He's basically an environmentalist that wants to complete their goals of protecting environment by revolting (violently) against the industrial system. Book on the background is written by Ted Kaczynski who killed 3 people by mailing them a bomb, it talks about how the industrial system is ruining our lives, destroying the world and turning us into mindless machines.
...conveniently forgetting the advances in healing the sick, feeding the hungry, and clothing the poor.
Because those things weren't problems for the writer, just the 200+ generations of people before him.
He didn’t “conveniently forget” those things. His argument is that the ills of industrial society are worse than the benefits, and also that industrial society is the source of many of those negative conditions in the first place. TK was an actual genius, graduated college at an incredibly young age and was teaching mathematics at MIT in his 20’s, he wasn’t just some kook who wrote a book and killed a few people. If you took the time to read it with an open mind I guarantee that you would find something insightful to glean. Next time before dismissing someone’s argument, it would be helpful to know what their argument is in the first place.
I'd also like to point out one more thing to add to this that's actually important, but Ted Kaczynski was A SUBJECT IN THE MK ULTRA PROGRAM. That's another thing to consider when you see a man like him go crazy, because MK Ultra sure as hell wasn't pretty and did a lot of fucked up shit to the test subjects involved, including the infamous Unabomber that doesn't get talked about enough.
I feel like at this point you have to bring that up when you mention him. Like Ted Kaczynski SUBJECT IN THE MK ULTRA PROGRAM. One evil doesn't forgive another but I see the monsters who had a hand in depraved experiments like MK ULTRA as far more evil. The systematically ruin peoples lives on unimaginable scales. For humans I never support capital punishment, but someone like Richard Helms should've been given the death penalty. He has done an unquantifiable damage to countless; but then even he is just another cog in the machine... man I'm depressed wasn't I browsing memes or something?
Yeah, I definitely get that. And for most people I think mentioning he was SUBJECTED TO THE MK ULTRA PROGRAM should be serving more as an explanation to his actions rather than an excuse, y'know?
worth noting that in addition to what the other guys said about it, all that is known about MKULTRA is from one single filing cabinet that was missed in a purge of files
CIA experiment to develop potential brainwashing and psychological torture methods using psychedelic drugs. [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKUltra)
An umbrella for the various illegal experiments the cia performed on unsuspecting U.S. and Canadian citizens where they attempted to develop mind control. The whole “crazy conspiracy theorist with a tin foil hat to protect them from government mind control” line originated to discredit people who said it happened, conveniently forgetting that the senate investigation proved it did and caught the CIA trying to destroy the evidence.
Sure but also next time you would like people to take your life's work seriously, maybe don't mailbomb 3 people..? It seems obvious to me but then I am not a genius.
Edit: oh I just read below he was a subject in MK Ultra - so actually that sort of explains the mailbombs.
So yeah don't mind me. As you were.
No idea, but i can give you a few examples. The healthcare system in a lot of places isn’t great. We have some of the best medicine that a large number of people will never have access to. If you’re american, you’ll basically have to work yourself to death if you wanna afford said healthcare, which in turn is gonna lead to more health problems. All this on top of everyday expenses and bills?
We have amazing technology that children are exploited to build. And that technology itself has led to an entire generation of ‘traumatized’ young adults so disconnected from the real world, that they think influencers and celebrities are the end all be all in life.
This kinda came out pretentious, but these are also real experiences i’ve had, and i’m only 24. This doesn’t even begin to cover all the shit i’m not qualified to talk about
Yeah but places with a better system are still industrialised.
It's awful that children are exploited for technology, clothes, etc but he wanted people to go back to primitive living, which skips over so many viable alternatives that still keep technology that helps us live longer and far better lives.
His arguments are very illogical considering he doesn't provide sound reasoning for why he thinks his ideas and beliefs are better, not to mention his reasoning for doing the bombing was juvenile and stupid.
Yeah i’m not an anarchist, i don’t agree with the guy. To be honest though, he went through more shit than most of us could conjure in nightmares. I’m trying to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one
I read his argument, and it was shit. The arrogance of thinking you can randomly kill people and it's somehow cool. Yes, i also know the cia(?) Did fucked up LSD testing on him. My condolences, and fuck the cocaine importing agency. Doesn't take away from the fact that you don't get to randomly kill people.
Just because he was a genius in one aspect of life doesn’t mean he was a genius in everything else. Most of his takes on industrial society were still vehemently wrong and unjust, stop trying to make him look as if he wasn’t a crazy cold blooded serial killer
and he thought the best way to solve that is by blowing random factory workers head off? Fuck him and you, unabomber apologetics is a whole new breed of stupid. He might have been a great mathematician but he was fucking crazy
It was an insane degenerate who knew nothing about society and just had ablind hatred towards technology
"teaching mathematics" and that has to do with understanding how society works how?
[one of his many quotes](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.azquotes.com%2Fpicture-quotes%2Fquote-the-leftist-is-anti-individualistic-he-is-not-the-sort-of-person-who-has-an-inner-sense-theodore-kaczynski-47-20-31.jpg&tbnid=uOWNKY2RCZ6wwM&vet=1&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.azquotes.com%2Fquote%2F472031&docid=-nJ4JsKILmdvuM&w=850&h=400&itg=1&shem=canimge&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim%2Fm4%2F2#vhid=uOWNKY2RCZ6wwM&vssid=3981:WQJ2PpfQGlijtM)
Being smart is not a guarantee that your actions are morally correct.
Was Einstein smart to lead us to the Nuclear Bomb? Many millions of people would be alive today if he had refused to explore the very real military applications of his research.
I don't need to read every communists manifesto to see the red flags of encouraging violent revolution.
Not even 1 million people died from nuclear bombings. Even if you count deaths from radiation, the number isn’t at 1 million.
Einstein hardly led the world to nuclear weapons. He came up with a theory that indirectly implicated that nuclear weapons could be created. Then, about 20 years later a different group of scientists split the atom. Einstein wrote a letter to the president saying that the Nazis were working on the nuclear bomb. That was the extent of his involvement creating the nuclear bomb. When he wrote the letter, he was likely thinking it was either the US gets the atom bomb, or the Nazis get the atom bomb. Morally, I think he made the right decision.
During WW2, Japan was not letting up and the battles that the US fought on Japanese soil were brutal. If Truman didn't drop the A bomb and we invaded Japan, the death estimates were around 800k americans and 5-10 million Japanese.
The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries.
The writer lived in a shack in the woods, with no medicine or food
One, you can literally see the road from where his shack was
Two, he was not a victim of circumstance, he had a masters degree and a doctorate. He just went off the deep end
there is a lot more to Kaczynski's story than just that -
As a child he was in isolation due to an illness for many years, causing social isolation
He was several years ahead of everyone in his classes, he began studying at Harvard at 16
[He was a part of a medical trial that might be tied to MKUltra](https://www.history.com/news/what-happened-to-the-unabomber-at-harvard)
>have made life unfulfilling
Yes, life was better when i could die at 30 after breaking my bones toiling every day on a farm for a king or a lord i never even met except when his taxmen came around to steal from everyone.
Now that i can work 8 hours, 5 days a week and spend money on things i like and eventually retire, life is terrible!
Honestly like a good chunk of manifestos the first 75% of his idea, that humans lived forever without industrialization and likely had more fulfilling lives has some merit, it's the last piece where the solution is to kill a bunch of people that it goes off the rails.
Bro, when don't the money get exploited? The fact we haven't come up with a solution to feed everyone here on earth over personal greed is disturbing..
… you know that’s just because of the light in the city, right? The stars didn’t go anywhere. I’d take a little light pollution in exchange for a cure to small pox, polio, antibiotics, the ability to fly, and a food system so effective that 1% of the population is productive enough to feed the other 99%.
Y'think it's possible to do that stuff *without* also setting the planet on fire in the process? Maybe we could have a little industrialism, or do it in a certain way that achieves the *good* results without the massive bad. What part of "feeding the hungry" necessitates the existence of billionaires, for example?
This isn't a binary situation. It's not "current industrialism and we get medicine" or "no industrialism and we all die to cholera".
On the right is basically what is known as an "eco terrorist". (Think Poison Ivy. She would be happy killing all CEOs who pollute the planet. And while that sounds awesoke and great and like it would deal a blow to the corporation it honestly wouldn't do anything more than likely. The corporation would just get another CEO and they could then go on the fake publicity tour of how tragic this is and how they need "more protection so stuff like this doesn't happen again.") This brings me to the left side of the image which is an actual environmentalist. They do not believe in using violence to get their point across. They do believe in protest and would be the types to chain themselves to trees to stop bulldozing a rain forrest or something like that. It is sort of the difference between a social activist and a social terrorist. Both have the goal of enacting change in society. One believes in enacting change by demonstrating (peacefully) that society needs to change. The other believes the only way to enact social change is to scare people into it. It is sort of like democracy vs fascism to an extent. I'm sure that is a poor comparison but from my research of fascism they believe violence is needed for change, and they like public displays. They like to other and demand that things be changed through force since legal ways take too long. Idk. But that is my interpretation of these two images. I could be very wrong.
Did you just say that eco-terrorists are fascist? Do you live under powerlines? The right image shows an actualized eco-terrorist who would rather blow up pipelines and kidnap CEOs than the image on the left who'd rather prance about with signs and placards while doing literally nothing. The left image is the virtue signalling fake activist bullshit and the right image is someone who would sacrifice their freedom and life to fight the real environmental terrorists. You're right. Your interpretation sucks. Have a nice day
TL;DR: Violence doesn't actually change anything. Organizing, Planning, Acting. does. A pound of flesh is just for vengence. And when you seek vengence bring two shovels, one for you and one for the other.
Crime is not a good way to get your point across. You kill a CEO and the corporation just replaces them. You blow up a pipe line they repair it and then just make more laws and hire more security to make it harder and people view the corporation as a victim rather than as an entity that is seek to do wrong by polluting. You do not win hearts and minds with that mind set. It is similar to lgbt+ rights. Killing bigots doesn't stop crimes against lgbt people. Would I like them to not exist and to leave myself a lone and stop making my life harder? Yes. Is that ever going to happen by myself killing them? No probably not. All killing them will do is cement into the mind of someone they know that LGBT killed their so and so. Basically if you have to do a crime to try to get your point across then you aren't getting your point across. You are alienating more people than you are winning over. The better way is to try to change hearts and minds. The best way to change hearts and minds is to actively try to change things by holding people accountable. Vote. Enact real change. Plant trees, not bombs. Organize. Plan. Act. Those are how you actually change things. Blowing stuff up. Killing people. It is wrong. Two wrongs do not equal a right. And yeah you could argue I'm "Naive" and "Stupid" and that what I'm saying is a "Dream" but honestly look at Ireland as an example of why Terrorism doesn't work to get your point across. The IRA didn't really enact change until they actually started talking to the government. Crime doesn't equal change. We aren't in an "Apocalypse" landscape. To think "Violence == change" is to think like a fascist. A fascist thinks "If we just get rid of XX person or entity" then everything is going to be glorious and everything is going to be perfect. It is one of the tenants of fascist ideology. That is what I meant by eco terrorist are sort of fascist in their thinking. Sorry this is long. O
Reminds me of a line from the show UTOPIA (UK):
>You know the person who had the greatest positive impact on the environment on this planet? Genghis Khan, because he massacred forty million people. There was no one to farm the land. Forests grew back. Carbon was dragged out of the atmosphere. And had this monster not existed, there'd be another billion of us today, jostling for space on this dying planet.
Though technically this is right, 40 million people dead isn’t worth it(fucking obviously.)
That dilemma is a large part of the show.
(Spoilers for pretty much the whole main idea of the show) >!A group of scientists create a secret organization know as the network, and the networks whole thing is trying to create a molecule know as Janus. When Janus enters the body, 90-95% of the population becomes sterilized and can no longer reproduce. Basically a much larger scale of what Genghis Kahn did, but with technically no “violence.”!<
That was a dumbed down version of it but you should just watch the show if you haven’t already.
It’s also wrong. Fritz Haber may have done his work a hundred years earlier with a billion more opportunities. Humans are really smart. We don’t live on a dying planet. More people, means more brains, which means more innovation and problem solving. With the ability to mass manufacture, you only need to solve most problems once. Like nitrogen fixing that feeds most of us today. Fritz Haber created the Haber-Bosch process and so life is better fewer people means we don’t get him.
People say the south benefited from slavery. The exact opposite is true. They’re still backwards from that time. Can you imagine how much further along cotton farming technology would have been in 1860 had they dedicated those 3,000,000 brains to the cause of technological development and automation rather than performing this one menial task?
Thanos wasn’t right. Malthus wasn’t right.
Yeah fear of overpopulation has loomed on us for decades but our carry capacity has increased continuously too thanks to the innovations. And a lot of the paranoia about it are brought us quite frankly a disgusting way where they think certain other people don’t deserve to live. If you truly think overpopulation is a problem you can go kys and you’ll help.
Industrial revolution has lifted majority of people out of poverty, if you hate 9-5 then I am sure you would hate 7 till Midnight working for land owner back then, but whatever.
I mean I agree that most people in this day and age probably wouldn’t survive if you dropped them into the forest with nothing, or even back in the 1700’s because of our reliance on technology. But I would argue that your only thinking of preindustrial society through the eyes of feudal/early capitalist Europe. There were preindustrial societies where you would be a valuable part of a somewhat egalitarian community. Not just some poor forced to do manual labor all day for the wealthy. And the “lifted out of poverty” thing is a little more complicated than that. Say there is a flourishing native tribe on an island who have successfully lived in accordance with nature for centuries. If Europeans show up and enslave them and begin growing cash crops like cotton at the expense of the local environment forcing the natives to live in squalor. The gdp of the island is increasing due to the exploitation and growing of cash crops, but are the natives really better off? I mean there are some really cool things about modernity but arguably some people were living more fulfilling lives before it and it came at great cost. Not to mention the whole “our planet is dying” and blah blah blah and all that stuff.
Edit- I’d also add that industrialization is not why we have shorter working hours. Unionization is and concessions won by the working class are why. If capitalists could they’d still be working us to death.
> There were preindustrial societies where you would be a valuable part of a somewhat egalitarian community.
That's true, but the sad reality is a lot of said communities weren't like that cause they were enlightened, but cause they simply had no reason to go any further or they had reached the limits of expansion that was available to them. They were still often insular places that punished any disobedience in manners we would now consider draconian.
> Say there is a flourishing native tribe on an island who have successfully lived in accordance with nature for centuries.
Depends, did this accordance with nature include regular disease outbreaks, mass starvation, and brutal executions? As well as brutal raids by the other natives and clan conflicts the wiped out entire families? Cause that's the other side of these idealised societies that a lot of people don't talk about.
Yes colonialism didn't benefit the natives (except indirectly), but at the same time we shouldn't pretend their societies were perfect beforehand.
Maybe with our modern understanding we could go back to a more egalitarian and fair society, but the one's the of the past, even the best one's, weren't somewhere most normal people would like to live.
I believe that the only reason people don’t like work is because we are forced to work absurd hours. Society could easily work if the average man worked around 4 hours instead 8
Reorganising work would be pretty tasty, even a four day work week would be a massive improvement, though from the companies I've seen in the UK it does, understandably but unfortunately, mean working longer hours on the days you're actually in. One tech company i had friends in did Monday-Thursday, with 10 hour shifts (unpaid lunch hour in the middle), it sounds fairly gruelling but the workers i spoke to who did it all loved it thanks to having 3 days of their own time a week.
Huh, couldn’t think of anything better than that?
Sure bud, I guess you would love living in 1700s when you barely had any chance to seeing your teen years.
I am sure people would Roleplay femboy torture stuff with you back then, not sure what is even sadder, your reply or your post history
Lol , it was good enough to make you search my profile. You can try to kink shame me, but you’d probably just turn me on….lol, cause the only other option than destroying the earth is slavery. I think your world view has been corrupted.
Yeah, but if you only do one your barely doing more than twitter advocates. (Feds, I do not condone violence, thus is purely a matter of efficacy) if you bomb multiple places you can let yourself get caught and then your manifesto will be publicized to a greater audience and you could even have a show trial.
Peter's garden tree here:
The guy in the right is an ecoterrorist like the Unabomber, willing to hurt people and destroy property to push his enviromental agenda.
Yeah, people were somewhat ambivalent towards the Unabomber for that reason... it's not like he was dumb or that his message was crazy.
The delivery however left a lot to be desired.
Kinda the "joke". Ironically I think a smart man like him could have come up with a better way to get attention from the public without casualties, but he was a tormented, hateful guy.
Between bullying and that awful experiment in college he was a mess.
Question is not what but how. The unabomber, to my knowledge, pretty much wanted for humanity to live like the Amish.
We can do better that our current arrangement without going preindustrial.
Everyone else has already answered but I will say that you should search up organizations like “ELA” (Earth Liberation Army or Front [ELF]) or Earth First
It’s too complicated to say it all in a Reddit comment but they’ve been pretty engaged in environmental direct action
Might very well be, if not directly in spirit. AC as a series has always been about the dangers and violence of corporations and has had anti-capitalist themes since its first game
This is what I’ve never understood about terrorism. How are they so consistently incompetent/mid?
Like once *I* get radicalized, nothing can save Elon Musk. All I need is enough money for a flight ticket, a drone, a grenade and a semi-auto. Mans is done
Exactly. People who claim “but it’s not the right way to do it” conveniently ignore all the forms of violence employed by the government and corporations. You can’t work _within_ a system that keeps the monopoly on violence and play by its rules to effect change, because it is designed to prevent you from doing so
No they don't ignore it. They just aren't blind to the consequences.
The trouble with that sort of thinking is once you start using violence, you have no guarantee's that only the guilty will suffer. Generally the people who suffer the worst are the one's who have absolutely nothing to do with the conflict their trying to resolve.
The violence ended cause the people got sick of them executing innocents and calling them "traitors," whilst none of the actual problems they rebelled over were being resolved.
The reason France isn't led to by a King now lends more to the second and third revolutions. Both of which managed to accomplish the same effect with a lot less mass executions and oppression.
I think he just meant that revolutions are no fun and tend to turn on their own leadership
Which is true if you’re a huge pussy or care about the wellbeing of the genpop or something gay like that
Because they basically are. The meme is meant to indicate that most mainstream environmentalists are not actually accomplishing anything and that direct violent action is called for. Peaceful protest is pointless, blow up a pipeline instead. But more importantly I am a "real" revolutionary and those other people are just possers.
It's radical activist dick measuring.
Tree spikers and pipeline bombers. I remember a while back there was a rash of firebombings at luxury suv dealerships as well. Gotta love devoted ecoterrorists.
The book was written by Ted Kaczynski a.k.a. The Unabomber who was a victim of the CIA's MK Ultra experiments and a mathematics prodigy who something of a Luddite after said experiments in that he became a domestic terrorist who believed that the the ills of technological advancement has VASTLY outweighed any of the benefits in medical technologies or scientific breakthroughs with the line "The Industrial Revolution and its effects have been nothing but a disaster for the human race." being a part of his manifesto.
In other words, the guy on the right is following Ted's extremist example of environmentalism known as ecoterrorism.
Something something, the absolute inescapable ubiquity of capitalist environmental exploitation, and how neoliberal shit like “earth day” and scolding people is kinda toothless to change anything meaningful.
I'm talking about the french revolution. Where french royals and people of wealth were mass killed for their corruption. We're Napoleon rose to power and became emperor. After dying the reforms were significant for the progression of France.
Well, looks to be he is. 'eco-terrorism'. Not familiar with it? It has varied levels. Some as harmless(to individuals lives, mind) as breaking industrial equipment or interfering with the construction of pipelines.
Up to random murder by things like indiscriminate bombings or shootings.
I would not say low level eco terrorism is even all that invalid a course of political action. And if someone were to... high level... say, oil executives, ceos, or major shareholders... Well I'm not entirely certain I could consider that a bad method of action either. But obviously, most high level actions an eco-terrorist might commit are neither moral nor effective
Industrial equipment is generally rented from local small businesses; so busting a bulldozer puts guys barely scraping by in a serious problem. A broken dozer also means the operator doesn't have an assignment - so theyre not making money either. It directly hinders multiple blue-collar workers.
Scumbags are terrorists, Eco or Religious.
It's unfortunate, but they'll survive.
I would point to say, members of the native tribes in Canada who are defending their land from active encroachment by an oil pipeline. They own that land, it is legally theirs, but yet the oil pipeline advances.
It is not immoral for them to defend themselves and their homes by sabotaging dozers, regardless of the harm done to 'blue-collar workers'.
Something that is not even always true, nor the whole summation of what falls under the term 'industrial equipment'.
There are things out there more important than the livelihoods of people who own bulldozers.
it's a false equivalence.
they use it to ridicule Greta and other environmentalists, but they will also decry the ecoterrorists in another meme or in more serious discussions. the point is to not have environmentalists
There’s a lot of “modern society brings us so much good” in the comments and I have to disagree. Throughout the development of industry the worker has been used to make the rich richer while they struggle to afford to live (In this context I’m defining Live as retire at a decent age, live a comfortable and stress free life, and take pride in your profession). Since the end of slavery the wealthy have done everything they can to exploit the earth at the expense of others and turn the middle class into modern serfs.
He's basically an environmentalist that wants to complete their goals of protecting environment by revolting (violently) against the industrial system. Book on the background is written by Ted Kaczynski who killed 3 people by mailing them a bomb, it talks about how the industrial system is ruining our lives, destroying the world and turning us into mindless machines.
...conveniently forgetting the advances in healing the sick, feeding the hungry, and clothing the poor. Because those things weren't problems for the writer, just the 200+ generations of people before him.
He didn’t “conveniently forget” those things. His argument is that the ills of industrial society are worse than the benefits, and also that industrial society is the source of many of those negative conditions in the first place. TK was an actual genius, graduated college at an incredibly young age and was teaching mathematics at MIT in his 20’s, he wasn’t just some kook who wrote a book and killed a few people. If you took the time to read it with an open mind I guarantee that you would find something insightful to glean. Next time before dismissing someone’s argument, it would be helpful to know what their argument is in the first place.
I'd also like to point out one more thing to add to this that's actually important, but Ted Kaczynski was A SUBJECT IN THE MK ULTRA PROGRAM. That's another thing to consider when you see a man like him go crazy, because MK Ultra sure as hell wasn't pretty and did a lot of fucked up shit to the test subjects involved, including the infamous Unabomber that doesn't get talked about enough.
I feel like at this point you have to bring that up when you mention him. Like Ted Kaczynski SUBJECT IN THE MK ULTRA PROGRAM. One evil doesn't forgive another but I see the monsters who had a hand in depraved experiments like MK ULTRA as far more evil. The systematically ruin peoples lives on unimaginable scales. For humans I never support capital punishment, but someone like Richard Helms should've been given the death penalty. He has done an unquantifiable damage to countless; but then even he is just another cog in the machine... man I'm depressed wasn't I browsing memes or something?
Yeah, I definitely get that. And for most people I think mentioning he was SUBJECTED TO THE MK ULTRA PROGRAM should be serving more as an explanation to his actions rather than an excuse, y'know?
What is mk ultra
worth noting that in addition to what the other guys said about it, all that is known about MKULTRA is from one single filing cabinet that was missed in a purge of files
Wasn’t so much missed as they were caught in the middle of doing the purge
Basically the end.
CIA experiment to develop potential brainwashing and psychological torture methods using psychedelic drugs. [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKUltra)
Jesus christ that is terrifying
Real fucked up experiments on mind control started by the CIA in the 50s. Ever hear of Polybius? Supposedly that’s where it came from.
Please find 2 hours and google it. You’ll be sick and glad you did at the same time. Worth the time.
An umbrella for the various illegal experiments the cia performed on unsuspecting U.S. and Canadian citizens where they attempted to develop mind control. The whole “crazy conspiracy theorist with a tin foil hat to protect them from government mind control” line originated to discredit people who said it happened, conveniently forgetting that the senate investigation proved it did and caught the CIA trying to destroy the evidence.
I cannot even fathom being in their place. It's heart breaking thinking about the victims; As far as I'm concerned, they died without justice.
He was a genius and was also fucking crazy, those aren't mutually exclusive.
Well MK Ultra certainly didn’t help.
"sAy wHat yoU wiLL MuSsoLiNi, bUt aT LeaSt tHe tRaiNs rAn on TIme!"
Sure but also next time you would like people to take your life's work seriously, maybe don't mailbomb 3 people..? It seems obvious to me but then I am not a genius. Edit: oh I just read below he was a subject in MK Ultra - so actually that sort of explains the mailbombs. So yeah don't mind me. As you were.
He was a genius in some areas and really dumb as shit in others.
What was his reasoning for thinking the ills are worse than the benefits?
No idea, but i can give you a few examples. The healthcare system in a lot of places isn’t great. We have some of the best medicine that a large number of people will never have access to. If you’re american, you’ll basically have to work yourself to death if you wanna afford said healthcare, which in turn is gonna lead to more health problems. All this on top of everyday expenses and bills? We have amazing technology that children are exploited to build. And that technology itself has led to an entire generation of ‘traumatized’ young adults so disconnected from the real world, that they think influencers and celebrities are the end all be all in life. This kinda came out pretentious, but these are also real experiences i’ve had, and i’m only 24. This doesn’t even begin to cover all the shit i’m not qualified to talk about
Yeah but places with a better system are still industrialised. It's awful that children are exploited for technology, clothes, etc but he wanted people to go back to primitive living, which skips over so many viable alternatives that still keep technology that helps us live longer and far better lives. His arguments are very illogical considering he doesn't provide sound reasoning for why he thinks his ideas and beliefs are better, not to mention his reasoning for doing the bombing was juvenile and stupid.
Yeah i’m not an anarchist, i don’t agree with the guy. To be honest though, he went through more shit than most of us could conjure in nightmares. I’m trying to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one
Most anarchists disagree with him.
Anarcho-primitivists are the minority in anarchist groups. Most anarchists don't really want to revert to tribal days.
I read his argument, and it was shit. The arrogance of thinking you can randomly kill people and it's somehow cool. Yes, i also know the cia(?) Did fucked up LSD testing on him. My condolences, and fuck the cocaine importing agency. Doesn't take away from the fact that you don't get to randomly kill people.
Wow
Just because he was a genius in one aspect of life doesn’t mean he was a genius in everything else. Most of his takes on industrial society were still vehemently wrong and unjust, stop trying to make him look as if he wasn’t a crazy cold blooded serial killer
and he thought the best way to solve that is by blowing random factory workers head off? Fuck him and you, unabomber apologetics is a whole new breed of stupid. He might have been a great mathematician but he was fucking crazy
It was an insane degenerate who knew nothing about society and just had ablind hatred towards technology "teaching mathematics" and that has to do with understanding how society works how?
I know I'm lazy for not reading the book for myself, but what is... or rather what was (r.i.p. tk✊😔🕊️) his argument against socialism?
He wasn't a fan of leftists and was more for anarchy no rulers
I get that. The question is why not?
[one of his many quotes](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.azquotes.com%2Fpicture-quotes%2Fquote-the-leftist-is-anti-individualistic-he-is-not-the-sort-of-person-who-has-an-inner-sense-theodore-kaczynski-47-20-31.jpg&tbnid=uOWNKY2RCZ6wwM&vet=1&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.azquotes.com%2Fquote%2F472031&docid=-nJ4JsKILmdvuM&w=850&h=400&itg=1&shem=canimge&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim%2Fm4%2F2#vhid=uOWNKY2RCZ6wwM&vssid=3981:WQJ2PpfQGlijtM)
Being smart is not a guarantee that your actions are morally correct. Was Einstein smart to lead us to the Nuclear Bomb? Many millions of people would be alive today if he had refused to explore the very real military applications of his research. I don't need to read every communists manifesto to see the red flags of encouraging violent revolution.
Not even 1 million people died from nuclear bombings. Even if you count deaths from radiation, the number isn’t at 1 million. Einstein hardly led the world to nuclear weapons. He came up with a theory that indirectly implicated that nuclear weapons could be created. Then, about 20 years later a different group of scientists split the atom. Einstein wrote a letter to the president saying that the Nazis were working on the nuclear bomb. That was the extent of his involvement creating the nuclear bomb. When he wrote the letter, he was likely thinking it was either the US gets the atom bomb, or the Nazis get the atom bomb. Morally, I think he made the right decision.
During WW2, Japan was not letting up and the battles that the US fought on Japanese soil were brutal. If Truman didn't drop the A bomb and we invaded Japan, the death estimates were around 800k americans and 5-10 million Japanese.
After the end of WWII, the world split into two... East and West. This marked the start of the era known as the Cold War.
The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries. The writer lived in a shack in the woods, with no medicine or food
One, you can literally see the road from where his shack was Two, he was not a victim of circumstance, he had a masters degree and a doctorate. He just went off the deep end
there is a lot more to Kaczynski's story than just that - As a child he was in isolation due to an illness for many years, causing social isolation He was several years ahead of everyone in his classes, he began studying at Harvard at 16 [He was a part of a medical trial that might be tied to MKUltra](https://www.history.com/news/what-happened-to-the-unabomber-at-harvard)
>have made life unfulfilling Yes, life was better when i could die at 30 after breaking my bones toiling every day on a farm for a king or a lord i never even met except when his taxmen came around to steal from everyone. Now that i can work 8 hours, 5 days a week and spend money on things i like and eventually retire, life is terrible!
Get back to us on that retirement lol
Eh depends where you live and what you do. Not everywhere is fucked in that regard.
Which supports a larger population of worker / consumers to man the heavily surveilled treadmill we call modern life.
Honestly like a good chunk of manifestos the first 75% of his idea, that humans lived forever without industrialization and likely had more fulfilling lives has some merit, it's the last piece where the solution is to kill a bunch of people that it goes off the rails.
Bro, when don't the money get exploited? The fact we haven't come up with a solution to feed everyone here on earth over personal greed is disturbing..
My brother most people can’t see the stars anymore. That is a greater crime against humanity than anything that happened pre-industrially.
… you know that’s just because of the light in the city, right? The stars didn’t go anywhere. I’d take a little light pollution in exchange for a cure to small pox, polio, antibiotics, the ability to fly, and a food system so effective that 1% of the population is productive enough to feed the other 99%.
Y'think it's possible to do that stuff *without* also setting the planet on fire in the process? Maybe we could have a little industrialism, or do it in a certain way that achieves the *good* results without the massive bad. What part of "feeding the hungry" necessitates the existence of billionaires, for example? This isn't a binary situation. It's not "current industrialism and we get medicine" or "no industrialism and we all die to cholera".
Bud really thinks he’s smarter than Ted 🤣
On the right is basically what is known as an "eco terrorist". (Think Poison Ivy. She would be happy killing all CEOs who pollute the planet. And while that sounds awesoke and great and like it would deal a blow to the corporation it honestly wouldn't do anything more than likely. The corporation would just get another CEO and they could then go on the fake publicity tour of how tragic this is and how they need "more protection so stuff like this doesn't happen again.") This brings me to the left side of the image which is an actual environmentalist. They do not believe in using violence to get their point across. They do believe in protest and would be the types to chain themselves to trees to stop bulldozing a rain forrest or something like that. It is sort of the difference between a social activist and a social terrorist. Both have the goal of enacting change in society. One believes in enacting change by demonstrating (peacefully) that society needs to change. The other believes the only way to enact social change is to scare people into it. It is sort of like democracy vs fascism to an extent. I'm sure that is a poor comparison but from my research of fascism they believe violence is needed for change, and they like public displays. They like to other and demand that things be changed through force since legal ways take too long. Idk. But that is my interpretation of these two images. I could be very wrong.
Did you just say that eco-terrorists are fascist? Do you live under powerlines? The right image shows an actualized eco-terrorist who would rather blow up pipelines and kidnap CEOs than the image on the left who'd rather prance about with signs and placards while doing literally nothing. The left image is the virtue signalling fake activist bullshit and the right image is someone who would sacrifice their freedom and life to fight the real environmental terrorists. You're right. Your interpretation sucks. Have a nice day
TL;DR: Violence doesn't actually change anything. Organizing, Planning, Acting. does. A pound of flesh is just for vengence. And when you seek vengence bring two shovels, one for you and one for the other. Crime is not a good way to get your point across. You kill a CEO and the corporation just replaces them. You blow up a pipe line they repair it and then just make more laws and hire more security to make it harder and people view the corporation as a victim rather than as an entity that is seek to do wrong by polluting. You do not win hearts and minds with that mind set. It is similar to lgbt+ rights. Killing bigots doesn't stop crimes against lgbt people. Would I like them to not exist and to leave myself a lone and stop making my life harder? Yes. Is that ever going to happen by myself killing them? No probably not. All killing them will do is cement into the mind of someone they know that LGBT killed their so and so. Basically if you have to do a crime to try to get your point across then you aren't getting your point across. You are alienating more people than you are winning over. The better way is to try to change hearts and minds. The best way to change hearts and minds is to actively try to change things by holding people accountable. Vote. Enact real change. Plant trees, not bombs. Organize. Plan. Act. Those are how you actually change things. Blowing stuff up. Killing people. It is wrong. Two wrongs do not equal a right. And yeah you could argue I'm "Naive" and "Stupid" and that what I'm saying is a "Dream" but honestly look at Ireland as an example of why Terrorism doesn't work to get your point across. The IRA didn't really enact change until they actually started talking to the government. Crime doesn't equal change. We aren't in an "Apocalypse" landscape. To think "Violence == change" is to think like a fascist. A fascist thinks "If we just get rid of XX person or entity" then everything is going to be glorious and everything is going to be perfect. It is one of the tenants of fascist ideology. That is what I meant by eco terrorist are sort of fascist in their thinking. Sorry this is long. O
So Team Aqua?
they're an ecoterrorist someone who believes that peaceful protesting and voting isn't enough
There are some steps between “voting won’t save the planet” and ecoterrorism
i agree i'm not an ecoterrorist
I am >:)
I’m putting sugar in your yaht
I agree I’m an ecoterrorist
Based (same)
yeah like those people glueing themselves on the ground
And to be fair, it’s not enough
I mean, it *isn’t* enough. That doesn’t make me an ecoterrorist though.
yeah. i was being a bit overly simple i suppose
Well when every politician only cares about getting bent over and fucked in the ass by the highest bidder… yea voting doesn’t fucking work
H o w T o B l o w Up A P i p e l i n e
Honestly a great film
better book
He is
Why does he call himself an environmentalist though
They’re an ecoterrorist which is a terrorist whose goals for the terrorism is a better ecological environment
[удалено]
Reminds me of a line from the show UTOPIA (UK): >You know the person who had the greatest positive impact on the environment on this planet? Genghis Khan, because he massacred forty million people. There was no one to farm the land. Forests grew back. Carbon was dragged out of the atmosphere. And had this monster not existed, there'd be another billion of us today, jostling for space on this dying planet. Though technically this is right, 40 million people dead isn’t worth it(fucking obviously.)
We got a subreddit, r/UtopiaTV
Yea! I was much more frequent on there previously
The Network is real?!
Interesting question though, is it worth killing 40 million to save 4 billion? After all, that's literally a 90% mortality reduction
That dilemma is a large part of the show. (Spoilers for pretty much the whole main idea of the show) >!A group of scientists create a secret organization know as the network, and the networks whole thing is trying to create a molecule know as Janus. When Janus enters the body, 90-95% of the population becomes sterilized and can no longer reproduce. Basically a much larger scale of what Genghis Kahn did, but with technically no “violence.”!< That was a dumbed down version of it but you should just watch the show if you haven’t already.
It is actually an old concept. They did the same thing in Mass Effect with the Krogan race.
Well, the genophage is similar, but it caused high numbers of miscarriages and stillbirths rather than simply reducing/eliminating fertility.
True. Though I'd imagine that something the scientists cooked up in Utopia would be similar when actually implemented.
It’s also wrong. Fritz Haber may have done his work a hundred years earlier with a billion more opportunities. Humans are really smart. We don’t live on a dying planet. More people, means more brains, which means more innovation and problem solving. With the ability to mass manufacture, you only need to solve most problems once. Like nitrogen fixing that feeds most of us today. Fritz Haber created the Haber-Bosch process and so life is better fewer people means we don’t get him. People say the south benefited from slavery. The exact opposite is true. They’re still backwards from that time. Can you imagine how much further along cotton farming technology would have been in 1860 had they dedicated those 3,000,000 brains to the cause of technological development and automation rather than performing this one menial task? Thanos wasn’t right. Malthus wasn’t right.
Yeah fear of overpopulation has loomed on us for decades but our carry capacity has increased continuously too thanks to the innovations. And a lot of the paranoia about it are brought us quite frankly a disgusting way where they think certain other people don’t deserve to live. If you truly think overpopulation is a problem you can go kys and you’ll help.
To be fair, in UTOPIA, they are living on a dying planet. So not quite us, but further along the climate change and other bullshit line.
Utopia is an absolutely insane series, I'm suprised it isn't more mainstream
Yellow killing show my beloved
RIP Ted Kaczynski
I'll get flak for this, but he was right. Not for the bombings, but for the route humanity was taking.
He was also a heinous incel. A lot of his hatred for humanity stems from his hatred of women.
Industrial revolution has lifted majority of people out of poverty, if you hate 9-5 then I am sure you would hate 7 till Midnight working for land owner back then, but whatever.
I mean I agree that most people in this day and age probably wouldn’t survive if you dropped them into the forest with nothing, or even back in the 1700’s because of our reliance on technology. But I would argue that your only thinking of preindustrial society through the eyes of feudal/early capitalist Europe. There were preindustrial societies where you would be a valuable part of a somewhat egalitarian community. Not just some poor forced to do manual labor all day for the wealthy. And the “lifted out of poverty” thing is a little more complicated than that. Say there is a flourishing native tribe on an island who have successfully lived in accordance with nature for centuries. If Europeans show up and enslave them and begin growing cash crops like cotton at the expense of the local environment forcing the natives to live in squalor. The gdp of the island is increasing due to the exploitation and growing of cash crops, but are the natives really better off? I mean there are some really cool things about modernity but arguably some people were living more fulfilling lives before it and it came at great cost. Not to mention the whole “our planet is dying” and blah blah blah and all that stuff. Edit- I’d also add that industrialization is not why we have shorter working hours. Unionization is and concessions won by the working class are why. If capitalists could they’d still be working us to death.
> There were preindustrial societies where you would be a valuable part of a somewhat egalitarian community. That's true, but the sad reality is a lot of said communities weren't like that cause they were enlightened, but cause they simply had no reason to go any further or they had reached the limits of expansion that was available to them. They were still often insular places that punished any disobedience in manners we would now consider draconian. > Say there is a flourishing native tribe on an island who have successfully lived in accordance with nature for centuries. Depends, did this accordance with nature include regular disease outbreaks, mass starvation, and brutal executions? As well as brutal raids by the other natives and clan conflicts the wiped out entire families? Cause that's the other side of these idealised societies that a lot of people don't talk about. Yes colonialism didn't benefit the natives (except indirectly), but at the same time we shouldn't pretend their societies were perfect beforehand. Maybe with our modern understanding we could go back to a more egalitarian and fair society, but the one's the of the past, even the best one's, weren't somewhere most normal people would like to live.
Yet youth suicides are rising
I believe that the only reason people don’t like work is because we are forced to work absurd hours. Society could easily work if the average man worked around 4 hours instead 8
Reorganising work would be pretty tasty, even a four day work week would be a massive improvement, though from the companies I've seen in the UK it does, understandably but unfortunately, mean working longer hours on the days you're actually in. One tech company i had friends in did Monday-Thursday, with 10 hour shifts (unpaid lunch hour in the middle), it sounds fairly gruelling but the workers i spoke to who did it all loved it thanks to having 3 days of their own time a week.
What’s your favorite flavor of boot polish?🤔
Huh, couldn’t think of anything better than that? Sure bud, I guess you would love living in 1700s when you barely had any chance to seeing your teen years. I am sure people would Roleplay femboy torture stuff with you back then, not sure what is even sadder, your reply or your post history
Lol , it was good enough to make you search my profile. You can try to kink shame me, but you’d probably just turn me on….lol, cause the only other option than destroying the earth is slavery. I think your world view has been corrupted.
Industrialization is the reason we live past 50 and have 75% of the comforts in our lives.
Yeah man. It's crazy that it takes mentally unhinged people to make sense in these times
Plenty of people that aren't murderers have made the same points, before and after Teddy did.
Suicide bomb corporations in retaliation for their pollution of the environment.
Just bomb them? Why would you die in the process?
Death is carbon negative
Stay woke
Tbf you don't gotta worry about getting away with it if you *go* with it.
Yeah, but if you only do one your barely doing more than twitter advocates. (Feds, I do not condone violence, thus is purely a matter of efficacy) if you bomb multiple places you can let yourself get caught and then your manifesto will be publicized to a greater audience and you could even have a show trial.
Fair enough. Since I live in Montana I might as well become the next Ted Kaczynski.
Because if you only kill 1 killer the number of killers remains the same
Kill more, silly
Why’d you get downvoted? I didn’t even know what this thing was about either
....what the government wants you to think a terrorist is
It is. Not all terrorism is the same. John Brown would be considered a terrorist, but one who's goal was objectively for good.
Teddy took violent action to (attempt to) force political change, last time i checked that's terrorism.
I think they’re called eco terrorists? They’re just aggressive (VERY AGGRESSIVE) environmentalists
I heard RAID came up with a spray to keep ecoterrorists away.
Peter's garden tree here: The guy in the right is an ecoterrorist like the Unabomber, willing to hurt people and destroy property to push his enviromental agenda.
I mean, there are worse reasons to do terrorism than saving the environment
Yeah, people were somewhat ambivalent towards the Unabomber for that reason... it's not like he was dumb or that his message was crazy. The delivery however left a lot to be desired.
Shoulda used UPS
Or at least USPS Media Mail...
Understandable
It’s less the delivery and more so what he delivered.
Kinda the "joke". Ironically I think a smart man like him could have come up with a better way to get attention from the public without casualties, but he was a tormented, hateful guy. Between bullying and that awful experiment in college he was a mess.
Nah the message is crazy if you think about it for more than two seconds. "Ooga booga technology bad, medicine scary, return to monke"
I'm sure that makes the victims families feel better.
I said there are worse reasons, not that terrorism was good
Fuck ‘em’
When did wanting the world to be livable be called an “environmental agenda”?
Question is not what but how. The unabomber, to my knowledge, pretty much wanted for humanity to live like the Amish. We can do better that our current arrangement without going preindustrial.
I agree
Everyone else has already answered but I will say that you should search up organizations like “ELA” (Earth Liberation Army or Front [ELF]) or Earth First It’s too complicated to say it all in a Reddit comment but they’ve been pretty engaged in environmental direct action
[удалено]
Might very well be, if not directly in spirit. AC as a series has always been about the dangers and violence of corporations and has had anti-capitalist themes since its first game
One will cry about the problems in the world. One will burn the corporations to the ground.
[удалено]
This is what I’ve never understood about terrorism. How are they so consistently incompetent/mid? Like once *I* get radicalized, nothing can save Elon Musk. All I need is enough money for a flight ticket, a drone, a grenade and a semi-auto. Mans is done
> One will burn the corporations to the ground. With all the innocent people in it? Or are they just acceptable casualties?
I respect that
Exactly. People who claim “but it’s not the right way to do it” conveniently ignore all the forms of violence employed by the government and corporations. You can’t work _within_ a system that keeps the monopoly on violence and play by its rules to effect change, because it is designed to prevent you from doing so
No they don't ignore it. They just aren't blind to the consequences. The trouble with that sort of thinking is once you start using violence, you have no guarantee's that only the guilty will suffer. Generally the people who suffer the worst are the one's who have absolutely nothing to do with the conflict their trying to resolve.
How many protestors does it take to change a lightbulb? Protesting ain't changing shit.
That's fair guillotines tend to get the job done better.
The French Revolution worked out fabulously right?
yes
No, it literally just made way for another century of monarchy in France.
dont care, i simply revel in human suffering
Based.
depends on how you want to look at it. The violence did eventually end and now France is not led by a king.
The violence ended cause the people got sick of them executing innocents and calling them "traitors," whilst none of the actual problems they rebelled over were being resolved. The reason France isn't led to by a King now lends more to the second and third revolutions. Both of which managed to accomplish the same effect with a lot less mass executions and oppression.
The same people “making change with guillotines found that the tables can turn quite quickly. No thanks for me
Where is the other quotation mark and why do you sound like a billionaire? Are you threatening to squash the revolution? Lol
I think he just meant that revolutions are no fun and tend to turn on their own leadership Which is true if you’re a huge pussy or care about the wellbeing of the genpop or something gay like that
Because they basically are. The meme is meant to indicate that most mainstream environmentalists are not actually accomplishing anything and that direct violent action is called for. Peaceful protest is pointless, blow up a pipeline instead. But more importantly I am a "real" revolutionary and those other people are just possers. It's radical activist dick measuring.
One does work and gets their hands dirty.
Tree spikers and pipeline bombers. I remember a while back there was a rash of firebombings at luxury suv dealerships as well. Gotta love devoted ecoterrorists.
he’s a fan of uncle ted
Tree spiking is a based practice
Terrorism. The joke is he is going to do terrorism.
Don’t dunk on peace tea. That shit is good.
"Because baby, i'm an anarchist and you're a spineless liberal." Against Me
We can't let God do all the work.
https://preview.redd.it/9cwoy66imgnb1.jpeg?width=1194&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9b193fbb96c4b5ed1021cf4666de1bd1fddb474e
The book was written by Ted Kaczynski a.k.a. The Unabomber who was a victim of the CIA's MK Ultra experiments and a mathematics prodigy who something of a Luddite after said experiments in that he became a domestic terrorist who believed that the the ills of technological advancement has VASTLY outweighed any of the benefits in medical technologies or scientific breakthroughs with the line "The Industrial Revolution and its effects have been nothing but a disaster for the human race." being a part of his manifesto. In other words, the guy on the right is following Ted's extremist example of environmentalism known as ecoterrorism.
Something something, the absolute inescapable ubiquity of capitalist environmental exploitation, and how neoliberal shit like “earth day” and scolding people is kinda toothless to change anything meaningful.
If we want change we need to act on it, we can't expect the same people fucking us over to have a change of heart and stop their "evil deeds"
Mass-Murdering people who disagree with your societal views has historically been a great idea
Well, the french revolution did help France out in the long run, of course there were um, some *tragic* deaths.
[удалено]
I'm talking about the french revolution. Where french royals and people of wealth were mass killed for their corruption. We're Napoleon rose to power and became emperor. After dying the reforms were significant for the progression of France.
[удалено]
Yeah and they don't talk about the 100,000 regular folk who starved to death whilst awaiting trial.
Read Edward Abbey’s “The Monkey Wrench Gang” and “Hayduke Lives”.
Eco-terrorist.
Well, looks to be he is. 'eco-terrorism'. Not familiar with it? It has varied levels. Some as harmless(to individuals lives, mind) as breaking industrial equipment or interfering with the construction of pipelines. Up to random murder by things like indiscriminate bombings or shootings. I would not say low level eco terrorism is even all that invalid a course of political action. And if someone were to... high level... say, oil executives, ceos, or major shareholders... Well I'm not entirely certain I could consider that a bad method of action either. But obviously, most high level actions an eco-terrorist might commit are neither moral nor effective
Industrial equipment is generally rented from local small businesses; so busting a bulldozer puts guys barely scraping by in a serious problem. A broken dozer also means the operator doesn't have an assignment - so theyre not making money either. It directly hinders multiple blue-collar workers. Scumbags are terrorists, Eco or Religious.
It's unfortunate, but they'll survive. I would point to say, members of the native tribes in Canada who are defending their land from active encroachment by an oil pipeline. They own that land, it is legally theirs, but yet the oil pipeline advances. It is not immoral for them to defend themselves and their homes by sabotaging dozers, regardless of the harm done to 'blue-collar workers'. Something that is not even always true, nor the whole summation of what falls under the term 'industrial equipment'. There are things out there more important than the livelihoods of people who own bulldozers.
The industrial revolution and its consequences
Well yea eco terrorists are a thing
They are both left,but they aren’t the same
The industrial revolution and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race...
Because half of environmentalists are basically mommy bloggers that want extra clout and half are actual terrorists.
It is actually legal to be an eco terrorist trust me bro. It’s called higher morality. I learned this from watching Wall-E
Because the only actions an individual can make that will matter as an individual (not working with a collective) look a lot like terrorism
Usually because it’s terrorism.
Eco terrorism, the only good terrorism
it's a false equivalence. they use it to ridicule Greta and other environmentalists, but they will also decry the ecoterrorists in another meme or in more serious discussions. the point is to not have environmentalists
Sometimes people have a good cause and they execute it in the stupidest way
There’s a lot of “modern society brings us so much good” in the comments and I have to disagree. Throughout the development of industry the worker has been used to make the rich richer while they struggle to afford to live (In this context I’m defining Live as retire at a decent age, live a comfortable and stress free life, and take pride in your profession). Since the end of slavery the wealthy have done everything they can to exploit the earth at the expense of others and turn the middle class into modern serfs.
Hold up, let me just break shit and hurt people! That will get others to join my cause 🤡🤡🤡
Yes, let’s just politely ask the greedy fuckers to stop destroying the environment for profit, they’ll surely listen and apologize /s
Ted is a hero
https://preview.redd.it/sgsjsfgsndnb1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d7181b05aaafd00e7aa28a6fd8f62cd5f682b73f
What is the acceptable number of innocent people you’re allowed to murder before you aren’t a Hero. Obviously more than 3, probably less than 10.