Ted Kaczynski is a genius and a hero. I recommend the small book he wrote very highly. It is called 'The Unabomber Manifesto: Industrial Society and its Future'. He wrote this manifesto before he was arrested. So it must have been written around 1996 at the latest, just when the Internet first began appearing in peoples' homes. His basic argument in this book is very sound and makes rational sense. And since 1996, technology has certainly increased even more dramatically; by leaps and bounds actually. And all this is to the great DETRIMENT of the basic psychological HUMAN fulfillments, dignity and self-worth that every person requires.
As technology increases, the REAL needs of the human soul and mind DECREASE. And people will be amazed at how accurately he predicted what the dystopian future would hold for us, if the technocracy wasn't destroyed. Thar future we are living in right NOW - if it can really be called "living". Hail Dr. Theodore Kaczynski, a hero for the ages. I salute you and the sacrifice you made for humanity. And it was your own blood brother who sold you out and caused you to be arrested and confined. You can't get any more low down than that. Your own BROTHER. I may be posting various sections of his book here in the future.
16 comments
Ok, so first of all, I want to ask: What the hell is up with the Wikipedia article of Kaczynski? Why are the only receptions given to his "manifesto" by people who seem to adore his way of thinking? No critical reception whatsoever! About a text that is so clearly biased and more or less whining about how technological developements have made it so hard to hold on to "traditional values", that entertainment and science are not "worthy" goals and that we should all oppose technology and go back to nature before the (not clearly defined) "social system" puts us all under its control. The whole text stinks of someone who hates that his ideals are not shared by the rest of society and doesn't see the problem in himself (where they probably lie) but in the so called "system", whatever that might be. Not to mention that he assumes going back to nature would help humanity restore its "freedoms" (in reality a thinly veiled naturalistic fallacy that ignores the simple fact that humans are and always will be social animals who trend towards some kind of governance and hierarchy, something anarchists and libertarians often seem to conveniently forget). His subsequent bombings also show his paranoid and egocentrical nature. He might have been a great mathematician, but he was as far from being a philosophical genius as I can imagine and DEFINITELY no hero.
No thank you. Much as I like nature I prefer it in occasional doses of varying amounts.
Ask 10 people about abstract philosophical stuff like "the real need of the human soul" and you'll get 15 different answers. Only the truly arrogant (and often, very stupid) people think they have everything figured out.
Ted is a murderer and a bum.
"And all this is to the great DETRIMENT of the basic psychological HUMAN fulfillments, dignity and self-worth that every person requires."
Some more than others...
image
Which REAL needs have vanished, btw?
You can get lower than that, dolt. Murdering innocent people is much lower than alerting the police/FBI to your murderous brother.
According to Wikipedia, the essay is called "Society and Its Future".
It was dubbed "The Unabomber Manifesto" by FBI.
@ChrisBP747
Kaczynski has nothing to do with Social Anarchy or Libertarianism whatsoever. It's anarcho-primitivism at best.
in reality a thinly veiled naturalistic fallacy that ignores the simple fact that humans are and always will be social animals who trend towards some kind of governance and hierarchy, something anarchists and libertarians often seem to conveniently forget
Thus you're a conservative, if not outright a fascist. What will you say next? That Recep Tayyip Erdogan's attack on Rojava was fully justified? That religion is good because it upholds hierarchy? That we should live in an absolute monarchy à la Saudi Arabia because (what can be barely considered as) democracy is irredeemably flawed?
@hydrolythe
Actually, I was just paraphrasing what he said in his own damn manifesto, so...
And no, I'm neither conservative nor fascist. I don't say that this is a good thing or something to strive towards (otherwise I would commit a naturalistic fallacy myself). I'm just saying that I've heard both hardcore libertarians and anarchists (and I'm pretty sure Kaczynski saw himself as the latter to some degree) arguing that if only humans wouldn't have ANY kind of or at least only a very hands-off kind of government, and everyone was out for himself everything would be much better, ignoring that governments didn't create themselves, but are (probably) emergent qualities that exist because we definitely are social animals. Therefore at some point we always tend to return to some kind of hierarchical/governed state. That includes ANY form of government, including democracy. If it isn't politicians who govern it's the people with the most ressources. What I'm trying to say is: In my opinion an anarchic (or even just a libertarian) utopia would become unstable very fast, leading to the redevelopement of some form of governance. I don't put any moral value on this. I'm very much someone who cares for democracy and for social liberties. Please don't be so fast on your judgement next time.
@ChrisBP747
I'm just saying that I've heard both hardcore libertarians and anarchists (and I'm pretty sure Kaczynski saw himself as the latter to some degree) arguing that if only humans wouldn't have ANY kind of or at least only a very hands-off kind of government, and everyone was out for himself everything would be much better, ignoring that governments didn't create themselves, but are (probably) emergent qualities that exist because we definitely are social animals.
As far as I know, your criticism only applies to egoistic anarchism. In general, anarchists and libertarians don't want everyone out for themselves. Mutualists and anarcho-syndicalists definitely don't fall into that category. Also, libertarians generally want a government that is pretty hands-on when it comes to protecting property.
Therefore at some point we always tend to return to some kind of hierarchical/governed state. That includes ANY form of government, including democracy. If it isn't politicians who govern it's the people with the most ressources.What I'm trying to say is: In my opinion an anarchic (or even just a libertarian) utopia would become unstable very fast, leading to the redevelopement of some form of governance.
You say you're not a conservative, but Edmund Burke, the archetypical conservative, implied heavily that humans were naturally inclined to do evil unless the social and hierachical institutions of the time were preserved. He went as far as to hate the French Revolution because it overthrew the existing order. Your opinions mirror way too much those of Edmund Burke. How are you going to distance yourself from the label conservative? Is it because you're on board with liberal traditions such as a limited government?
I don't put any moral value on this. I'm very much someone who cares for democracy and for social liberties.
That's great, but it's not unheard of conservatives to be pro-democracy and social liberties as well. I do however agree that that means you're not a fascist.
Please don't be so fast on your judgement next time.
You did little to convince me that you're not a conservative. But hey, I got the fascist part wrong, so I guess you're right.
@hydrolythe
Well, I was probably generalising too much in regards to libertarians and anarchists. I am talking about the "egoistical" variants, which Kaczynski favored (see his manifesto if you don't believe me). Let's leave it at that, since from my experiences with both libertarians and anarchists and from everything I've heard from them about their ideology I must say that I'm just not a fan in general.
Ok, so first of all: I'm what we here in Germany call "social liberal" (don't know if there is an english equivalent for that label): I'm very much for social liberties, not so much for radical free market and limited government ideals. I'm for a balanced government (with its limits being social liberties and human rights, and its main focus being to serve the people by holding both up against economic, social and political forces). Again, I'm not putting moral values like "without a government, everyone would be evil" on it, I'm just more confident (from experience) that a government can defend human rights than the free market can. I'm also not in any way someone who tries to "conserve" traditional values (human rights being a relatively new invention historically speaking) so I don't really know how the label "conservative" applies to me. Or let me put it differently: On the "Authoritarian to Libertarian" axis I'm somewhere around the middle and on the "Economic-Left to Economic-Right" I'm moderately on the "Economic-Left" side.
So if that makes me a conservative (I don't know how though) then that might be the case. Never thought of myself as such though and never heard anyone calling me one before either.
@ChrisBP747
According to Wikipedia:
Social liberalism (also known as modern liberalism or egalitarian liberalism) is a political ideology and a variety of liberalism that endorses a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights while also believing that the legitimate role of the government includes addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care and education.
If this label perfectly describes your political ideology then you're indeed a social liberal.
According to Wikipedia again:
Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization.
So I guess you're indeed not a conservative.
Look; I'm all for focusing on "what matters", not being a tech-zombie and living simply but looking to a weird hermit who mailed bombs to people is not what I'd do.
Also; Tech is fine, as long as you don't get so obsessed that you lose your time, money, sanity, health and human relationships.
Life is about balance....Female & Male, Yin & Yang, Spirit & Flesh, Life & Death, Faith & Reason, Logic & Intuition, etc.
Among that....Natural & Technological.
Tech can be good and used to preserve Nature and vice-versa.
The Unibomber was wrong, a terrorist, a murderer and an idiot.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.