/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

File (max. 4)
Return to
(optional)
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 14590
40 kB, 590 × 418
234 kB, 720 × 1104
What is the Ernst opinion on this man?
>>
No. 14596
33 kB, 640 × 276
Very autistic, he seems quite likable

I'm planning to actually read his writings soon though I wouldn't really want to share his pessimism
>>
No. 14604
80 kB, 888 × 499
Incidentally, just stumbled upon this lengthy interesting article about some modern activists: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/the-unabomber-ted-kaczynski-new-generation-of-acolytes.html

As for ideas about ecology and collapse I'd say I prefer the works of John Michael Greer. He's also very autistic but more relaxed and optimistic. Also he's a fucking archdruid
>>
No. 14612
I'm not entirely sure I agree with his conclusions personally but I can certainly follow his logic and it's quite sound. I tend to look at things on a scale of advancing personal liberty and while primitivism does enhance it in some ways, in others it reduces them. For example, while it does reduce the invisible arm of government, primitivism also requires oversight of technology so that it isn't undone, but this limits the liberty of individuals to engage only in a market that is in effect a government-mandated whitelist. In effect not much different to now, just different bans. I also see technology to be the great equaliser in many aspects rather than increasingly destablilising and reinforcing of power structure as he predicts.

One thing that I can't really think of even a poor counterpoint to is that technology inevitably gets misused to the detriment of society, even if it being used properly creates a liberal system. This is evident especially in modern intelligence gathering putting the eye of government in every aspect of your life, when the internet itself can be seen as a way for people to exchange thoughts and information on digital international waters, a powerful tool for a liberal order. I can't think of anything really beyond the pipe dream of technology advancing into a branch that separates from oversight and equalises the power of individual and state again, but that's wishful thinking rather than anything that can be considered a counterpoint. That said, the success of open source software is a promising sign but I don't see the alphabet soup ever letting them break into the mainstream market.
>>
No. 14615
>>14612
>I also see technology to be the great equaliser in many aspects rather than increasingly destablilising and reinforcing of power structure as he predicts.
I strongly disagree. New technology like say cellphone cameras and decentralized internet networks for activism typically only have about a one to several years time frame in which they can aid liberty before becoming just a new tool of oppression. Take drones for example. For a brief time one could use them to show people what is really happening at an event or maybe watch the powerful or drone them ISIS style. Now you need a permit and the NYPD is using them as surveillance drones like from Half Life 2. The only "activism" online now is right wing retards doing everything they can to reinforce the power structure. So in that regard Ted was completely right. Or take the invention of guns. Nobody is using them in this country to stand up for their rights. Every American is only further oppressed by them in the hands of the powerful and too stupid and lazy to realize that or do anything about it.
>>
No. 14618
>>14615
I see those as a result of the erosion of liberal ideals within the society rather than stemming from technology itself. Were we to suddenly return to 'wild nature' then it'd be the same thing. Those at the top would just be using the biggest thugs with the sharpest spears instead. The difference between that an firearms is that you don't really stand a chance as a twig against a behemoth in a muscle-powered fight, but even if it's not being used, a firearm makes a twig as capable of killing as the behemoth. It equalises the power of force. Legitimacy of force is derived from policy rather than technology, and blind obedience to policy is just as that one quote about good men doing nothing went. The fact remains that the power of resistance exists due to technology, even if that power of resistance is not exerted.
>>
No. 14624
I have no idea who that is, but his idea on long term societies development is true.
>>
No. 14629
Technologic determinism but the opposite of Silicon Valley, both have to be scrutinized as they paint a rather simple picture and I strongly disagree with mono causality. Like the Aussie already mentioned technology in itself is not evil but yes technology can be biased perhaps as in how it functions. But again you could argue it's also open for misuse or different use - interpretations. Power is certainly an issue that plays a role in all communities and societies I really want to read Tönnies, dunno if he is known in the anglosphere

I've completely abandoned the anarcho-primitivist fantasy of small hunter-gatherer or even farmer communities. As if small communities would solve all our problems. It's an authenticity phantasma that is rather metaphysical in that it has this core and unity idea to it which I despise, even tho I can understand that it's appealing and also alluring, but I tend to side with constructivism.
Modern society makes you free in many regards but also very dependent in others - that is what Georg Simmel said, at least i was told so. But then again small communities might have the same. Perhaps it's more appealing to people who tend to be outcasts as they imagine they would be better integrated into a small community that really struggles to exist?

Another issue I want to dive into is the one of posthumanity. What will happen if humans evolve into something different, merge with machines or so on. It's alien to us but why is that a danger? I don't think much of transhumanism or read much as it is rather freaky but I can observe how I more often think about this. Like I despise humanism but that does not mean I hate humans or want them dead.
>>
No. 14630
He seems nice in correspondences. I wish he were easier to reach. It's not like Noam Chomsky where you can email him one morning and he'll send you an essay length reply in the afternoon.
>>
No. 14633
>>14630
Letter:
“Notice

On May 21, 2018, the BOP (Bureau of Prisons) “encumbered” all of the money in my commissary account.
Encumbered money remains in the account, but cannot be used for any purpose. When a prisoner here has money deposited to his account by an individual whom the BOP considers “suspicious”, the BOP encumbers the money in question. Normally this affects only the money sent by the “suspicious” individual, but in my case the BOP used the remittances sent by one or two “suspicious” individuals as an excuse to encumber all of the money in my account, including money sent by individuals who have been sending me money for many years and are above all suspicion.
This was done for political reasons.
I can get postage stamps only by purchase from the commissary, and I cannot use encumbered money to buy stamps, so I will run out of stamps in the near future unless I use stamps very sparingly and only for the most essential purposes. Therefore, if my friends don’t hear from me, they should understand that it isn’t because I’ve forgotten about them or because I don’t care about them. It is only because I’m faced with an acute shortage of stamps. Until this issue has been resolved – if it ever is – no one should send me any money, because any money sent will probably be encumbered and therefore useless to me.

Ted Kaczynski
May 29, 2018”

Stamps:
https://store.usps.com/store/results/...

To:
Theodore John Kaczynski 04475-046
USP FLORENCE ADMAX
U.S. PENITENTIARY
PO BOX 8500 FLORENCE, CO 81226
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
>>
No. 14634
>>
No. 14636
2,9 MB, 433 pages
3,2 MB, 250 pages
Forgot the files.
>>14590
>>
No. 14647
>>14633
lol what it we just send him like a thousand stamps.
>>
No. 14648
>>14647
How can we be sure if he gets stamps? Envelopes get opened in jails.
>>
No. 14650
>>14633
Where did you get this? I would be really interested in more letters by him.
>>
No. 14651
He couldn't be more wrong in his views and his deeds are horrendous and unforgivable
>>
No. 14653
He's Polish. Enough said.
>>
No. 14657 Kontra
>>14650
Send me an email: crt@airmail.cc
>>
No. 14684
>>14618
Here is part of Ted's take on the matter:

(a) It’s true that in many societies the extended family, the clan, or the
village could be very confining. The paterfamilias (the “old man” who headed
the extended family), or the council of village elders, kept people on a leash.
But when the paterfamilias and the village elders lost their grip on the leash
as a result of modernization, it was picked up by “the system,” which now
holds it much more tightly than the old-timers ever did.
The family or the village was small enough so that individuals within it
were not powerless. Even where all authority was theoretically vested in the
paterfamilias, in practice he could not retain his power unless he listened
and responded to the grievances and problems of the individual members
of his family.[7]
Today, however, we are at the mercy of organizations, such as
corporations, governments and political parties, that are too large to be
responsive to single individuals. These organizations leave us a great deal of
latitude where harmless recreational activities are concerned, but they keep
under their own control the life-and-death issues on which our existence
depends. With respect to these issues, individuals are powerless.
(b) In former times, for those who were willing to take serious risks,
it was often possible to escape the bonds of the family, of the village,
or of feudal structures. In medieval Western Europe, serfs ran away to
become peddlers, robbers, or town-dwellers. Later, Russian peasants ran
away to become Cossacks, black slaves ran away to live in the wilderness
as “Maroons,” and indentured servants in the West Indies ran away to
become buccaneers.[8]
But in the modern world there is nowhere left to run. Wherever you
go, you can be traced by your credit card, your social-security number, your
fingerprints. You, Mr. N., live in California. Can you get a hotel or motel
room there without showing your picture I.D.? You can’t survive unless you
fit into a slot in the system, otherwise known as a “job.” And it is becoming
increasingly difficult to get a job without making your whole past history
accessible to prospective employers. So how can you defend your statement
that “[m]odern urban society allows one to escape into an anonymity that
family and clan based cultures couldn’t”?
Granted, there are still corners of the world where one can find
wilderness, or governments so disorganized that one can escape from the
system there. But these are relics of the past, and they will disappear as the
system continues to grow.

Here is an excerpt from part (c):

But even under the most oppressive conditions of the past, people were
not as powerless as they are today. Russian serfs, for example, had means
of resisting their landlords. They engaged in deception, theft, poaching,
evasion of work, arson. If a peasant got angry enough, he would kill his
landlord. If many peasants got angry at the same time, there would be a
bloody revolt, a “jacquerie.”[9]
It’s not a pretty picture. But it is at least arguable that Russian serfs
had more freedom—the kind of freedom that really counts—than does the
average well-trained, modern middle-class person, who has almost unlimited
freedom in regard to recreational activities but is completely impotent vis-à-
vis the large organizations that control the conditions under which he lives
and the life-and-death issues on which his existence depends.
If the technoindustrial system collapses the probable result will be a
reversion to a situation roughly equivalent to that which existed several
hundred years ago, in the sense that people will live under widely varying
conditions in different parts of the world. There will be sickness and
health, full bellies and starvation, hatred and love, brotherhood and ethnic
bitterness, war and peace, justice and oppression, violence and kindliness,
freedom and servitude, misery and contentment. But it will be a world
in which such a thing as freedom will at least be possible, even though
everyone might not have it.
>>
No. 14689
>>14684
The problem is that he contradicts himself by concluding that
>it will be a world
in which such a thing as freedom will at least be possible, even though
everyone might not have it.

If we apply the same logic to the social structure that he is arguing against, we end up with the same conclusion. If you've got power, you've got freedom. Even if everybody doesn't have it, some do.

He also ignores the fact that the Paterfamilias was empowered by the political parties of its time, and in fact could very well retain a lot of power against the will of the governed by virtue of having undisputed right of life and death to the family under Roman law. Nor was the concept of ID alien to a primitive society, and in some cases ID did exist such as for child citizens of Rome to wear a token denoting their status so they couldn't be enslaved.

Finally, the problem is still that society imparts these things onto the individual. The fact that the ability for ID to exist doesn't mean that it is determined to do so. In many modern but not contemporary societies, the ability for locking services and work behind ID papers was very possible but didn't happen. I think he runs on a pretty big assumption with that line of thinking. It'd be no less egregious than saying that because of the possibility of preventable disease in a primitive society, it is inevitably going to cause the extinction of a group from that disease. There are social and economic circumstances that can lead to that outcome but it is not a product of the technology level.
>>
No. 14691
>>14689
In his main work, he often makes a large amount of generalizations (he often acknowledges this by saying that there exists room for exceptions, but they do not change total trend).
What you read was just a letter he responded to, and not his main body of work.
I think you'd find Technological Slavery>>14636 to be an interesting read, even if just to understand an alternative point of view.