He still blames Jews, niggers, women, communists, whites, capitalists, racists, atheists...

The bombs ended up destroying themselves though.

>People in the past were happier!!!
>has no data to back any of it up

Just another MKUltra Tranny mindslave

Attached: takbir.jpg (306x410, 16K)

no society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation

His aim was to try and explain to human beings how technology has made us less happier. Had he mentioned jews a single time, the entire zog ridden world would be talking about how he hated jews instead of his core message

you fucking idiots his favorite philosopher was jacques ellul, a man who was a french guerrilla fighter killing stupid ass Nazis (actual nazis) who occupied his country.

he was saved jews, and received a medal of honor for that from Yad Vashem.

Attached: 1532606082016.png (800x600, 159K)

so he proved that technology isn't good.
BAsEd AnD rEdPiLLeD

>he like one jew
>therefore he liked all jews

Hunter gatherers and medieval serfs both worked fewer hours than you, wagie

Attached: 0A570E45-1AB3-4D57-A81E-2CBC65359471.jpg (3000x2000, 2.24M)

excuse me this is a board for white people who use toilet paper and toilets to take a shit and wipe their ass's

>implying he didn't blame communists

It doesn't means nothing

>229. The leftist is oriented toward large-scale collectivism. He emphasizes the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. He has a negative attitude toward individualism. He often takes a moralistic tone. He tends to be for gun control, for sex education and other psychologically “enlightened” educational methods, for social planning, for affirmative action, for multiculturalism. He tends to identify with victims. He tends to be against competition and against violence, but he often finds excuses for those leftists who do commit violence. He is fond of using the common catch-phrases of the left, like “racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia,” “capitalism,” “imperialism,” “neocolonialism,” “genocide,” “social change,” “social justice,” “social responsibility.” Maybe the best diagnostic trait of the leftist is his tendency to sympathize with the following movements: feminism, gay rights, ethnic rights, disability rights, animal rights political correctness. Anyone who strongly sympathizes with ALL of these movements is almost certainly a leftist.

>The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can't make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.

jacques ellul was an anti-fascists, a real one who put bullets in nazi scum

>"Back in the sixties there had been some critiques of technology, but as far as 1 knew there weren't people who were against the technological system as-such... It wasn't until 1971 or 72, shortly after I moved to Montana, that I read Jaques Ellul's book, The Technological Societv." The book is a masterpiece. I was very enthusiastic when I read it. I thought, 'look, this guy is saying things I have been wanting to say all along.'"

primitivism.com/kaczynski.htm

Attached: jacques-ellul-606832.jpg (640x852, 122K)

Is this where I sign up on the terrorist watch list?

Attached: 1392429892375s.jpg (250x203, 12K)

He's right you know.

>people in the past: no big corporations secretly supervising your life, a beautiful wife and family, no industrialized shitty food, no multiculturalism, harmonic live with nature.
>people today: transgender sons, cucked by Jamal, n*ggers chimping out everywhere, chemicals in water making frogs gay, nature fucked up.
Oh today's life is good

>we should all live happily in shacks in the woods untill the sun expands killing us all

Hes right about a lot of psychological analysis but his solution is retarded.

The sun will kill us a lot faster if we continue as we are.

Nothing really happened. Power changed its appearance. We're divided between arguing about which concentrations of power are the true culprits of society's ills: big govt or big business, but they're both equally guilty. They're both really the same thing. We discarded Kings for ever expanding regulatory governments. We discarded royal houses of nobility for multinational oligopolies dominating almost every aspect of trade and commerce. After the revolutions, the individuals were supposed to safeguard against such concentrations of power before they grow too large, and instead we fell asleep at the wheel. We fell for the new packaging.

we need more people like ted today

youtube.com/watch?v=QAGxy85R380

youtube.com/watch?v=jOBYECtS8t0

Attached: ff7.jpg (500x275, 17K)

Save it faggot, for someone as ignorant, such as yourself.

Attached: 1436347493036.jpg (824x573, 107K)

How did you actually find a toilet in the oven? Remarkable

Attached: TEDK.jpg (666x500, 135K)

Damn. I am getting that shit sent to my library tomorrow.

You obviously haven't read his manifesto. Everyone in this thread is a faggot.

>Jaques Ellul
you mean The Technological Society? yeah its a good book im reading it now. some stuff are hard to get but its an excellent book

>When our savants characterize their golden age in any but scientific terms, they emit a quantity of down-at-the-heel platitudes that would gladden the heart of the pettiest politician. Let's take a few samples. “To render human nature nobler, more beautiful, and more harmonious.” What on earth can this mean? What criteria, what content, do they propose? Not many, I fear, would be able to reply. “To assure the triumph of peace, liberty, and reason.” Fine words with no substance behind them. “To eliminate cultural lag ” What culture? And would the culture they have in mind be able to subsist in this harsh social organization? “To conquer outer space.” For what purpose? The conquest of space seems to be an end in itself, which dispenses with any need for reflection. We are forced to conclude that our scientists are incapable of any but the emptiest platitudes when they stray from their specialties. It makes one think back on the collection of mediocrities accumulated by Einstein when he spoke of God, the state, peace, and the meaning of life. It is clear that Einstein, extraordinary mathematical genius that he was, was no Pascal; he knew nothing of political or human reality, or, in fact, anything at all outside his mathematical reach. The banality of Einstein's remarks in matters outside his specialty is as astonishing as his genius within it. It seems as though the specialized application of all one's faculties in a particular area inhibits the consideration of things in general. Even J. Robert Oppenheimer, who seems receptive to a general culture, is not outside this judgment. His political and social declarations, for example, scarcely go beyond the level of those of the man in the street. And the opinions of the scientists quoted by tExpress are not even on the level of Einstein or Oppenheimer. Their pomposities, in fact, do not rise to the level of the average.

>Their pomposities, in fact, do not rise to the level of the average. They are vague generalities inherited from the nineteenth century, and the fact that they represent the furthest limits of thought of our scientific worthies must be symptomatic of arrested development or of a mental block. Particularly disquieting is the gap between the enormous power they wield and their critical ability, which must be estimated as null. To wield power well entails a certain faculty of criticism, discrimination, judgment, and option. It is impossible to have confidence in men who apparently lack these faculties. Yet it is apparently our fate to be facing a ‘‘golden age” in the power of sorcerers who are totally blind to the meaning of the human adventure. When they speak of preserving the seed of outstanding men, whom, pray, do they mean to be the judges. It is clear, alas, that they propose to sit in judgment themselves. It is hardly likely that they will deem a Rimbaud or a Nietszche worthy of posterity. When they announce that they will conserve the genetic mutations which appear to them most favorable, and that they propose to modify the very germ cells in order to produce such and such traits; and when we consider the mediocrity of the scientists themselves outside the confines of their specialties, we can only shudder at the thought of what they will esteem most '‘favorable.’* None of our wise men ever pose the question of the end of all their marvels. The “wherefore’* is resolutely passed by. The response which would occur to our contemporaries is: for the sake of happiness. Unfortunately, there is no longer any question of that. One of our best-known specialists in diseases of the nervous system writes: “We will be able to modify man’s emotions, desires and thoughts, as we have already done in a rudimentary way with tranquillizers.’*

>Why, then, promise us extraordinary comforts, hygiene, knowledge, and nourishment if, by simply manipulating our nervous systems, we can be happy without them? The last meager motive we could possibly ascribe to the technical adventure thus vanishes into thin air through the very existence of technique itself. But what good is it to pose questions of motives? of Why? All that must be the work of some miserable intellectual who balks at technical progress. The attitude of the scientists, at any rate, is clear. Technique exists because it is technique. The golden age will be because it will be. Any other answer is superfluous.

youtube.com/watch?v=BOCtu-rXfPk