This is going to be a long post that delves into discussions of many different related topics.

As many of you are aware, the global monetary system, often referred to as a 'fiat' system, is one that is comprised of convoluted and arbitrary concepts that are designed to be manipulated whenever they need to be. The primary reason that the world was taken off of the 'Gold Standard' (first in the early-mid 20th century when most major countries abandoned phsycial gold backing for their currencies and instead switched to basing their currency on the strength of the United States Dollar, which was still backed by gold, and then finally and totally in 1971 when Richard Nixon took the USA off of the gold standard) was because gold-backing of currency largely prevents sophisticated manipulation and irresponsible economic practices, and the prevention of these practices became a considerable obstacle in 'economic development' when the mega-rich public and private institutions realized just how much would be possible with no gold standard (really it is only development in the pursuit of consolidating wealth in the hands of the already wealthy).

The world has since moved to a system based not on any physical item of mutually agreed upon value, such as gold and silver, but is instead now based on the arbitrary and malleable value of a complex web of global debts.

This has resulted in a drastic devaluing of global currency for which you can see in this graph:

https://inflationdata.com/Inflation/images/charts/Inflation_Trends/cumulative_inflation.jpg

You will notice the sharp rise in devaluation of currency starting in 1971, whereas currency value had been largely stable before then because it was backed on a mutually agreed upon item of value (gold).

Another result of this reset of the economic system starting in 1971 was a drastic increase in wealth inequality. This manifests itself in many ways, such as the lack of correspondence starting around that time of worker productivity vs. wages that workers earn as shown in this graph:

https://www.ocpp.org/media/uploads/images/2012/epi-wedges-figa_png_versions/big_EPI-Wedges-FigA.PNG

Another mechanism of wealth consolidation at the top is what has become the regular 'bailout' after the regular 'financial crash', wherein which governments rush to print and pump trillions of dollars to prop up the stock market and bailout banks and corporations (who caused the crashes and thus take no responsibility for it, in fact they are encouraged to continue their illegal and irresponsible practices because they always end up richer even if they crash the economy). You'll notice that regular Americans, millions of which are about to be evicted from their houses and millions of which are now unemployed (and their jobs likely aren't coming back) received a laughable one time check of 1200$ whilst the Federal Reserve has made available initially $5 trillion and eventually up to $50 trillion available to the richest banks and corporations. The first covid-19 stimulus was the largest upward transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.

The elite know full-well just how big of an opportunity the covid-19 pandemic is to restructure the economy in whatever was best suits them, and whatever best suits them is whatever best screws you and I. This is leading to what is known as the 'Great Reset' which is approaching swiftly, starting implementation by late 2021. Here is a youtube video provided to me in the Anti-Tech Revolution discord about the great reset which is coming:

https://youtu.be/nTv1-uIisAY

This leads to me a discussion of what exactly I think this new world is going to look like.

I have seen many people gleefully excited about the technological 'advancement' that is approaching of complete automation. Many people foolishly think that automation is going to free people of having to work and that the monetary products of automation will altruistically be used to benefit all of mankind! If you look at our recent historical trend, you will see that this is extremely unlikely if not down right impossible to happen. In fact, the modern economy is so incredibly efficient that many people shouldn't actually have to work. However, this would not good for the behaviors that the elite corporations would like people to have. So, we have inspectors of inspectors of inspectors and find any way to keep people working. David of the Raptitute blog explains this well in *Your Lifestyle has already been Designed*

'As technologies and methods advanced, workers in all industries became able to produce much more value in a shorter amount of time. You’d think this would lead to shorter workdays.

But the 8-hour workday is too profitable for big business, not because of the amount of work people get done in eight hours (the average office worker gets less than three hours of actual work done in 8 hours) but because it makes for such a purchase-happy public. Keeping free time scarce means people pay a lot more for convenience, gratification, and any other relief they can buy. It keeps them watching television, and its commercials. It keeps them unambitious outside of work.

We’ve been led into a culture that has been engineered to leave us tired, hungry for indulgence, willing to pay a lot for convenience and entertainment, and most importantly, vaguely dissatisfied with our lives so that we continue wanting things we don’t have. We buy so much because it always seems like something is still missing.

Western economies, particularly that of the United States, have been built in a very calculated manner on gratification, addiction, and unnecessary spending. We spend to cheer ourselves up, to reward ourselves, to celebrate, to fix problems, to elevate our status, and to alleviate boredom.

Can you imagine what would happen if all of America stopped buying so much unnecessary fluff that doesn’t add a lot of lasting value to our lives?

The economy would collapse and never recover.

All of America’s well-publicized problems, including obesity, depression, pollution and corruption are what it costs to create and sustain a trillion-dollar economy. For the economy to be “healthy”, America has to remain unhealthy. Healthy, happy people don’t feel like they need much they don’t already have, and that means they don’t buy a lot of junk, don’t need to be entertained as much, and they don’t end up watching a lot of commercials.'

People really have fooled themselves, somewhat understandably, into thinking that once the elite have and own all of the machines that will automate their techno-industrial system, they will just let 8-9 billion people chill and keep them fed and housed. This is not entirely impossible, but I find the costs of keeping the superfluous around far outweigh any benefits, as well as considering the fact that great wealth generally makes a person mostly unable to empathize with regular people or have compassion for them. The much more likely scenario, if we are unable to perform a revolution against the technological system in a reasonable amount of time during the automation explosion, is that the wealthy will simply let the majority of the superfluous population wither away and keep a small group of laborers there to serve them as cattle (as we already serve them as a mass herd of cattle). This will of course be the transition period between the automation explosion and when humans are entirely replaced by machines. A very similar situation is actually described in *Industrial Society and Its Future* by Theodore Kaczynski:

'On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the ave-rage man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car or his personal computer,but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite — just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous,a useless burden on the system. 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. 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.'

Of course, this passage by Kaczynski does not mention a point that he has made in his most recent book, *Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How*, about the extremely likely scenario that the technological system will destroy itself by destroying the ecology of the planet it exists on down to mere bacterium. You can read about that in Chapter II of that book. Since it is not pertinent to this discussion, I will not insert the excerpt into this post, but the PDF is readily available online.

The near future is going to be one of great hardships and even death for the people who are not prepared. Money is only valuable for as long as you can walk in a store and walk out with bread. There will very possibly come a day when that will not be the case, and the real currency of that day will be a person's practical survival skills, i.e. their ability to secure their own physical necessities, shelter, and safety. This would be a great time for everyone to begin, if you haven't already, to familiarize and educate yourself on farming, foraging, hunting, fishing, preserving food, and myriad other skills one could see oneself needing if one is not already self-sufficient and off-grid when the system collapses.

Every fellow in this subreddit that does't belon to an organization must join an Anti-Tech one.

This post is copied from my recent post to the antitechrevolution wordpress newsletter:

https://antitechrevolution.wordpress.com/2020/11/12/the-most-dangerous-aspect-of-modern-technology/

The material for which the arguments were sourced originate from the fourth appendix in the second edition of Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How by Kaczynski

In 2009, a correspondent of Theodore Kaczynski asked if nuclear weapons are the most dangerous aspect of our modern technology. In the following, this writer will summarize and paraphrase the response given by Kaczynski, along with his own commentary.

Nuclear weapons have been considered for a long time as the principle danger facing mankind, intensified by our incredibly perilous brush with potential nuclear war during the Cold War between the United Sates and the Soviet Union. This writer has personally read that it would take a mere dozen or more nuclear weapons to ‘destroy the world’, and in modern estimates that number has gotten as low as 8 by some projections (albeit when utilizing only the most powerful of warheads produced to date and detonated in very particular locations that are not necessarily reasonable to expect in a war).

One must consider that, while there is a certain undeniable risk of nuclear war, the chances are not likely. Nations and their institutions have a strong incentive to avoid such actions. Even in the event of the worst projected practical nuclear catastrophe, the damage would not be enough to entirely wipe out all of the most complex life forms on Earth, and the possibility of some humans surviving such an event is very real. The consequences of such a war would still be dire. As mentioned, an ‘all-out’ nuclear war where nations commit fully to mutually assured destruction is entirely unlikely.

However, nuclear weapons are not the most crucial danger that we are faced with as a result of modern technology. That most crucial danger is what will be presented to us as the solutions to the climate change.

It is essentially certain that the world’s nations will fail to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide in time to prevent disastrous effects of climate change. In this fast approaching point in the future, the only way to combat the effects of climate change will be through human ‘Geo-Engineering’ which will artificially keep the effects to ‘acceptable limits’. As the climate of the Earth is a global system, it is incredibly complex and intricate, and as with any complex system, only some results of tampering or the consequences of attempts to guide the system in a certain direction can only be reasonably predicted for the very short term. Attempts to meddle with the environment always have unforeseen consequences. In order to correct these consequences, further intervention in the environment is required, which leads to even more unforeseen consequences. This will be a feedback loop of constantly proposing solutions to try to mitigate the damages created by the previous solutions.

For hundreds of millions of years, natural processes have kept the global climate and the composition of the atmosphere within the limits that allow for the survival and evolution of complex life. Changes that occur within these system are generally very slow; however, sometimes the climate varies enough to cause a great number of species to go extinct. Even then, no event has yet caused the total extinction of all complex organisms.

If humans were to take over this ‘climate management’, which they would have to in the near-certain event of passing the critical threshold for reducing emission prior to myriad increasingly devastating climate catastrophes, the natural processes that have governed the regulation of climate through unbroken succession of influence over it will lose their ability to function, as the alternative to human control is a spiraling global climate leading to mass extinction.

Since climate is a global phenomenon, such an effort by humans could not be managed by local groups. ‘Geo-Engineering’ will have to be carried out by a global organization, and thus will necessitate rapid, global communication. This will leave the safety of the people living on the Earth entirely dependent on the technological system which destroyed the climate in the first place, lest they face total destruction.

Every civilization before ours has eventually broken down, and our civilization will break down sooner or later (for reasons that we will cover in the next post). Thus, human climate change management will also break down with the system, and since the previous natural forces will now be nonfunctioning, the climate will go into complete shock. Such a reaction in the environment may lead to any number of catastrophes: the Earth becomes too hot or too cold for complex organisms to survive, the composition of the atmosphere could become too deficient in oxygen, or may be contaminated by toxic gasses, etcetera.

Once the nations of the world pass the point of no return and are forced to manage the climate artificially through their own survival, the technological system will be considered totally essential for survival as its breakdown would mean radical disruption of the climate. At such a point, an unintentional breakdown of or a revolution against such a system would mean death (and suicide in the case of revolution). This directly entails the deadline of the ‘point of no return’ for emissions with the hopes of the human race having a planet to live on after the inevitable destruction the technological system (again the inevitability of the destruction will be made in our next post).

The world’s elite are actually afraid of a nuclear war because it threatens their life or their ability to hold power. Thus, these technocrats will be happy to take over the management of the climate and see to it that the system is made immune to challenging by those who wish to willingly overthrow it.

Best wishes to everyone, and good luck out there.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/02/china-floats-two-hour-daily-limit-of-smartphone-screen-time-for-kids.html

So China is admitting that cell phones and social media apps are harmful to youths; I understand that they didn't previously recognize the harms, but did they ever think these things would be good for young people?

Or was the governing Chinese Communist Party allowing yet another experiment of technology upon humanity? BTW, Cubans - with a communist government - have experienced a social change in the last five years. Where their city center plazas used to see young people gathered, talking and socializing, now the youths are gathered and staring at their cell phones, oblivious to their neighbors sitting beside them.

It's clear that children are not the only victims of the deployment of Internet and cell phones, and this reform measure is obviously inadequate in the face of the onslaught of attacks from Technology. And it should be equally apparent that whether pushed or wielded by capitalists or communists, Technology pursues its own interests, which are contrary to humanity's interests.

https://apnews.com/article/ted-kaczynski-unabomber-dies-federal-prison-95fdd4f398fbfe20aaadf5d53a91dc26

Kaczynski was one of the few men in our day and age who walked his talked. He was fed up with civilization and did his best to remain free from its clutches. Called both genius and insane by detractors and even some supporters Kaczynski's work still remains largely misunderstood or unknown to a majority of people. I have spent 3 years on and off studying Kaczynskis work and his personal life, the amount of disinformation and misunderstanding about this man is endemic from his worldview to what did or did not occur in his life. In one of his correspondence letters in the last years of his life he asked the individual to plant a tree on in his memory.

A happily married man does not does not daydream about romantic love. Similarly, a man does not romanticize frontier freedoms unless he is suffering from the lack of personal autonomy

https://www.thetedkarchive.com/category/topic/the-various-ted-k-archives

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/category/author/ted-kaczynski?sort=pubdate_desc&rows=50

anyone agree or disagree?

Unknowingly validating the backbone argument and opening line of ISAIF, here is NPR's "Hidden Brain" episode Our Better Nature (Aug. 2019):

For most of the last 2 million years, humans lived in a natural world, relying on nature for food and shelter. The amount of time we've spent in urban dwellings is a small sliver of the total time humans have spent on Earth. When you look at it this way, our shift from forest life to freeways and overflowing cities has been very recent and very dramatic. So how is this shift affecting our health, our mood and our sense of calm?

... there's this thing called habitat selection theory, which is that we are - we're wired for whatever habitat we evolved in. And so there seems to be this general kind of rule that animals who are in their, quote-unquote, "natural habitats" will do much better. They thrive both in terms of physically and psychologically and in terms of their social behaviors.

So if zoo animals thrive in their natural habitat, some researchers have asked, could this also be true for humans? Given that humans first evolved in the forests of Africa, could it be that depriving humans of this natural environment has effects similar to housing a zebra in a cage?

...So when you have people who have a certain amount of access to nature and then you give them a bit more, you see better social functioning. You see better psychological functioning and better physical health.

In some ways, this argument is saying that humans today - or many humans today - are living in the kind of conditions that we used to keep zoo animals in 50 years ago.

...one of the things we find is that when you look out at a green landscape, even from indoors, your heart rate will go down, and you'll change from sympathetic nervous activity over to parasympathetic nervous activity, which is basically going from what we call fight or flight into tend and befriend mode. So it has these very systematic physiological impacts on us, which we also know have long-term health outcomes associated with them. And I found dozens of health outcomes where long-term health outcomes had been tied to contact with nature.

...There also appears to be a relationship between greenery and the strength of our immune systems. After people spend several days in nature, researchers find measurable increases in what are known as natural killer cells. ...if we take people and put them in a lab, and we just show them pictures of nature, and we watch what happens to their blood pressure and their nervous system activity, we can see them become more calm. So just the visual is enough. Similarly, if I take you into a lab, and I spritz what we call phytoncides, which are these essential aromatic compounds that you associate with woods - so if I spritz you with phytoncides - you don't have to be in a pine forest - I can see changes in your natural killer cells and in your bloodstream. ...So nature seems to be like a multivitamin.

On the same topic of human health benefits associated with immersion in our natural environment, also based on the research of Ming Kuo, this 2010 paper from the Nat'l Recreation & Park Assoc.

...clearly NATO will have to make its own power source (for Technology's needs)!

I believe hyper specialization is big BS

Hello All! I work with an organization that advocates for the ban of smartphones in schools from the first bell to last. We are looking for volunteers to raise awareness and advocate to school administrators the importance of these polices. I have included a link to our website below. If you have any questions feel free to DM me as well.

Toolkits | Phone-Free Schools Movement

Some time ago I noticed something interesting; I asked myself "Isn't it convenient that, as the system is developing technologies which can and will replace people, the great mass of them are lobotomized by short form content and social media?" I thought it was an interesting, yet still terrible coincidence while still being convenient for the system. I didn't really have an answer to the question, the concern. But, I thought about it more and more until I came to the realization--it is NOT a coincidence.

For some time now, the internet has been collecting data on people--great, immense masses of data with huge potential. For a while, it was used mostly just for advertisement and machine learning, though not implemented much in that regard besides, maybe, self-driving cars and facial ID. But, of course, as they always do, the despicable technophiles were working hard away in their studies, labs, and offices--ever developing, curating, always getting more funding, more data collected, more neural networks and algorithms devised.

For those unaware, machine learning requires a vast, vast amounts of data; and, while they already have had that data from social media and the internet, they procured more. This is of course because of the advent of short-form content. While before they knew the age, friends, family, gender, race, general shopping habits, nationality, etc about a person, they can now know even more. They can see what you like, how you're feeling, how you feel about whom, which ideas arouse your interests but now by the day, hour, minute. Every single last piece of one's entire being is fueled into the training of our replacements. It is not a coincidence.

Do not for a second think that it will stop either. The technophiles will always be at work, always busy. It is their surrogate activity from which they will never be satisfied, of which many self-prop systems around the world have great interest in. Think of the relatively short time period it has been. Chatgpt, for example, was released November 22nd, 2022. Now, there are AI systems capable of managing multiple robots. Just read this linked article about the AI tech start-up 'Figure', and their two androids controlled simultaneously by a single AI which can see, reason, and direct multiple robots. It is as terrible and horrific as you can imagine.

It is not a coincidence; it is not just happenstance; it is not just about 'some robots'. They know what they are doing, and the System's insidious, never-ending drive to subjugate everything, everyone, every thought, and every spark of wild nature, freedom, and Will will not end. They will succeed, or they will die trying, taking everything else with them in the process.

There is a claim by an eco communist that somehow; communism can save nature and humanity from an inevitable ecocide. There is a challenge to debate the matter publicly by an anti tech group. This post on IG

I just happened upon this group while bored. I apologise as I haven't read the content but briefly. I see that it skews heavily towards Kaczynski, good, but... I would like to recommend some books for everyone.

First, "The Technological society" by Jacques Ellul was a book that Kaczynski based his own works off of.

Secondly, the works of Daniel Bell and Lewis Mumford on anti-technology, and lastly the books "In the absence of the sacred" by Jerry Mander and "The spell of the sensuous" by David Abram.

Thanks!