/lit/ - Literature

>>15219848
Ted is a retard compared to Ellul

Why would I read a book on the negative effects technology will have on society that's 70 years old when I'm already living it

>>15221106
why would you read any book older than 50 years?

>>15221238
because of themes that don't change rapidly within a couple of years like existentialism just as an example

>>15219848
The book is brilliant and I really enjoyed reading it. A bit pessimistic. The book is so objectively written I didn't know if Ellul was anti-tech or not

>>15219848
>an Ellul thread
oh good my favorite kind
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IwL0BJek2bc

>>15221238
read another book besides Harry Potter

The Technological Society was earth-shattering for me. I know /pol/fags abuse the term, but it was the closest thing to a redpill I ever swallowed. I see technique at work constantly now.

>>15221106
because ellul is of the age that saw the beginning of the transition while remembering the old society, just like how millenials are the last people who will ever remember life without the internet

>>15219848
i especially enjoyed "The presence of the kingdom" and "the meaning of the city"

>>15224159
>just like how millenials are the last people who will ever remember life without the internet
The collapse will happen eventually. Ted made a pretty good argument in Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How for why the system will likely destroy itself. If he’s wrong though it will be perpetual dystopia

>>15219848
small as fuck pages
small as fuck font
bad quality print

that's why, I have this and Propaganda and I can't fucking read them because they're awful

>>15224424
Didn’t stop anyone else in this thread

>>15219848
Ted K is a fucking sperg and retarded tranny. Ellul was the king, a brilliant man. Kind of reminds of the difference between Evola and Guénon, except even worse.

>>15219848
stop. please stop. Ellul was never an "influence" on Ted. Ted was just glad to have found someone who thought the same way he did about tech and society. He never learned anything from Ellul, his thoughts paralleled with Ellul's even before he read Ellul's work. If you would just talk time to read ted's journals from when he was young you would see this.

It's seriously moronic tier to say that because one person said something first then they necessarily "influence" another person who said similar things.

And Kaczynski goes far beyond Ellul.

>>15224260
Ted argued that the collapse could come at a point when there is nothing left of the planet. so why are you sitting on your ass instead of trying to organize to force the collapse before it gets to that point?

>>15224579
you either don't know what your talking about or your been brainwashed

>>15224873
>"you're"
>"you've"

>>15224857
>Ellul was never an "influence" on Ted.
He read Ellul’s book six times and touches on many of the same themes, he even mentions several times how he is indebted to him and how ISAIF is essentially summary of Ellul’s work. To say that someone is an influence on another is not necessarily a negative statement, nor does it deny that Kaczynski had original or valuable insights of his own – which he does

>>15224908
ellul was a radical christian anarchist. ted k was a maladjusted tranny who wanted to live like an african. very different ppl

>>15224579
>tranny
made up whole cloth by a j*urnalist and you propagate it like the brainless goy you are.

>>15225003
Nope, cope

I also liked his book Propaganda.

>>15225003
not an argument

>>15219848
Why is he so, so, so pompous. He isn't even like other continentals where the lack of rigor seems a stylistic choice. He literally comes up with all these "facts" out of left-field and builds grand narratives on them. Yeah sure, sometimes he's right but often he's wrong. Sure bro, the Roman's had no technical inventions other than their legal system. This sprawling empire a millenia old famed for its engineering didn't develop any of their techniques themselves. I'm too much of a historylet to refute him, but at least TRY to convince me your arguments weren't pulled out of your ass.

It sucks he's unreadable because sometimes he says insightful things.

Simondon and Yuk Hui are better. Also Heidegger.

>>15224424
this

i have no choice but to believe that the publishers dont actually want you to read ellul

>>15226871
Why do accfags infect every thread?

>>15227251
You're the one mentioning /acc/ faggot. I just mentioned some other author's that deal with the effect of technique on society. /acc/ is just a branch with a very peculiar teleological view on technology. Not every one interested in the role of technicity in modernity is into accel. None of the author's I mentioned were accelerationists. Heidegger is an ANTI accelerationist. You're a dumb, projecting faggot.

Read more.

Do we have a tech-pill reading list?

Ted K
Elull
McLuhan

what else?

>>15227564
>I only pretended to have acc influences
Sure thing retard.

>>15227582
linkola and heidigger

>>15223926
same desu, i work in science (bioinformatics) and my job as has lost all its meaning over time, as i know ultimately im working towards aims and goals that I consider fundementally wrong. Its very strange

>>15227582
Man and Technics by Spengler
Definitely Linkola too like another said

>>15219848
Jacques Ellul was a calvinist. That's pretty based.

>>15227758
He wouldn't really fit in traditional Calvinism though, he was more along the lines of Karl Barth.
Also he had his own weird version of universalism.

>>15227676
I remember meeting an anarchist who worked in a psych ward, having to retstrain schizos etc.

>>15227898
Interesting, which books does he discuss his soteriological views?

>>15227925
yeah but being serious, what can I do if i hate modernity? apart from running off to the hills what do i do?

>>15227937
Stay in your field. Accelerate its encroachment into human life. If things progress too rapidly, people will not be able to adjust properly, they will become upset.

>>15227599
Why even post in an Ellul thread if you don't want to discuss technology, techniques and the philosophy thereof?
God I might become a chad accelerationist if their opponents are this stupid.

>>15227582
McLuhan isn't mentioned enough on this board. I wish him and Ellul were memes more often than Kaczynski

>>15219962
ted is a retard compared to any other primitivist thinker

>>15225003
nonsensical seething is the best seething lmao

>>15228194
yeah, desu one of the thngs that gets me is ted has no major interesting, or philisophical training, he approached the issue of technology from a very straightforward and direct perspective, i think ellul had alot more cultural and metaphysical understandings of technology, as shown by his focus on 'technique"

>>15228162
lmao what a faggot.

>>15227937
we are the middle children, we cannot do much outside of preparing the next generations

>>15228162
>Its actually a very mainstream Philosophical system, along with Accelerationism

>soijak being put to good use for once
actually kinda based

>>15228276
ellul is the opposite of mainstream lol

Ted is more important than any of these authors. I never use this term but only pseuds will cling onto the neutered academicians who do nothing but produce theory. TK has produced praxis and formulated a coherent plan to finally get rid of millenias of alienation. The other authors concerning themselves with the technological questions are neutered academicians who will turn their back on the anti-tech revolution the moment their bourgeois life is at stake.

TK is right about everything, I pity the domesticated types who cannot admit it - and will waste their life away engaging in neurotic behavior (aka theorizing about technology but doing nothing to stop its progress)


>>15227582
Illich, Weil, Heidegger, Camatte, Freud, Marx etc.... I read all of them; useless drivels. Read Kaczynski and free yourself, but then you'd realize none of you are interested in freedom or freeing yourself.

>>15228441
i admit TK did a huge amount, its basically his life work, but conceps like "Technique" that ellul pioneered are extremely important. Elluls opinion that the approach to technology is more iimportant that technology itself, is one of the key facts to explaining why western society industrialized when others didnt

>>15228210
lol. this.

>>15228441
this. x10,000.

>>15228441
brainlet

>>15228441
>TK has produced praxis and formulated a coherent plan to finally get rid of millenias of alienation.

>>15228484
He didn't, he basically copied others in a dumbed down format. And the irony is that it's essentially a marxist understanding which will ultimately lead to failure and strengthening of the system.

>>15228640
i dont know anything about the marxism, but most of his techonology stuff is very very superfically similar to elluls analysis. I was talking about his characterisation of so called "Leftists", ie, the modern man

>>15228441
>TK has produced praxis and formulated a coherent plan to finally get rid of millenias of alienation
How?

>>15228554
I scored 150 on an IQ test performed by an actual psychologist. TK has an IQ of 168. Who is the brainlet? You are entirely alienated, a bourgeois. A domesticated urbanite. You have the chance to free yourself but you decide not to. You have been robbed of your will and agency and you are contempt with your status. Domesticated man has lost his will and la rage du vouloir vivre.

Everyone willing and able must read and reread Anti-Tech Revolution.

>>15228640
Lol, he's not original! Burn him at the stakes! He must produces something original! I command him to produce theory!

>And the irony is that it's essentially a marxist understanding which will ultimately lead to failure and strengthening of the system
The infaillible certainty of Kaczynski's revolutionary critique sheds the anti-tech movement from any possible récupération from the system. It's the ENTIRE POINT of his works. You have not read anything beyond the manifesto, as TK has made corrections in his ulterior writings, specifically on the nature of terrorism, récupération and détournement.

I will send you €100 if you can share with us your critique of his analysis. I am not kidding! I do believe in the anti-tech movement, I will PAY YOU to contribute to it. IF you have produced a better revolutionary critique than Kaczynski then why aren't you sharing it? IF you have done so then you must be interested in a revolutionary critique that cannot be récupéré by the system right? But I doubt you are serious, because if you were diligent about it, you would share your critique of his analysis right away, since the goal of the anti-tech movement is to produce results, not prop oneself up as the most genius of academic geniuses - that is just alienation.

>>15228656
I mean that Ellul didn't pioneer these ideas. And besides the marxist problem he didn't see the Christian either, despite having read both.

>>15228741
>You are entirely alienated, a bourgeois. A domesticated urbanite. You have the chance to free yourself but you decide not to. You have been robbed of your will and agency and you are contempt with your status. Domesticated man has lost his will and la rage du vouloir vivre.

You know the funny part about these insults is that they apply both to him and you.

>>15228441
how much do the glows pay you to shill kaczynski?

>>15228741
we cant we just discuss ellul nicely, its so rare we get this and you have to go on, shame

>>15228788
At what point in your stunted development did you think that "no u" was a clever comeback? At what point in your alienation did you decide that obsessively posting in threads you are not interested in was considered sane behavior? try not to quote half of my post in your reply, and try to engage with it in its entirety. But I doubt you can produce a fleshed out critique instead of pieces of insights disconnected from the whole - that's the essence of alienation.

>>15228869
Alienation is a buzzword that means nothing: prove me wrong

>>15228741
Quite possibly the most pathetic post I've seen here in a long time.

>>15228905
ellul details 'Alienation" in the technological society, basically he builds on the idea that industraliazation fundementally seperates individuals from community and culture, putting them in a state most malleable to technique

>>15228869
"No U" is a perfect comeback.

You preach here action, but instead of throwing molotovs at gas stations you are writing impotent insults sprinkled with French. You call people domesticated but instead of planting caltrops at highways you are boasting about your IQ. You worship Ted, but you are not following him.

How come? Is your will to nothingness too weak? You want to be a priest of this cult instead of footsoldier? If even Ted´s most dedicated simp can´t follow his call for action, what are you expecting from us?

>>15227937
>apart from running off to the hills what do i do?
Just be a good cog and turn your brain off.

>Only two possibilities are left to the individual: either he remains what he was, in which case he becomes more and more unadapted, neurotic, and inefficient, loses his possibilities of subsistence, and is at last tossed on the social rubbish heap, whatever his talents may be; or he adapts himself to the new sociological organism, which becomes his world, and he becomes unable to live except in a mass society
— Ellul, The Technological Society, pg. 334

>>15228905
start with the hegels

>>15228357
>>15228344
>>15228236

Ellul was recommended by Huxley, quite literally the most mainstream writer of the 20th century. His work is translated in 50 languages. I know pine tree Twitter likes to jerk each other off about how intellectually obscure you are, but keep that shtick between you and your fag buddies. But honestly I shouldn't have expected a coherent thought from a based boi Soijack poster.

>>15228995
hills it is ...

>>15228741
I don't even think your meds are gonna help with this

>>15228818
The CIA is cybernetics, the CIA lives off disinformation (crucial aspect of the expansion of Capital, as Debord proved) and alienation, it must infiltrate to survive, which is why Kaczynski's revolutionary critique is the single most powerful movement in the history of humanity, save for Christianity, the original anti-systemic doctrine, which has degenerated for reasons not relevant to the discussion of the anti-tech movement. Nobody understands the working of cybernetism. It's pretty ironic that you mention the glowies, since the glowies are the sole reason I recognized the legitimacy of the technological question. I started diving into CIA declassified papers when I turned 13 and realized half of the psychologists and behaviorsts I had been reading were on the CIA's payroll. While 95% of the world is stuck in the archaic forms of political discussion, and the obsolete understanding of pre-liberal institution (Foucault is highly interesting in this regard) the CIA is moving forwards, spreading its tentacles over every aspect of our lives, as Technology's most efficient mean of imperalism.

>>15228840
? Is this a joke? I have read almost every Ellul book concerning technology. My entire philosophy (as well as TK's) is built upon l'autopsie de la révolution by Ellul. I have been posting about Ellul for years on /lit/. Nobody ever showed any signs of being interested in discussion. I fail to see how you cannot engage with my points. You are simply oversocialized, more interested in feel good discussion and making friends than the radicality of anti-tech thought. If you truly believe in the anti-tech movement, and in Ellul, you wouldn't be put off by my behavior. The fact people react to the form rather than the substance is proof none of you are interested in anything intellectual. JUST DISCUSS ELLUL
Once again, not a single person to engage with my posts, personal attacks and insults. You get called a brainlet - meaning a poster brings the intelligence aspect to undermine my analysis, and when he gets a taste of his own medicine he calls me "pathetic". Lol. Shouldn't have brought up intelligence if you are going to cope your way out of the mess you put yourself in.

>>15228969
>You preach here action, but instead of throwing molotovs at gas stations you are writing impotent insults sprinkled with French
Do you have a drone following me around? Do you know what I do with my life? I can safely assure you than I am highly invested in this movement, and in pretty much every radical movement in my country, in fact I am wearing an electronic bracelet around my ankle KEK
>you are boasting about your IQ
someone called me a brainlet, I gave him a taste of his own medicine. Imagine thinking I'm accountable for the insults hurled at me.

>>15219848
>>15219962
>>15221106
>>15221238
>>15222782
>>15223004
>>15223111
>>15223926
>>15224159
>>15224170
>>15224260
>>15224424
>>15224430
>>15224579
>>15224857
>>15224867
>>15224873
>>15224882
>>15224908
>>15225003
>>15225118
>>15225808
>>15226818
>>15226871
>>15227004
>>15227251
>>15227564
>>15227582
>>15227599
>>15227676
>>15227758
>>15227925

>>15229040
>I can safely assure you than I am highly invested in this movemen
>in fact I am wearing an electronic bracelet around my ankle
And I´m a Pegasus.

>>15229040
do something relevant or shut up

>>15229024
Meds are another form of human technique to help people adapt to unnatural and stressful environments.

>>15219962
fpbp, ted k ripped off one book from ellul and forgot the rest of his oeuvre, most of which is related to christianity, and now retards compare them lmao ted k is a secular atheist faggot who had to murder to get anyone to pay attention to his gay manifesto; ellul was a hyper christian radical anarchist and scholar who disseminated his works off his own merit and who would find someone like ted k repulsive, counterproductive, and mentally ill, literally the extreme dregs of tech. society

>>15229074
You don’t have to be a Christian to see that The Technological Society is a work of great merit, not to mention his work on Propaganda.
>someone like ted k repulsive, counterproductive, and mentally ill, literally the extreme dregs of tech. society
I can see the technical society speaking through you like a medium. Lots of buzzwords

>>15229074
quite rightly

>>15229090
>n-no, don't critique my spook-op!

he's right, ted was a brainlet INCEL FREAK repressed tranny loser

>>15229107
And? This thread is about Ellul, go cry about Ted somewhere else

>>15229074
>you have to be a suit wearing nice man with manners and a hat in order to produce a radical critique of society
just..... TK is right about everything

>>15229031
Put together a reading list for the brainlets (like myself) and we might get more discussion. Especially if it were a nice picture list.

I feel like the technology question is really becoming *the* question. It's the reason McLuhan is making a big comeback in the discourse, the fixation on Theo K, Linkola, and urbanism... It all points to the TQ. I personally started on the urbanism front, but now I've read Krier, Schumacher, etc. and moving onto Theo, Elull...I believe heidigger has essays on technology. As does George Grant though hes only known in leaf circles.

>>15229090
yeah, but it's impossible to separate ellul from his radical version of christianity, to accept some of the consequences of this as it relates to technology, yet to deny the roots of such consequences is a bit disingenuous in my opinion. ellul's critique of technological society is in the end a christian critique. he was fundamentally christian. ted k tried to make a separation here and some may find it interesting, but ultimately ted k is just a watered down, perverted, secular, atheist and gay version of a small branch of ellul's thought, so poorly presented that he had to blackmail the MSM with murders just to get anybody to care, that's cringe

>>15229120
anyone who has to murder to get their gay ideas presented probably has nothing interesting to say, especially since people have been making the same critiques as him for centuries lmao and by the way, they all said it better than him and weren't total fuckups

>>15229040
>I am wearing an electronic bracelet around my ankle
post pic

>>15229153
It’s quite easily seperable, as I’m sure a great deal of Ellul fans ITT and around the world could not care less about his religious beliefs. I am not Christian in the slightest yet I can recognize that he made a good critique

>>15229200
>as I’m sure a great deal of Ellul fans ITT and around the world could not care less about his religious beliefs
you couldn't be more wrong, of course there are a certain few, but i don't think they're reading ellul because of ellul, they're just kazeenskifags who want more sources. true fans of ellul are not only interested in his christian thought but are also probably christian themselves

>>15229242
Damn we’ve got a True Ellul Fan™ ITT, watch out!

>>15229190
Are you happy now, you oversocialized urbanite?

>>15229249
shut it atheist, literally no one cares what atheists think about anything, ur a joke

>>15229288
Good slave, keep it on!

>>15229288
https://www.clackamas.us/sheriff/jailehd.html

Behold, a larper.

>>15229146
Spengler - Man and Technics
Heidegger - The question concerning technology
Yuk Hui - The question concerning technology in China (and the entire bibliography)
Simonson - The mode of existence of technological objects
Yuk Hui - The mode of existence of digital objects
Ted K - Anti Tech revolution
Ellul - The technological society
Joseph Trainer - The collapse of complex societies
Cassirer - Form and technology
Junger - Glass bees
Junger - The worker
Lem - Summa Technologiae
Morris- Why the west rules
Heisenberg - The Physicists Conception of Nature
Needham - Science and civilization in China

Don't bother replying

>>15229315
Half of those aren't even relevant.

>>15229315
thanks, anon!

>>15229309
kek, deleted it like the larping bitch he is.

>>15228741
I was speaking of Ellul. And I don't think originality is that important, I just mentioned that Ellul is not a pioneer because these threads are often back and forth about Kaczynski stealing from Ellul in a dumbed down format. It's just funny.
I would take that bet if you are serious. Although you would have to clarify what you mean, considering that you first state that my critique would have to be of K's analysis and then that it would have to contribute to anti-tech thought.
My own position is that anti-tech is impossible, at least within a modern and materialist frame of thinking. Technology is formed as one law of being, and its specific characteristics in the modern era develop out of its own relations, the nomos. It may be the dominant law of a century of the modern era, but this is only due to place and our formation within the normative order of the earth. Otherwise one would have to argue that the modern era has ended, and a new era dominated by technology has begun - and that simply doesn't work.

The other difficulty here is the conflation of natura naturata (nature already created) and natura naturans (nature as naturing). There is a sense of a second fall in this, a paradise which can only be seen through its use and devastation through the technical order. From this perspective technology is a substratum which replaces the order of nature, as in the mobilised prostheses or electrical pulses keeping an organ alive during surgery - our relation is ex vivo. In attempting to revolt against this, one can only reverse the pressures on the fulcrum, exchange what fluids are being injected, or simply release the pressures on the pulley system allowing the great ship to ease its way back down the mountain. In any case, the revolt itself must be technological in nature, otherwise the forces released would destroy everyone within its zone.

This same construction can be seen in K's devices, certainly interesting in that they contain a technological defusion in their character. However, the use of wood and other unrefined materials limits their destructive capacity. Aside from the technological question there is the simple matter of force: can a movement ever match the destructive capacity itself? The paradox here is that the technological type i the modern era is already very much like K's devices: a shell composed of nature's materials refined so that the immaterial effects are more destructive than the material itself.

>>15229361
ha ha ! i'mlaughingggg

>>15229371
take your meds retard.

>>15229367
Where has technological development progressed most? In war, specifically the World Wars where the cost in immaterial terms was much greater than even lives lost. There is a relation to the pre-modern wars of mercenaries here. And the most destructive aspect of each war was the easily replicable materials, the expendable, where total mobilisation crosses the line between state action and terrorism - the livens projector, indiscriminate bombing, and the insect-like swarming of both air machines and partisan fighters.

Perhaps the most damning is that our relation to being has caused even greater destruction than any technology. Nuclear warfare to us seems as if it would be a mercy, and there is a sentimental relation we hold with such a devastated world. This is the real question, can the anti-tech movement ever match such destructive capacity, and does it have the character to endure such ruin? And then, what would be the new law that fills the substratum?

---

To be clear, I am not really opposed to K, this isn't meant as a critique. I actually have quite a respect for him, and in many ways a cataclysm returning us to simple nature would be ideal. There's not much I prefer to the forest, however I am not optimistic that the technical minds returning to it would not destroy it.

In any case, if you want a more specific criticism then clarify what it is you would like to discuss.

>>15229315
remove the ted

never read a more naive and delusional take on revolution than in the crap he wrote

>>15229315
>Don't bother replying

>>15229477
Lol, further proof that TK is right about everything. These people are solely interested in posturing among their circles. Of course, they will say that Debord and Marx are right about intellectuals posturing, but when TK says it he's wrong.


Anti-tech revolution is nothing more than a rewording of autopsie de la révolution by Ellul. But I guess when Ellul says it it's deep and insightful, but when TK does he is 'naive and delusional'.

>>15219848
Copying some De Benoist, relating to and in part refuting Ellul, albeit on the topic of politics and not technology

"We should not try to dissimulate the antithesis existing between, on the one hand, the pure Christian morality of love, submission, humility, mystical humanism, and, on the other hand, ethical-political values such as justice, honor, difference, and a spirituality that is not the opposite of power, but of which power is a normal attribute. The Christian precept of returning good for evil is opposed by the principle of striking the unjust, of forgiving and generosity, but only to a vanquished foe, and not to an enemy who still stands strong in his injustice. In a virile institution, as contemplated in the ideal of the true State, there is little or no room for love (conceived as the need to communicate, to embrace others, to lower oneself and to take care of those who may not even ask for it or be worthy of it). Again, in such an institution there can be relationships among equals, but without a communitarian-social and brotherly tint, established on the basis of loyalty,mutual acknowledgement and respect, as every- one retains his own dignity and a healthy love for distance. I will not discuss here what consequences would ensue on the political plane if we were to take literally the evangelical parables concerning the lilies of the field and the birds of the air, as well as all the other nihilist teachings that are built on die overthrow of earthly values and on the idea of the imminent advent of the Regnum.

Under these conditions it is completely natural that Christianity, which is today carrying out a critical analysis of its own history, would take some distance with regard to the principles that allowed it to establish itself as a power. The oft proclaimed return in the Gospel, the primacy of the pastoral over the dogmatic, thus bring an end to an equivocal situation, which I wholeheartedly agree has gone on too long. Faustian energy and the Christian spirit are in the middle of a divorce at the end of a union that was never truly consummated, and the notion of "Christian politics," even inside the Church, is increasingly a subject of contention. Better, the very notion of politics faces accusations coined in the very spirit of the original biblical mentality. Jacques Ellul did not hesitate to write, "The accumulation of evil, the rise of danger, it is politics and politics alone that has caused this. It is the current image of absolute Evil. It is Satanic, diabolical, the very heart of the demonic."' The motif invoked is always the same: "It is politics that is mistaken for the universal, and dethrones God.""

1/2

>>15229557
"This aspiration to void politics is obviously a Utopia — and a particularly dangerous Utopia. Man lives in society, and there is no society that can live without politics. As an activity, variable in form but invariable in essence, at the service of practical organization and the cohesion of society, politics is derived from humanity's elementary sociability.

The essence of politics includes three presuppositions: the relationship of command and obedience, which determines order, the relationship of public and private, which determines opinion, and the relationship of friend and enemy, which determines struggle. It is the way it mobilizes these presuppositions, especially the first and third, that the essence of politics prompts the radical hostility of those who refuse to accept that relations of authority — not necessarily despotic! — necessarily derive from human diversity, to the point, moreover, that acts of resistance and refusal can only have meaning with regard to the factual givens of obedience and command. A society without politics would be a society without order (this would be anarchy, the prelude to the overcompensation provided by dictatorship), opinion (this would be the most total absence of liberty imaginable), or struggle (this would be death). Hence the now classic definition provided by Freund: politics is the "social activity that proposes to guarantee by force, generally based on law, the exterior security and interior concord of a particular political unit by ensuring order in the midst of all the struggles that are born from the diversity and divergence of opinions and self-interests.""

2/2

-Alain De Benoist, On Being a Pagan

>>15229315
Imagine being so retarded that your stupid animal brain will try and suggest that any work that is critical of technology must relate. Half of the works you listed contradict everything the other ones say, and are based upon completely different critiques. I'm shocked you didn't include Linkola, as your nigger brain obviously only makes associations based on 'durr technology bad' and not a logically consistent critique

>>15229630
Why would one not want to read different perspectives on tech critical thought?

>complete rejection of violence
Is this even possible? Is it not inherently technological to be pacifist?

>>15229647
No, you can live peacefully without tech, but if you challenge tech with violence you can´t do that with wooden spear.

>>15229646
Because it conveys a bias to start with, if you go looking for every argument that supports what is essentially an instinctive reaction against technology all you'll end up doing is confusing yourself and constructing a critique comprised of contradictory elements. Reading different perspectives sounds all nice, but a person should really first have a system to back up what they say, in order to remain consistent. See /pol/ nationalism for why I make this point, everyone on /pol/ will say 'western civilization and me protect it'', but when asked why they will say "because it's christian" "because white culture" "because it's pagan" "because of genetic superiority", and then they will eat each other because their reasons are different and opposed. If there is to be an anti-tech revolution its messaging and justification must be clear, non-contradictory, and not prone to the splintering which cripples all other political 'movements'.

>>15228741
>Everyone willing and able must read and reread Anti-Tech Revolution.
I read it once a year ago or so. I somehow felt guilty for reading it in PDF format. And I don't want to be on a list for buying it on Amazon. Que dois-je faire?

>>15229739
>If there is to be an anti-tech revolution its messaging and justification must be clear, non-contradictory, and not prone to the splintering which cripples all other political 'movements'.
Sounds like a racket and destined to fail.

>>15229740
learn proper french for a start

>>15229787
Anyone that wishes to see their cause succeed must follow the example of the Ottomans sultans and kill their brothers first. Hitler killed the Stasserists, Lenin crushed the Mensheviks. Don't let a movement be born half formed because you let a parasitic twin sap its strength in the womb

>>15229573
I don't see how this refutes Ellul. He doesn't deny politics, and in fact was himself political e.g. tried to smuggle arms during the Spanish Civil War, his Christian Anarchist philosophy. I think his objection to "politics" is more about how the modern state has infected every part of modern life becoming an ersatz God

>>15229869
But isn't that the point? It's a politics of negation without realising that the modern form of politics is itself one of negation. In opposition to its representation he, like many others, rejects the form.

>>15229869
I would recommend rereading what I quoted, I think you're misunderstanding what De Benoist is referring to as political

>>15229909
Going by his (De Benoists) three presuppositions and definition of politics quoted, Ellul is not anti-political though. For Ellul it is the Bible/God from which understandings about political order, friend/enemy distinctions emerge. From how I understand the quoted De Benoist he seems to be suggesting the Christian ideals neutralise politics, but actually in Ellul's reading the modern state and its obsession with technique renders things like struggle and the political null and void. I don't think Ellul is suggesting some pure untouched Christian negation of politics, rather, he is trying to return to its basis which is ultimately theological.

>>15229888
Not sure what you mean by this, could you explain a bit more?

>>15224159
>last people who will ever remember life without the internet
saddest sentence in the world to me.

>>15229630
funnily enough linkola was (RIP) one of the only people serious about the issues and had legit proposals, ted k's whole idea is basically "man i really wish i lived like a nigger in africa lmao" it's embarrassing

>>15230186
is this a joke? I refuse to believe people to be this dumb.

>>15230213
u can't prove me wrong, ted k was just a spiritual african and anyone who likes him is basically a caveman nigger who should move to the congo

>>15229043
moooooooooooods!!!!!!!!!!

Is there an equivalent for our post internet age?

>>15230705
>Post-internet age
The internet age has only begun.

>>15230945
Post the creation of the internet, I should have said.

>>15228741
this.

>>15229477
explain

>>15223004
Just watching the beginning of this. Should the word they're translating "technique" be translated as "technology"?

>>15231026
he thinks people are gonna magically and organically rise up and revolt against technology without using technology and without the revolution getting co-opted

ive never read such pie in the sky bullshit

if he actually believes this he's brain dead

>>15228995

Jacques needed to take the Van Kaam pill.

>>15231863
all you've done is give an opinion. there's no argument with logic or fact.

>>15231863
>magically and organically rise up
false

>revolt against technology without using technology
false

>without the revolution getting co-opted
?? yeah, that goes with believing in revolution.

you might as well say "TK believes in a revolution but a revolution is not possible." thanks for the enlightenment but i already knew your opinion on this.

>>15228741
I don't like how posts which are actually serious and try to convey real beliefs by their author, such as this one, get mocked without getting any genuine replies. It creates an atmosphere where no one dares to express good ideas or put any effort into what they say, simply because they already know beforehand that they'll be met with reaction images and retarded shitposting or they'll simply be called "cringe" and "pretentious."

>>15232040
The first sentence of that post, anon was setting himself up for a fall.

>>15231844
technique is the proper term, of which technology is an element.

>>15232040
yeah... i guess internet technology can't every give us a place for reasoned discourse in bitesize low-effort sequences.

>>15231844
>Should the word they're translating "technique" be translated as "technology"?
Technique is the right term, it has a broader scope than technology and is basically the drive towards efficiency, rationalization and ordering principles at a given stage of development. This isn’t exclusively modern and existed even among ancient humans but with the Industrial Revolution technique has exploded and dominated the planet. Even stuff like standardized time and clocks are technical

>>15231894
QRD?

>>15232040
(you)

>>15232040
Write like a retard, get treated like a retard.

Bump

>>15229168
He still made people aware of anti-tech philosophy who otherwise wouldn't be. Worth a few lives desu.

>>15231863
By this logic, Marx was also delusional and naive

>>15231863
>revolt against technology without using technology
You didn't read Ted.

>>15229031
>Foucault
Opinión discarded

>>15227937
You can heighten the pressures on industrial society and accelerate its collapse. Read Harassment Architecture by Mike Ma.

oh not not the technology it ruined my life as I sit at my keyboard all day.

>>15229315
>no Mumford

>>15232040
I gave a genuine reply
>>15229367
>>15229389
>>15228741
Now about that €100, clarify exactly what you would like to discuss and I'll try to argue against it.

bump for interest

>>15229315
>Don't bother replying

>>15237597
In the meantime I'll try to explore this a bit further. Let's start with a couple quotes:

"As technology, in any of its mechanisms, can come into its perfected state only by preying upon a natural order which exists independently of itself, so too technology as a habit of thought can exist only within men who, as living creatures, stand outside the world of technical organization. Technology, which is an instrument for utilizing the raw material of nature, can move toward its ultimate perfection only by impoverishing nature; the less you have to work with, the more accurate and sharp must be both the machinery used and the technological thinking employed. The zero of nature would be the zero of a technology that had reached both its apotheosis and its death. Conversely, technical thinking, as an act of the mind of man, is qualitative and living – but life is foreign to the essence of technology. Hence the full reduction of man to a set of measurable quantities would be the end of all technics. The zero of human nature would be the zero of a technics that had reached both its apotheosis and its death. Thus the complete perfection of technology is a contradiction. It follows, therefore, that as technology approaches its asymptote, it nears its own destruction."

"The process of continuous neutralization of various domains of cultural life has reached its end because technology is at hand. Technology is no longer neutral ground in the sense of the process of neutralization; every strong politics will make use of it. For this reason, the present century can only be understood provisionally as the century of technology. How ultimately it should be understood will be revealed only when it is known which type of politics is strong enough to master the new technology and which type of genuine friend-enemy groupings can develop on this new ground.

Great masses of industrialized peoples today still cling to a torpid religion of technicity because they, like all masses, seek radical results and believe subconsciously that the absolute depoliticization sought after four centuries can be found here and that universal peace begins here. Yet technology can do nothing more than intensify peace or war; it is equally available to both. In this respect, nothing changes by speaking in the name of and employing the magic formula of peace. Today we see through the fog of names and words with which the psycho-technical machinery of mass suggestion works."

>>15240746
There is no life in it. It is the unturnable. The technical form of the modern era only realises itself in deep mourning, after darkness and night - an aesthetic we all recognise, even as it escapes us. "And grudgingly you went with fetters on your feet."

Only the Russians and Germans were able to capture the waning moon of modern capacities, what some had called being - and they destroyed one another. The twentieth century was just as much a century of mourning as it was a finality of the technical era. Cathedrals reveal their form in war.

It is in this sense that the weakness of politics appears as a necessity of the transitional phase. The political formation must be equal to the character of man, the lines of territory he carves out as a definitive state of being. There is always form, no matter the subterfuge which acts against it, and there is always sense even where there is no meaning. Technology leverages the end of morality for something deeper.

Peace is the absolute dominion of the world, even in war. The justice of the Wild Hunt. Bourgeois order wields technology only upon the surface, the frictionless substance dividing man from the earth. "Drowning his anguish in wine." The struggle against death defeats the technician and the worker. The ashen mud of the Somme remains as an image of materialism's self-defeat. Man drowning within the earth of Poseidon as his horses take flight from him; only they live on within the cosmic event of war, the deluge of time after the Battle of Anghiari.

If the technicians have lost and humanity has survived its destruction then some other element must be at work. One cannot take here the simple route of economic determinism either, for the bourgeois position is the continuation of law from a weakened monarchism. What dominates is the relation of being with nature through the fulcrum of technology - it simply takes on a mystical, even irrational appearance. The surrealists live in The Garden of Earthly Delights, where technology and humans have disappeared from all vision. To hold dominion over the substratum man must elevate himself to the position of gods, or at least be capable of imagining their perspective. Airplanes are one means of diverting the instincts into artificial optics beyond the world, and within this realm all intellectual thought follows the scarred lines of aerial photography.

>>15240756
The inability to distinguish between technology, being, and thought is itself a product of rationalist thought. What is strange is that this blindness deepens the form. Where technique is no longer divisible from technology a catastrophe in the mind has occurred - this follows the collapse of distinction in rationalism and empiricism, and later romanticism and technicalism. The lever is applied to the state of nature, then its licensing agents and the normative order, but this loss of distinction must not be confused with the form in itself. The paradox is that our technological order is precisely nontechnical, it never establishes perfection or completion, hence the impossible distinction between the form and its type. In transition from Aphrodite to Fate the mechanical forces its perfection, freed of machines.

Dominion is never a question for us, we weave through the substratum. Or as Junger suggests, the form of technology is an upside-down pyramid. One may liken this to a pencil or knife, the material behind the edge worn away in order to maintain sharpness and structure. Otherwise, the vast machinery required for strip-mining, each an immense mobilisation used to tear away and into the complete wealth of the minor stratum of the earth. All that remains is a form of life, a means of transition. After Goethe the skeleton steps out from the Gorgoneion, a dance no longer necessary.

This revealing of force behind technology explains the relation to Titanic figures, although the Giants are more appropriate if we are to understand our own era. The Titans as overstretchers, in the myths their dominion is that of guardians of earth, upholders of law at the edges of the cosmos. As bridge figures they are able to span between worlds, and at the same time sink into the earth as an abutment without causing undue stress. It is in this sense that they relate to the ancient order of technology, a peace within chaotic strength, a pathless road to the ineffable. The heroic can only be seen from within their shadow. One identifies with the Eagle in our era.

>>15240766
The Giants are, even from the other side of the earth, able to form cracks within the abutment. This is the power of the hammer strike, causing fissures which strengthen within glowing heat. Otherwise, countless heads and arms overwhelm even force and power. They are the form of Chaos against the earth, the brutal devastation of the infinite underworld. The modern form of technology harnesses this force, just as Hephaestus brought the Cyclopes into his forge. There are really only two movements within the technological framework: the forcing together of crystalline structures and the splitting of the elemental fragments. Perfection would necessitate their non-movement, forming as one. The knife outmodes the fasces in its wearing away.

"And like Athena Ergane, Hephaistos is the patron of the fine arts, which are not under the guidance of the Muses, because they are inseparably connected with craftsmanship." The infinite may only be seen from within the most finite allotments of time - the human conquers death and fate through the clock, imagining all of the weapons and defenses of the gods at his fingertips. Modern man is against Prometheus, and all of the gods, even insight and the forging fire itself. The brutality of industrialism only appeared for a short moment, a minor aspect of the myths, and it is this that horrifies us: that we were incapable of harnessing technology, the wearing away of our being as a crystalline structure. We brought forth our own great disappointment, an act of injustice against our own formative law. The revolt against technology seeks to reestablish it. The heavens are ossified through rationalism. We are cursed to weaving and so may only see Athena as a gutted statue.

Technology is a nomos only to the extent that it can be wielded. Our armor and weapons forged in sacrifice to Typhon failed us, and now there is only the scattered desperation of survival. The economic forum plays this role, fills this void as best it can. However, there can never be a monument to the gigantic or the monstrous, Talos forms from within our very being.

These are the forces which exist beyond the substratum: the chaotic, primordial, titanic, gigantic, monstrous, elemental, telluric, and catastrophic. Technology and nature their duality; Man their appearance and non-being.

https://youtu.be/Gj-tBVq61as

bump