There is:
1. dirty mid-tech industry
2. clean advanced-tech industry
Very advanced societies are so rich that increasing wild green areas gives them more utility than using them up.
An important technological next step will be industrial synthesis of nutrients. (not that bug eating stuff)

I got your point just fine, but you didn't get my point.

The bug eating fear is just retarded, people have eaten bugs since the beginning of man

He didn't miss that point, though, he directly addresses it. What you don't realise is that this "clean advanced-tech industry" cannot exist without the "dirty mid-tech industry." How will you mine the materials to make these so called "green technologies," and how will you distribute those materials? How will you assemble them? Once assembled, how will you distribute the complete products? As he says, you need tools to make tools to make tools. And you need factories to build the factories that build these so called "green technologies." Think about it. Pretty soon you're right back to the exact mess we're in now.

The is absolutely no viable way to handle the logistic or energy demands of industrial society with "green technology." It's nothing more than fantasy.

Go home glownigger. You stink.

Not to the level of mass farming. That is insane. Only "bugs" I'll be eating is crustaceans, like lobster, shrimp, and crab!

Has anyone written to ted recently?
I'm mega curious on what he thinks about the state of the world (if he knows).
He would probably love a 'you were right about hyper reality'. (does he even know what that is?)

I haven't written to him recently but if you read his latest book from 2016 and some of his letters to other people, his opinion of the state of the world is much more bleak than it was in 1995. And, as always, he's absolutely correct.

Attached: Ted Warns 4chan Anon.jpg (2288x2132, 881K)

sure but mass farming in general is relatively recent
fuck off I am definitely not a "glownigger" you are the one promoting an eco-terrorist

want? he wasted a letter asking if he should be a mathematician?
Damn, there are must more interesting questions then that...

Has he even been asked if he thinks the worlds elite will reach a point where they have enough technology to conduct the mass murder of most of the worlds population?

>fuck off I am definitely not a "glownigger"
You're a massive glownigger.

>you are the one promoting an eco-terrorist
There is very little about terrorism in any of his written works, and you can buy all of them from any major bookstore. The Washington Post and New York Times have both maintained permanent links to Industrial Society And Its Future for nearly a quarter of a century. Everything he writes about is perfectly legal to discuss, and I am not promoting and nor do I recommend anyone commit any acts of terrorism whatsoever.

Try again, retard.

>want? he wasted a letter asking if he should be a mathematician?
It was a ridiculously retarded question to ask him, since Kaczynski himself was a Math professor who abandoned his own career for very obvious and publicly stated reasons.

>Has he even been asked if he thinks the worlds elite will reach a point where they have enough technology to conduct the mass murder of most of the worlds population?
Not that I've ever seen in a letter, although he speculates in one of his published works that if the elite are ruthless, they may well eliminate the majority of the global population once automation is perfected. It's a very good question, by the way. Why not write to him and ask?

Anglownigger, how come we can't just advance to a point in which we don't harm the environment and become efficient enough to take care of everyone's needs?
What's wrong with killing a ton of people, once we automate things? They will just get in the way anyways.

Found it...

Paragraphs 171-179 under the subheading "THE FUTURE."
washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm

>how come we can't just advance to a point in which we don't harm the environment and become efficient enough to take care of everyone's needs?
See , and for a thorough explanation of why that is very, very unlikely to happen.

>once we automate things?
Who is 'we'
Your not in on it. You are one of those 'ton of people'

Based uncle Ted poster

VPN fag, fuckoff.

>be Ted
>tech and organized systems are ruining people
>use tech to kill people
>exploit the post office to deliver said tech

Ted himself is a creation of the Industrial Revolution. I wonder if he knows that by now.

He's quite literally right about everything.

If you read his book, you wouldn't have said something so retarded.
He explicitly explained why he was leveraging tech to get his message out to the masses, and how it had to be done in order to save the human race.

See

It's happening boys 8ch alternative is up!

- Fresh new Jow Forums board
- No captcha (or gay pass)
- Tor posting
- 50mb file limits
- Free speech respected
- No shills
- Webm when audio on every board

16chan.xyz/pol/

>Smoke weed
>Don't like it
>Tell others not to smoke weed
>"BuT DuDe, YoU sMoKeD wEeD"

The stuff on leftism and Oversocialization is Mint.

His analysis of leftists was spot on. He predicted their behavior 30 years ago and warned us how totalitarian they will get, because they replaced god and the church with the state.
They almost worship big government, and they get their rocks off by using the power of the state to abuse people who do not share their same views.

Attached: ted-kaczynski-578450-1-420.jpg (1200x1200, 214K)

Exactly. There is no alternative to use the industrial-technological system's advanced modern technology against itself in order to try to destroy it. It's almost unfathomable that people repeatedly try to pick at that fact as if they've found some glaring contradiction that undermines his entire point, when it obviously does nothing of the sort.

So did Ted save the human race yet?

He's another lucifer, no different.
>I must take complete control to save you from He who has complete control over you!
same old story, the directory, napoleon, jefferson davis, mao, stalin, hitler, etc.

The part about the power process is also incredibly important, and his explanation of it actually solves the problem of the rise of existential nihilism that Nietszche never could. The philosphical profundity of Kaczynski's work is often completely overlooked, even by so-called "academics" and "scholars."

But I agree with the Frenchman. Kaczynski was right about EVERYTHING.

The enormity of the task at hand precludes an overnight success. It took 60 something years after the Communist Manifesto was published for the first Communist revolution to take place, and a Communist revolution happening in a few countries is a million times easier than overthrowing the entire technological and economic basis of industrial society.

Think before you post.

>" If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. (Sounds like what is happening)
>Or, if the elite consists of soft- hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone’s physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes “treatment” to cure his “problem.” Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or to make them “sublimate” their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they most certainly will not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals."

LMAO RIP

It seems the elite will do the psychological/biological on who it works on (Whites) and the extermination on those that it doesn't work on (Africans)

Unfortunately, the human mind is wired to be selfish. To only think about themselves even though it means the destruction of the entire world including your offspring further down the future.
Humans seek immediate gratification, they are very bad at thinking in the long run. Which is also why he highlighted that only 5% or so of the population need to be convinced. That's all it takes to bring down industry, as witnessed by other revolutions. Only a small fraction of people who are dedicated and ballsy enough to take action decide the future of their nations, the rest sit on their asses at home and watch from their windows.

Attached: 1558073936440.png (972x1004, 1.74M)

It's used to point out that what Ted wants is a return to the law of the jungle, which is beyond degenerate.

Ted wants the murder of people to unmake invention. Ted wants murdering people to compel them to behave in a manner he deems appropriate.

To say he had no choice but to use the fruits of the industrial revolution to accomplish his aims is simply to acknowledge their immense ability to empower the individual.

Complete and utter gibberish. Kaczynski never tried to assume any form of power or control over anyone. He was trying to free us from the omnipresent tyranny of industrial society. Your post is ridiculous. Absolutely laughably incorrect.

He literally assumed the power of life and death over his victims you 'tard.

I'm white and that shit don't work on me any more, not since I read Kaczynski and Ellul, and not all that much before I did either.

Completely agree. Kaczynski is actually freud (oversocialization) marx (cannot change historical trends) & nietzsche (power process) amped up and stripped off their idealism, because each of these authors completely derailed their own works with too much ideology. I have read almost every western philosopher, literature, you name it... yet Kaczynski is the most lucid author I have ever read. He really blew the competition away.

And what did the commie bloodsports accomplish?

/qNWc9Ta

Archive videos
Speeches
Art

Attached: 1561574356361.png (1080x777, 926K)

Your post is nonsense and only the last sentence is worth replying to, even though it's also an obvious fallacy:

>To say he had no choice but to use the fruits of the industrial revolution to accomplish his aims is simply to acknowledge their immense ability to empower the individual.
If there were no industrial society he wouldn't have had anything to say, and no aims to destroy it. You talk of empowerment? It's the illusion of empowerment. We are more enslaved, domesticated and controlled now than we ever have been before in human history. The mechanisms are just more efficient due to the advancement of Technique (in the Ellulian sense of that term). You think you're free and "empowered" because industrial society is extremely permissive in allowing you freedom of surrogate activities (your hobbies). You think you're empowered because you can get in a metal box with wheels and get to your destination really quickly. Or you can boards a giant, flying cylinder and go to anywhere in the world far quicker than you could before. That's great, right?

WRONG.

You completely ignore the cost that these conveniences you think have "empowered" you come at.

>"Leftism is a totalitarian force. Wherever leftism is in a position of power it tends to invade every private corner and force every thought into a leftist mold. In part this is because of the quasi-religious character of leftism; everything contrary to leftist beliefs represents Sin. More importantly, leftism is a totalitarian force because of the leftists’ drive for power. The leftist seeks to satisfy his need for power through identification with a social movement and he tries to go through the power process by helping to pursue and attain the goals of the movement (see paragraph 83). But no matter how far the movement has gone in attaining its goals the leftist is never satisfied, because his activism is a surrogate activity (see paragraph 41). That is, the leftist’s real motive is not to attain the ostensible goals of leftism; in reality he is motivated by the sense of power he gets from struggling for and then reaching a social goal. [35] Consequently the leftist is never satisfied with the goals he has already attained; his need for the power process leads him always to pursue some new goal. The leftist wants equal opportunities for minorities. When that is attained he insists on statistical equality of achievement by minorities. And as long as anyone harbors in some corner of his mind a negative attitude toward some minority, the leftist has to re-educated him. And ethnic minorities are not enough; no one can be allowed to have a negative attitude toward homosexuals, disabled people, fat people, old people, ugly people, and on and on and on.

Woah, that is sharply accurate.
I found out leftism was a quasi-religion by spending hours and hours trolling leftists. He did it by himself, without any of the knowledge of the internet.

Sorry, but I have to assume you have like 3 or more children then.

Shut the fuck up you spastic, you implied he was a tyrannical dictator (here ). So don't try and worm your way out of it claiming you meant it any other way with your bullshit.

Nothing, because their ideology is just a system of governance that attempts to manage the industrial-technological system. In that sense it's no different from capitalism, they just go about things in slightly different ways. Just because communist revolutions are shit that doesn't mean every other type of revolution is too you fucking bonehead.

Now, what would a successful revolution against industrial civilisation accomplish? EVERYTHING THAT URGENTLY NEEDS FIXING ALL AT ONCE.

I couldn't agree with you more. I was urgently seeking the answers to these questions. Like you, I'd searched everywhere in philosophy, theology and academia. I spent nearly two decades going though it all. I would have saved myself a great deal of time and anguish if I'd just read Kaczynski first.

He hits the nail slap bang on the head like nobody else ever has, and i would go as far as to say that he is one of the most important thinkers and published authors in all of recorded human history. Industrial Society And Its Future is unquestionably the most important document written in the last four hundred years.

I've got a few knocking about somewhere, yeah.

He completely destroys them in every way. It's interesting that people try to call Kaczynski himself a leftist, or a communist, and that anyone who promotes his ideology is too.

Sometimes I really think that maybe the elites should just fucking clean house.

I count nuclear as green, because it has low land use.
I'm also saying that we can totally waste a few areas, as long as we expand other areas in trees and wildness.

charcoal bricket?

I've read ISAIF and highly recommend it. But the question keeps bugging me- is not the technological society itself an inevitable development of nature, if man is a a result of natural forces? By what criteria can we then fight against it? yes, the system of uncontrolled growth will in the end result in collapse, but what other choice do we have but to ride it out?
We're on a runaway train.

That's just western bias because western civilization* is an anomaly, a literal tumor growing in one single direction; materialism. Unfortunately we've grown so big we have swallowed almost every civilization, which is why it looks like this is an 'inevitable development of nature'. But you're basically a liberal at this point, the 'inevitable development of progress' is the liberal myth called Progress. You're probably not, just pointing out that this is liberal prejudices, western materialism bias.
*western civilization is hegemonic at this point, there are barely any other civilizations left, which is why it is hard for us to see beyond the progress myth.

>I count nuclear as green, because it has low land use.
Nuclear power is completely dependent on the entirety of the industrial-technological system, so therefore it isn't anywhere close to "green," unless you count the shit that starts glowing after a major nuclear accident.

>I'm also saying that we can totally waste a few areas, as long as we expand other areas in trees and wildness.
Then what you are saying is completely wrong.

The bigger the system grows then obviously the bigger the disaster will be when it collapses, therefore we need to shut it down now to avert a much bigger disaster later. This is in the first four paragraphs of ISAIF.

>is not the technological society itself an inevitable development of nature
An industrial society has developed and appeared this time around, but it doesn't stand to reason that it's an inevitable development of nature. What we have today is an aberration from nature, there is very little natural about it.

I refer you to paragraphs 207-212 under the subheading "TWO TYPES OF TECHNOLOGY" for more information.
washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm

Also, if we destroy industrial society, it will never be able to be rebuilt because we have exhausted all the surface oil and other types of energy that do not require more tech and E to be harvested. So, think about it; if we can destroy industrial society, how can tech development be the "inevitable development of nature"? How can "inevitable development of nature" exist if we didn't have oil on earth? Will the "inevitable development of nature" keep going given another context, other ressources, other species?
See, it's a literal myth that can be deconstructed with basic arguments. This is the amount of brainwashing people are on today, liberalism jerks itself over being 'scientific' when it's nothing more than a cult. It's 2019 and the masses are as dumb as ever. No matter how much "science" and "education" you put in, they will remain masses. See, progress doesn't exist, again. This post might sound dumb but that's because the progress myth IS dumb. it's retarded. All you need is a tautology to deconstruct it.

What makes you think it will collapse?

Name one thing in the universe that doesn't collapse, or doesn't end.

Read this:
>Why the Technological System Will Destroy Itself
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-why-the-technological-system-will-destroy-itself

Things are so bad.

Attached: 1568591124072.jpg (1488x1488, 1.04M)

I should point out, too, that if there's anyone reading this thread who's interested in current Sino-Western relations and the current new cold war between the west and Russia/China, you really, really should read this article if you haven't already. It explains exactly what's going on.

I'm not going back to wearing elk skin and burning only wood, and neither do you.
You don't have a pragmatic proposal, you just have nagging and refusal.

> Then what you are saying is completely wrong.
it's completely right.
it's about minimizing the human foot print on the planet by creating more and more reservations.
in a perfect ideally we would just move to the deserts, use solar power there and leave the rainy areas back to nature.
with a perfect futuristic technology you don't need "industry", because they things you manufactured last you forever. You have 1 model of a cellphone and it does everything there is to do and you never "buy" another one.

The Tedpill is too strong. I was a big Linkola fan until I read Kaczynski’s newest book Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How. Now I see that Linkola is completely deluded when it comes to using brutal government force against people to save the environment and attempt to rationally guide the development of society and that the experiment would likely degenerate into tyranny after a generation. Now more than ever I think the system will just overstretch and implode after it has played itself out. Linkola has the right mindset but not the right strategy.

Also, is anyone else here unironically planning to go live in the woods one day? It’s my main goal right now for about ten years out. America is going down the drain along with the rest of the planet.
All anons should read the Ecodefense book too. It’s a bit cucked in that it doesn’t want to harm people, but there’s good stuff on treespiking, destroying power lines and construction equipment in there

Attached: CE46F6CF-C36B-40B3-B196-2F2772C6CA47.jpg (615x350, 62K)

Ok, just to further discussion before this thread disappears, let's say I agree with you both,

What makes you think modern tech will collapse before it's effects completely alter humanity, and what makes you think it''' collapse in the near future? (unless this is answered in the linked page )

Also, knowing all this stuff, what is the next step for us as individuals?

Is ted writing another book?

Read Neil Postman and Jacques Ellul idiots.

yes that's a fair point, i may be conflating the myth of progress with natural developments. Try as I might to consciously rid myself of liberalism, I am unconsciously shaped by it still.
So, the basis on which you would fight the tumor of technological society is anti-materialism, or perhaps to put it a more positive way, a re-intergration of an organic view of the relation between man and nature?
>we need to shut it down now to avert a much bigger disaster later
ah yes i forgot about that. The humanitarian argument.

> paragraphs 207-212 under the subheading "TWO TYPES OF TECHNOLOGY"
Thanks for the refresher, it's one of the times that Ted addresses the powerful myth of progress. The counter to his argument here is that organisation-dependent tech emerges from small-scale tech after a certain level- this is similar to other 'emergence' hypotheses and is susceptible to the same critiques.

Exactly. Liberalism is fake and gay.

will do

>I'm not going back to wearing elk skin and burning only wood, and neither do you.
This misnomer has no bearing on the fact that your statement that nuclear energy is "green" is a false one.

>You don't have a pragmatic proposal, you just have nagging and refusal.
I do have a pragmatic proposal. All you have is fantasy and falsehood. Nuclear power isn't green, because it's dependent upon the entirety of industrial society for its existence. These "green technologies" you were talking about earlier, are all entirely dependent upon the entirety of industrial society for their production. So they're not fucking green, are they?

The rest of your post is nonsense. You're just arguing for the sake of it now.