/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14558877]

how did he get it so right? as much on society as on our personal lives

[Anonymous No.14558895]

>>14558877
167 IQ

[Anonymous No.14558903]

I unironically think that a beginning of response to the crises of meaning and virility that western men go through is found in this book.

[Anonymous No.14558933]

>>14558877
Just a standard leftist critque of capitalism. Nothing really that orginal.

[Anonymous No.14558945]

>>14558933
He criticizes both left and right in this.

[Anonymous No.14558952]

>>14558933
The thing fucking starts with him critiquing leftism

[Anonymous No.14558955]

>>14558945
What he calls "leftists" are really just self-loathing white liberals.

[Anonymous No.14558956]

>>14558933
>obviously hasn't read the book

[Anonymous No.14558963]

>>14558952
>>14558956
See: >>14558955

[Anonymous No.14558965]

>>14558963
See: >>14558956

[Anonymous No.14558971]

>>14558877
He understood the pathology of the bourgeoisie. What he failed to understand was that a lot of people understand the pathology of the bourgeoisie. We actually had an entire decade about it, it was called the sixties and its the reason movies and music don't suck anymore.

[Anonymous No.14559002]

>>14558971
This, deleuze already predicted everything Ted did, and more. That said Ted was a good introduction to this sort of thinking, I read ISAIF in my early teens

[Anonymous No.14559008]

>>14559002
read this

[Anonymous No.14559015]

>>14558965
I read it. What it offers is not all that different from the likes of Zerzan et al.

[Anonymous No.14559036]

>>14558933
Ted admitted in a journal that one of his dreams would be to kill a communist.

[Anonymous No.14559073]

>>14558971
>movies and music don't suck anymore.

[Anonymous No.14559086]

>>14559036
Leftist infighting can be intense.

[Anonymous No.14559091]

>>14559086
Where and how are you getting that Ted is a leftist or that ISAIF is a communist critique?

[Anonymous No.14559112]

>>14559002
And just read the Wikipedia article on Deleuze and understood about 3% of it. That shit is way too abstract for anyone outside of continental philosophy to grasp

[Anonymous No.14559988]

>>14558933
Utterly false. He is arguing that reform is impossible. Technology and society are beyond rational control. A revolution the destroy the system physically in the hopes of collapsing industrial civ and sending us back to the Stone Age.

Leftists never contemplate this. When they speak of “destroying” the system, they mean replacing it which another highly organized, large scale, technological society that is managed “justly” for the “benefit of humanity.”

Yes is arguing that none of that is possible. Like a light switch, tech follows its own course of development that we can’t predict or control, or it breaks down.

[Anonymous No.14560011]

>>14558933
Name me another “leftist critique of capitalism” that very clearly and plainly states that a revolutionary vanguard should be formed specifically to destroy key physical parts of the industrial system such that it collapses, and argues extensively why this is the only logical, rational, practical, and moral thing humans can do at this stage.

[Anonymous No.14560027]

I disagree with the idea that a revolution can do anything. Revolutions are a thing of the past and only lead to mass slaughter of innocents anyway. Also i disagree with the power process because like most psychology he pulled it out of his ass because it doesn't seem to be based on anything actual. Otherwise i agree with Uncle Ted

[Anonymous No.14560190]

>>14560027
>Also i disagree with the power process because like most psychology he pulled it out of his ass because it doesn't seem to be based on anything actual
I think he based it off of his experiences of living in the wild

[Anonymous No.14560213]

>>14558895
How do I cope with the fact that there's no way I'll ever have this sort of IQ? I don't even know what my IQ is, but statistically speaking it's hopelessly unlikely. These people must be living on a whole other level from plebs like me. What if the gap between them and me is as big as the gap between me and the normalscum? What if it's even bigger? How embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.14560241]

>>14560027
So what's the alternative then, big brain?

[Anonymous No.14560354]

>>14560213
It's ok anon, none of us are as intelligent as Uncle Ted. Not even his Math PhD supervisor understood his dissertation.

[Anonymous No.14560421]

>>14560027
It’s actually based on a lot of psychology and social science. If you read Technological Slavery, his first book, there are literally hundreds of footnotes sources, and references to studies that back it up. It’s also intuitively true and universal.

With respect to revolutions, Kaczynski is speaking about a specific kind of revolution that has never been attempted before and arguing why it will succeed were prior ones failed and were a waste. This is inferred in the manifesto, but also again topic of “Anti-Tech Revolution”

[Anonymous No.14561402]

>>14558877

The guy was a literal genius. Too bad he got tortured by professors and scientists which drove him crazy and away from society.

>>14559036

I think Kaczynsky is one of those nature dwellers who cared about the environment and Communism actually fucked up the environment. So him wanting to kill a communist would make sense.

[Anonymous No.14561554]

>>14558971
>movies and music don't suck anymore.
kek what a retard

[Anonymous No.14561606]

We need a general for Tedfags containment

[Anonymous No.14561886]

>>14559988
>Leftists never contemplate this.
> Like a light switch, tech follows its own course of development that we can’t predict or control, or it breaks down.

CAPITAL IS SENTIENT

[Anonymous No.14561931]

>>14559988
Ted prioritizes Feels over Reals:

"The Industrial Revolution and its consequences...have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in“advanced” countries, but ...have led to widespread psychological suffering."

His 'manifesto' is a cry for help.

[Anonymous No.14561962]

>>14561931
He cries for all of us. Bless uncle ted for his hard work.

[Anonymous No.14561966]

>>14561931

[Anonymous No.14561974]

>>14561402
>Too bad he got tortured by professors and scientists which drove him crazy and away from society.

a silly myth. completely debunked

[Anonymous No.14561981]

>>14558895
>>14560213
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pno6Ir_nDAQ

[Anonymous No.14562015]

>>14561402
>>14561974
>a silly myth. completely debunked
Pic related

[Anonymous No.14562353]

>>14558877
he has god on his side

[Anonymous No.14562388]

>>14561606
>We need a general for Tedfags containment

[Anonymous No.14562398]

>>14560213
you just keep trying to reach the limits of your effort. ganbaru, fren

[Anonymous No.14562438]

>>14562015

Looks like Wikipedia is wrong then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski#Harvard_College

[Anonymous No.14562749]

>>14562438
>Looks like Wikipedia is wrong then
that shouldn't surprise you.

[Anonymous No.14562788]

>>14558877
How long has it been OP? Two, three years? you've been spamming this board with the same variation of "why/how is/was he so right, bros?" Kaczynski threads. Can't you fuck off to a cabin in the woods without internet already?

[Anonymous No.14563086]

>>14562788
this is my first thread about him you schizo

[Anonymous No.14563121]

>>14562749
kek lol

[Anonymous No.14563160]

>>14559091
He's against techno-capitalism. That's a leftist position.

[Anonymous No.14563334]

>>14563160
false. he's for the destruction of industrial civilization in the hopes of reverting technology back to the stone age. that is not a leftist position.

the "anarcho-primitivists" SAY they are for this. but they really aren't. anti-tech for them is just one part of a long list of leftists "social justice" causes like "racism" "sexism" "hierarchy." they don;t seriously contemplate the destruction of industrial society. they need tech to implement their social justice causes.

[Anonymous No.14564134]

>>14560354
But doesn't it bother you how different their minds are? You look at these people with 160+ IQs, and it's like they're living in a different world. They understand as common sense things that you and I couldn't even begin to fathom.

[Anonymous No.14564140]

>>14558971
kek
does bait refute Socrates?

[Anonymous No.14564144]

>>14561886

[Anonymous No.14564155]

>>14558877
when did /lit/ start debasing itself? I remember having good chats on this board. Sure there were perpetual DFW and Atlas Shrugged containment threads, but I don't remember this board having so much total trash being lauded even 2 years ago.

Hell, maybe 6 months ago I came here and people were posting about Culture of Critique like it was a work of genius. We're maybe a year out from people unironically discussing the Turner diaries for hundreds of posts. How did we let ourselves slip?

[Anonymous No.14564467]

>>14564155
You're seriously behind the times, and you're just ignorant. Quite apart from media propaganda and timid and conformist academic denouncements, Kaczynski's work is unironically the most important stuff one can read now. Also, quite removed from empty claims of "unoriginality," the works are highly original and groundbreaking.

[Anonymous No.14564476]

>>14559002
LOL. please do tell.

[Anonymous No.14564531]

>>14564155

I've read some of the Turner Diaries, just the first couple of passages, and it is complete and utter shit.

[Anonymous No.14564535]

>>14564155

I've read some of the Turner Diaries, just the first couple of passages, and it is complete and utter bullshit.