the Unabomber's Manifesto

[Repugnant Abomination]

I agree. He's pretty uncompromising in his views, too. He says you can't separate the good of technology from the bad, which I'm not so sure about. But his ideas about surrogate activities, feelings of inferiority and defeatism are pretty right on in my opinion. I'm going to read over it again, because there's so much there.

[Mr. Blonde]

He sounds like he's quite the absolutist, which is hardly ever a successful viewpoint. There will always, always be bad in this world, we will never eliminate ill will or evil, ya know. And it's not like we live in a dystopian era or anything right now, or ever...there have always been dark times in certain parts of the world at certain points in history, and i'm sure that will continue until we reach some form of global unity or something.

[Repugnant Abomination]

Ok. Go read the manifesto now.

[Repugnant Abomination]

I just sent this to my Editor to be published in the University paper next week:


The Unabomber’s manifesto
Through the late 1970’s to the mid 1990’s the American terrorist Ted Kaczynski carried out numerous bombings by mailing explosives to people. He was a certified genius, testing with an IQ of 167 as a relative child. Fast forward a few years and he was admitted to Harvard at 16, where he scored at the top of his class. So what drove him to bomb his fellow man over the course of nearly 20 years?
What led to Kaczynski’s capture was the New York Times publishing his Manifesto, a 35 page essay that his brother’s wife recognized to be written in Kaczynski’s distinct voice. The man was reviled as a monster and barely escaped the death penalty. He now lives out his remaining days in prison with a life sentence and no possibility of parole.
Before I continue I would like to say that this is not a pity party. I’m not trying to gain sympathy for the man, and I’m not trying to justify his attacks. What I am interested in is understanding why he did them. The answers are in his manifesto.
For those who haven’t read it, his manifesto is a scathing attack on the industrial revolution and its consequences for man. He argues: “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…and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world.” While some of this is subjective, I think he may be onto something.
What indignities are we suffering, you might wonder. According to Kaczynski our technology has created a situation where people feel inferior. They have a feeling of powerlessness and have a defeatist attitude. I think that all one needs to do is look at the current situation of American politics to know what he’s talking about. One always holds the hope for change, that the system can be fixed, but people are cynical for a reason. The amount of manipulation that takes place in the media alone is just one example of how we are constantly bombarded with rhetoric used to sway opinion and deceive the public.
Trying to summarize a 35 page essay in a little column is impossible. What I’ve provided is a glimpse, and I encourage anyone who is interested to read the manifesto at: http://www.thecourier.com/manifest.htm.
Some might argue that I’m promoting someone who shouldn’t be promoted. My response to that is I don’t think we should discredit someone’s ideas because of their actions. Clearly his bombings were wrong, and even unnecessary – someone with his status could have easily gotten attention for his manifesto through reputation alone. But regardless of how wrong his methods were it doesn’t mean his ideas are.
The human machine continues, and will continue, to push forward at break neck speed. At this point, barring catastrophic disaster, I don’t think there’s any way to slow this train down - Kaczynski’s dream of a technology free world is all but impossible. And even though I personally believe that technology does as much good as it does bad, there’s still no harm in thinking about it, if at the very least for the environments sake.

[Ironic Mustache]

I started reading it but ran out of time and haven't been back to it yet. Though I know you agree with some of his ideas (I'm sure I will too once I've completed it) but you have to admit that this guy is a nutjob. Not only because of the bombings either. He's WAY far fetched with a lot of stuff... I just hope that I'm not sifting through a pile of shit looking for something quality that isn't there.

[Repugnant Abomination]

It's okay to criticize, but be more specific so I can either agree or disagree.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

Now that you've made a complete fool of yourself to your RL peers, let me explain to you why Kacynski's manifesto is garbage. Kaczynski had an IQ over 160. He also fits a perfect profile for someone with schizoid and narcissistic personality disorders. Having a high IQ --being able to rotate geometric shapes effortlessly inside ones mind, etc -- adds no credibility to someone’s belief system.

Its ridiculous to take someone's theory on human psychology seriously when that person has no emotional intelligence himself, or any experience with people in general. He lived his entire life in seclusion, and formulated his theories without any empirical evidence. His bitter take on what he calls "leftism" is silly. He states political correctness stems from some sort of inferiority complex, when there are people all over who are in power, have high self esteem, and are politically correct.

He says the main reason society has so many "psychological problems" is because people can't express the inherent need for the "power process" and it makes everyone’s self esteem low or some jazz like that, because we are all stuck in the cogs of industry.

Below is his explaining why technology, not overpopulation is the source of the worlds problems. You can clearly see he is just postulating and making up facts as he pleases. Where are his sources??? "Seems" and "probably" litter his thought. Seems to who? Seems according to the ramblings of a madman. His train of logic makes sense, but the problem is he starts with false premises. I've bolded places where he makes up premises out of thin air. All of his theories have the same problem, and are sophist at best.

53. Crowding, rapid change and the breakdown of communities have been widely recognized as sources of social problems. but we do not believe they are enough to account for the extent of the problems that are seen today.

54. A few pre-industrial cities were very large and crowded, yet their inhabitants do not seem to have suffered from psychological problems to the same extent as modern man. In America today there still are uncrowded rural areas, and we find there the same problems as in urban areas, though the problems tend to be less acute in the rural areas. Thus crowding does not seem to be the decisive factor.

55. On the growing edge of the American frontier during the 19th century, the mobility of the population probably broke down extended families and small-scale social groups to at least the same extent as these are broken down today. In fact, many nuclear families lived by choice in such isolation, having no neighbors within several miles, that they belonged to no community at all, yet they do not seem to have developed problems as a result.

56.Furthermore, change in American frontier society was very rapid and deep. A man might be born and raised in a log cabin, outside the reach of law and order and fed largely on wild meat; and by the time he arrived at old age he might be working at a regular job and living in an ordered community with effective law enforcement. This was a deeper change that that which typically occurs in the life of a modern individual, yet it does not seem to have led to psychological problems. In fact, 19th century American society had an optimistic and self-confident tone, quite unlike that of today's society. [8]

The fact of the matter is there were psychological disorders before the Industrial Revolution. They just weren't defined or categorized as they are today. Neurotic behavior was explained as hysteria, witchcraft, and possession.

Ted likes to use the american frontier as the example of what life should be like w/o industry. The fact of the matter was that the American frontier was different from other countries because it was new and had not reached the threshold of overpopulation. (The native americans had lived there but were nomadic and had primitive agriculture) Of course there was a confident tone on the American frontier. You could go out and claim a stake of land for yourself and the natural resources were more than plenty. But allow only a century or so and after a population boom america would become just as stagnant as Europe had been for the last millenia.

You simply have to look at life before the Industrial Revolution. Was the world a wonderful Utopia? No, it was shit. Before the Industrial Revolution there were three classes of people in all major civilizations. The aristocracy, the clergy, and the masses. How did the masses of serfs, proles, <insert your name your term for lowest social classes of pre-industrial times here> satisfy their inherent need for the "power process?"

THE major change in the industrial revolution was agricultural. All of the sudden only a small portion of the population was need to farm to support everyone. And since this monumental change occurred, social mobility, freedoms, and the standard of living have increased worldwide. There is no "machine." There is only a social contract that allows protection and freedoms that would not exist without it. The Free anarchy that Ted thinks could be achieved without technology doesn't exist and it can't even by Kaczynski’s logic because the "Power Process" will always tempt people into exercising power over others and we will always default back to some sort of bondage without it.

[Ugly Bastard]

Nicely done, ID.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

thankyou, did i sound smart?

[Repugnant Abomination]

I'll respond to this tomorrow when I have more time. I'm going out right now.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

*cough

[Repugnant Abomination]

Dizzork,

I agree with most of what you said. Maybe I gave the wrong impression? Clearly a lot of the shit he says is baseless and down right looney, mostly to do with "leftists". I went back and revised my column to make it clear I don't think a lot of what the manifesto says is right. I still stand by the idea though that we shouldn't disregard it because he was somewhat crazy and bombed the shit out of people. The majority of what I wanted to talk about was his commentary on the industrial revolution. While I think that it has caused a lot of good, I think it's also caused a lot of harm, some blatant and some more subtle. I think the key is not to get rid of technolgy, but shift our thinking on it. Kacynski is an interesting launch pad for the discussion, because he's a character, and a genius.

[vaga1220 *]

The guy pooped in a hole.