622
Subscribers
+224 hours
+117 days
+2130 days
Data loading in progress...
Similar Channels
No data
Any problems? Please refresh the page or contact our support manager.
Tags Cloud
Incoming and Outgoing Mentions
---
---
---
---
---
---
Attracting Subscribers
September '26
September '26
+5
in 0 channels
August '26
+31
in 3 channels
Get PRO
July '26
+10
in 1 channels
Get PRO
June '26
+11
in 0 channels
Get PRO
May '26
+19
in 0 channels
Get PRO
April '26
+44
in 3 channels
Get PRO
March '26
+40
in 2 channels
Get PRO
February '26
+67
in 4 channels
Get PRO
January '26
+66
in 3 channels
Get PRO
December '25
+83
in 4 channels
Get PRO
November '25
+167
in 9 channels
Get PRO
October '25
+24
in 0 channels
Get PRO
September '25
+45
in 0 channels
Get PRO
August '250
in 1 channels
Get PRO
July '25
+59
in 1 channels
Get PRO
June '250
in 1 channels
Get PRO
May '25
+33
in 2 channels
Get PRO
April '250
in 1 channels
Get PRO
March '25
+107
in 1 channels
| Date | Subscriber Growth | Mentions | Channels | |
| 03 September | +1 | |||
| 02 September | +2 | |||
| 01 September | +2 |
Channel Posts
| 2 | This is a quote from a letter by Ted Kaczynski called "On the Environmental crisis and individualism" | 58 |
| 3 |  To me, it seems only slightly encouraging that some physicists are becoming concerned about moral issues in the applications of science. The fact is that they are still dedicated to the advancement of physics. Even if it is used only for "good" ends, scientific progress makes possible, and indeed encourages, the increasing centralization and over-organization of society. Thus individuals gradually become reduced to the status of gears in a machine. When scientists use science for "good" they are giving gentle treatment to the gears in the machine, but the gears are still just gears. I consider the question of whether the gears are well or poorly treated to be of secondary importance. I don't want to be a gear in a machine at all. I don't want to be taken care of by science or society. I want to make for myself the decisions that affect my own life, rather than having society make them for me. This is possible only in a comparatively loosely organized decentralized society.
- Ted Kaczynski | 60 |
| 4 |  To be generous with one's own possessions is quite different from being generous with those of posterity. We should call this point to the attention of those who from a commendable love of justice and equality, would institute a system of the commons, either in the form of a world food bank, or of unrestricted immigration. We must convince them if we wish to save at least some parts of the world from environmental ruin.
- Garret Hardin, Lifeboat Ethics
Modern liberalism dictates the norms in our society. The moment we abandon altruistic morality, we will be free from the obligation to always justify our actions in an anthropocentric perspective. Fuck economic growth, fuck GDP and fuck immigration! I want vast untouched patches of wilderness that stretch from the one side of the continent to another! | 61 |
| 5 |  The agricultural revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race... | 43 |
| 6 |  Some people want a big house, a fast car and lots of money.
Some others want a small cabin in the woods away from these kinds of people.
AntiTechRevolt❤️ | 58 |
| 7 |  We are ALL signing this.
Sign it here: Petition link🤩 | 55 |
| 8 | We are ALL singing this.
Sing it here: Petition link🤩 | 1 |
| 9 |  In Industrial society the ethics of freedom of choice that emerged during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment periods don't apply anymore. Technology develops at such a speed that the old concepts of individual rights and possibilities become meaningless. For example, population control which is needed today is clearly in direct opposition to the idea of freedom, however, it's a necessary action in order to save what's left of the biosphere (one of many necessary actions). Another example is the freedom of trade that is the center of consumerism today. Should we allow people in the developed world to obtain meaningless products or use meaningless services when these collective actions lead to serious problems (pollution among many others)? Of course not!
My point is that if we (eco-fascists and anti-tech radicals) want to reshape this world we need to abandon the old concepts of ethics/morality and embrace new ones that will apply to our revolutionary worldview. | 77 |
| 10 | In Industrial society the ethics of freedom of choice that emerged during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment periods don't apply anymore. Technology develops at such a speed that the old concepts of individual rights and possibilities become meaningless. For example population control which is needed today is clearly in direct opposition to the idea of freedom, however it's a necessary action in order to save what's left of the biosphere (one of many necessary actions). Another example will be the freedom of trade that is the center of consumerism today. Should we allow people in the developed world to obtain meaningless products or use meaningless services when these collective actions lead to serious problems (pollution among many others)? Of course not!
My point is that if we (eco-fascists and anti-tech radicals) want to reshape this world we need to abandon the old concepts of ethics/morality and embrace new ones that will apply to our revolutionary worldview. | 1 |
| 11 | ![The tragedy of the commons is involved in population problems in another way[...] Parents who bred too exuberantly would leav](){kind=small} The tragedy of the commons is involved in population problems in another way[...] Parents who bred too exuberantly would leave fewer descendants, not more, because they would be unable to care adequately for their children[...] If each human family were dependent only on its own resources; if the children of improvident parents starved to death; if, thus, overbreeding brought its own "punishment" to the germ line then there would be no public interest in controlling the breeding of families. But our society is deeply committed to the welfare state, and hence is confronted with another aspect of the tragedy of the commons. In a welfare state, how shall we deal with the family, the religion, the race, or the class (or indeed any distinguishable and cohesive group) that adopts overbreeding as a policy to secure its own aggrandizement? To couple the concept of freedom to breed with the belief that everyone born has an equal right to the commons is to lock the world into a tragic course of action.
Garrett Hardin | 71 |
| 12 |  “Never lose hope, be persistent and stubborn and never give up. There are many instances in history where apparent losers suddenly turn out to be winners unexpectedly, so you should never conclude all hope is lost.”
— Theodore J. Kaczynski | 78 |
| 13 |  "There will be no "collapse" the way some of these people think of it. It's not going to be like the movie "Dawn of the Dead" or whatever where one day suddenly shit hits the fan and prices skyrocket and everyone begins to riot and the SS comes marching down the street to kill everyone. There will be no "happening." It's far more insidious than that. Read the poem
"The Hollow Men" by TS Eliot and you'll understand.
You'll just notice that every day simple things will become a little more expensive. Everyone's homes and apartments will start to get smaller. Your work hours will get longer, but your pay will decrease. You'll see family and friends less, and find that in time you care less about them. Every day you'll find yourself lowering your standards for everything: work, food, relationships, etc. Job security will no longer exist as a concept. You'll notice houses and apartments shrinking. People will start hanging on to clothing longer and longer. Less people will get married, even less will have children. People will engross themselves in technological distractions and fantasy while never truly experiencing the real world.
Whatever dream people used to have about what their lives were going to be will become for them a distant memory. The only thing left for them will be the reality of their debt and their poverty. And every minute of every day they will be told, "You are stupid, ugly, and weak, but together we are free, prosperous, and safe."
That is the collapse. The reduction of the American man into a feudal serf, incapable of feeling love or hate, incapable of seeing the pitiful nature of his situation for what it is or recognizing his own self worth"
-4chan anon 🍀
AntiTechRevolt❤️ | 76 |
| 14 | No text... | 116 |
| 15 |  No text... | 100 |
| 16 |  “It seems amazing that those who advocate energy conservation haven’t noticed what happens: As soon as some energy is freed up by conservation, the technological world-system gobbles it up and demands more. …the system always expands rapidly until it is using all available energy, and then it demands still more. …until it reaches a limit imposed by an insufficiency of resources, and then it tries to push beyond that limit regardless of consequences.” - Ted Kaczynski, Anti-Tech revolution | 161 |
| 17 | While there is a baseless hope, or a theory or prediction, that wind- and solar-generated energy will supplant the dirty fuels presently used most, there is absolutely no guarantee of this; were it to happen, it would be contrary to all history of industrial fuels: the access to crude oil (and later refined diesel) did not end the usage of coal, nor did the utilization of oil and gasoline prevent the development of uses for and extraction of natural gas. (Similarly, natural materials which had little utility decades ago have since been put to industrial uses and so are now valued, resulting in the increased destruction or alteration of vast swaths of wild Nature in order to obtain those resource deposits.) So not only has techno-industrial society sought out and laid claim to all available coal, oil, and natural gas accessible beneath our planet’s surface, but now it wants to take the sunlight which lands on the surface and the wind which flows over it, too. Was it forgotten that evolved organisms currently utilize the sunlight which falls on them, or do these non-humans not matter if consideration of them limits Civilization staying electrified? Electricity and expendable fuel consumption has gotten more efficient, but has electricity demand ever diminished in all the time of transition between different fuels? Of course not, and the Jevons Paradox informs us that efficiency increases always bring consumption increases.
- Green Energy Vs Wild Nature | 144 |
| 18 |  “The values linked with “progress” have now become the values of another dominating regime: the technoindustrial system that rules the world today. And other new values are emerging that are beginning to challenge in their turn the values of the technoindustrial system. The new values are totally incompatible with technoindustrial values, so that the tension between the two systems of values cannot be relieved. If the new values spread and grow strong enough, the tension will rise to a point at which revolution will be the only possible outcome. And there is reason to believe that the new values will indeed spread and grow stronger.”
— Theodore Kaczynski | 116 |
| 19 | But this ignores the other aspect of the overpopulation debate (cited most commonly by proponents of socialism and deniers of human overpopulation), that the wealthier populations of the ‘Global North’ consume in far greater ratio to their lower populations. In seeking to display their patronizing un-racist egalitarianism, these liberals simultaneously (and schizophrenically) tell us that the wealthy West is consuming far too much (true, agreed) but that to drop the birth rates of Africa and Asia and South America — the ‘black and brown populations’ — all that need be done is to increase their finances relative to the overconsuming and low-populating West. The logical disconnect (or, at best, cognitive dissonance) here is utterly astounding.² the simple biological fact is that the population of any species directly correlates to its food supply, which is adequately provided by Nature and varies by bioregion. Reproducing is natural human behaviour, and should not be interfered with, including agriculture and global food distribution which interferes positively to induce population growth.
This is very true and I'm glad someone finally said it. The idea of equalising economic possibilities of the third worlders with the westerners will only increase consumption and will not solve overpopulation. Quite the contrary, it will make consumption worse, allowing millions more access and ability to produce products and services that end up as waste, polluting our planet. | 124 |
| 20 | Green Energy Vs Wild Nature.pdf | 101 |
