I remember reading "The revolution must be international and worldwide. It cannot be carried out on a nation-by-nation basis." I was like "okay so it's impossible and you're wasting everyone's time."
The critique is valid but his most interesting points are about how technology cannot solve problems created by technology. About how there is a never ending trend of needing to control more and more just to keep technological society from collapsing. That it essentially has no future according to him
The bombings were a strategy to spread his message, he doesn't need to justify them. Although he has said that he believes that some things are absolutely morally wrong, violence as part of a struggle isn't one of them.
For his biggest aim, he writes in his longer book that it is really to maintain the natural world; the damage to the environment rather than its effect on people is his main qualm with technology.
For Kaczysnki's use of the word freedom, being able to travel longer distances by car wouldn't count, since it is about being free from external control by an artificial body. You might know it more commonly as "negative-freedom vs positive-freedom."
You should look into "Tartaria Mudflood" theory, evidence that there was a worldwide flood as recently as 1812. All the "greco-roman" architecture around the world on every continent looks the same, and the mainstream historians don't have a sufficient explanation for this, there had to be some sort of global technologically advanced European civilization. Its unexplainable how Europeans from 300 years ago could have built all of those structures without technology which is more advanced than what exists in the 21st century.
blog documenting a compilation of mudflood photos:
I remember reading "The revolution must be international and worldwide. It cannot be carried out on a nation-by-nation basis." I was like "okay so it's impossible and you're wasting everyone's time."
Classic philosophist moment. 🙄
The critique is valid but his most interesting points are about how technology cannot solve problems created by technology. About how there is a never ending trend of needing to control more and more just to keep technological society from collapsing. That it essentially has no future according to him
The bombings were a strategy to spread his message, he doesn't need to justify them. Although he has said that he believes that some things are absolutely morally wrong, violence as part of a struggle isn't one of them.
For his biggest aim, he writes in his longer book that it is really to maintain the natural world; the damage to the environment rather than its effect on people is his main qualm with technology.
For Kaczysnki's use of the word freedom, being able to travel longer distances by car wouldn't count, since it is about being free from external control by an artificial body. You might know it more commonly as "negative-freedom vs positive-freedom."
You should look into "Tartaria Mudflood" theory, evidence that there was a worldwide flood as recently as 1812. All the "greco-roman" architecture around the world on every continent looks the same, and the mainstream historians don't have a sufficient explanation for this, there had to be some sort of global technologically advanced European civilization. Its unexplainable how Europeans from 300 years ago could have built all of those structures without technology which is more advanced than what exists in the 21st century.
blog documenting a compilation of mudflood photos:
https: //wakeuphuman .livejournal .com/921 .html
examples of mudflood videos:
https: //www .youtube .com/watch?v=cpC0hR-77xo
https: //www .youtube .com/watch?v=bk-o42NNQm4&list=PLJk0yT4erxuRcCMBujshjWZ-KNAHAWCx6
example of mudflood youtube channels,
https: // www. youtube. com/@jonlevichannel/videos
https: // www. youtube. com/@PhilippDr
https: // www. youtube. com/@staticintheattic1984/videos
Take your meds pls. I know many of your types and ya'll are schizos. Imtheimprobabledreamer blocked me on instagram
Aren't most of self-reported happiness scales pseudoscience?