It absolutely is. I once read a tiny part one of his manifesto, and it was full of weird leftist boogeymen without any justification. It made sense that he went ahead with terrorism rather than trying to argue his point peacefully.
Well, ask any person medical dependent advanced tech on whether they want to go back to a primitive life - and most obviously say no, as they would literally die. And also most other people like hot showers and refrigerators.
So you cannot get far with peaceful discourse - so what do you do, if the self righteous anger is still boiling? Literally blow something up apparently.
I mean I get the anger on careless destruction of wild nature. I feel it too. But bombs don't change that. They make it only worse.
In Finland we had this guy Pentti Linkola, who was a very vocal advocate of abandoning technology and living simply. He didn't resort to terrorism, although he celebrated any event where a large number of people died.
His impact was probably comparable to the unabomber, I.e., not much.
"If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating, if it meant millions of people would die."
How charming. But did he factor in the consequences for nature of big catastrophic events? Humans tend to care even less about environmental protection when their survival is at stake.
edit: but he did "founded the Finnish Natural Heritage Foundation (Luonnonperintösäätiö), which concentrates on preserving the few ancient forests still left in southern Finland and other nature conservation."
"Linkola was announced as the winner of a poll conducted by the national broadcaster Yle to determine who had done the most to preserve Finland's natural heritage"
He was also active in the early Green party, which might have had an impact of some kind. So yeah, maybe his influence was more significant than the UB's.
Comments
It absolutely is. I once read a tiny part one of his manifesto, and it was full of weird leftist boogeymen without any justification. It made sense that he went ahead with terrorism rather than trying to argue his point peacefully.
Well, ask any person medical dependent advanced tech on whether they want to go back to a primitive life - and most obviously say no, as they would literally die. And also most other people like hot showers and refrigerators.
So you cannot get far with peaceful discourse - so what do you do, if the self righteous anger is still boiling? Literally blow something up apparently.
I mean I get the anger on careless destruction of wild nature. I feel it too. But bombs don't change that. They make it only worse.
In Finland we had this guy Pentti Linkola, who was a very vocal advocate of abandoning technology and living simply. He didn't resort to terrorism, although he celebrated any event where a large number of people died.
His impact was probably comparable to the unabomber, I.e., not much.
"If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating, if it meant millions of people would die."
How charming. But did he factor in the consequences for nature of big catastrophic events? Humans tend to care even less about environmental protection when their survival is at stake.
edit: but he did "founded the Finnish Natural Heritage Foundation (Luonnonperintösäätiö), which concentrates on preserving the few ancient forests still left in southern Finland and other nature conservation."
"Linkola was announced as the winner of a poll conducted by the national broadcaster Yle to determine who had done the most to preserve Finland's natural heritage"
So he did something that worked without bombs.
He was also active in the early Green party, which might have had an impact of some kind. So yeah, maybe his influence was more significant than the UB's.
Maybe the justification is in another part of this manifesto, but you were too lazy to read it.
Just give it a look mate.