
“Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the Unabomber - roelp_be
https://www.roelpeters.be/industrial-society-and-its-future-the-intelligent-yet-angry-writings-of-a-terrorist/
======
stared
I was stuck by this passage from an interview
([https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-an-
int...](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-an-interview-
with-ted-kaczynski)):

> In living close to nature, one discovers that happiness does not consist in
> maximizing pleasure. It consists in tranquility. Once you have enjoyed
> tranquility long enough, you acquire actually an aversion to the thought of
> any very strong pleasure—excessive pleasure would disrupt your tranquility.

> Finally, one learns that boredom is a disease of civilization. It seems to
> me that what boredom mostly is is that people have to keep themselves
> entertained or occupied, because if they aren’t, then certain anxieties,
> frustrations, discontents, and so forth, start coming to the surface, and it
> makes them uncomfortable. Boredom is almost nonexistent once you’ve become
> adapted to life in the woods. If you don’t have any work that needs to be
> done, you can sit for hours at a time just doing nothing, just listening to
> the birds or the wind or the silence, watching the shadows move as the sun
> travels, or simply looking at familiar objects. And you don’t get bored.
> You’re just at peace.

~~~
shadowgovt
It's nice words, but a man who mails bombs to other people instead of just
letting them exist apart from himself clearly hasn't achieved tranquility,
regardless of what he would have other people believe.

~~~
ethanwillis
Not to argue that it's valid to mail bombs as a result of ideology but this
part is disingenuous.

> instead of just letting them exist apart from himself

From his vantage point they weren't letting him exist apart from themselves.

"The best place, to me, was the largest remnant of this plateau that dates
from the tertiary age. It's kind of rolling country, not flat, and when you
get to the edge of it you find these ravines that cut very steeply in to
cliff-like drop-offs and there was even a waterfall there. It was about a two
days hike from my cabin. That was the best spot until the summer of 1983. That
summer there were too many people around my cabin so I decided I needed some
peace. I went back to the plateau and when I got there I found they had put a
road right through the middle of it" His voice trails off; he pauses, then
continues, "You just can't imagine how upset I was. It was from that point on
I decided that, rather than trying to acquire further wilderness skills, I
would work on getting back at the system. Revenge. "
([https://web.archive.org/web/20090318135703/http://www.insurg...](https://web.archive.org/web/20090318135703/http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/tedk.htm))

~~~
shadowgovt
The tranquility he's describing would, I imagine, guide one to understand that
you can't control other people's actions. And even if the wilderness around
him was shrinking, he still had plenty of it.

A tranquility that kills people that harshes its buzz isn't tranquility.

~~~
ethanwillis
From the same interview I linked in my parent comment. He was killing in the
name of protecting tranquility itself. Why is it that shrinking tranquility is
seen as politically legitimate but protecting it is not?

"I decided to relate to him the story of how one of my graduate advisors, Dr.
Resnick, also a Harvard alumni, once posed the following question in a seminar
on political legitimacy: Say a group of scientists asks for a meeting with the
leading politicians in the country to discuss the introduction of a new
invention. The scientists explain that the benefits of the technology are
indisputable, that the invention will increase efficiency and make everyone's
life easier. The only down side, they caution, is that for it to work, forty-
thousand innocent people will have to be killed each year. Would the
politicians decide to adopt the new invention or not? The class was about to
argue that such a proposal would be immediately rejected out of hand, then he
casually remarked, "We already have it--the automobile." He had forced us to
ponder how much death and innocent suffering our society endures as a result
of our commitment to maintaining the technological system--a system we all are
born into now and have no choice but to try and adapt to. Everyone can see the
existing technological society is violent, oppressive and destructive, but
what can we do?"

~~~
notahacker
> Why is it that shrinking tranquility is seen as politically legitimate but
> protecting it is not?

'Protecting tranquility' is perfectly politically acceptable: environmental
and NIMBY lobbying organizations are often widely admired and achieve
significantly more success than the Unabomber could ever have hoped to
achieve. He is not criticised for seeking to 'protect tranquility' but for a
campaign to murder people connected with things he despised in a manner which
carried not even the slightest hope of a net increase in tranquility.

~~~
ethanwillis
I think you're confusing my arguments with my personal belief on whether or
not murder is acceptable. I'll just say fullstop it's not.

Now, as to your current argument that these organizations have been more
successful than Ted ever could have been. I want to believe they have been,
yet reality does not reflect this.

At best they have only slowed the destruction of the environment. At worst
they enable a technological society to carry on with their destruction with a
clear conscience. If you look at the world today and in 10 years will these
organizations have ceded ground or will the machine continue on?

That is, do these organizations make further environmental destruction net 0
(or in a good case reverse said damage?). I would say no. Even from Ted's time
to today the environment is worse and shrinking day by day.

The reason Ted felt that "violent rebellion" was necessary is because these
organizations can't possibly stop the inevitable results of what technological
society does. They're only a stymie, a stopgap, not a long term solution.

The more INTERESTING argument is, is technological society acceptable?

~~~
shadowgovt
> Now, as to your current argument that these organizations have been more
> successful than Ted ever could have been. I want to believe they have been,
> yet reality does not reflect this.

They demonstrably have been. Organized NIMBY campaigns, including campaigns
containing a part of illegal land occupation but no part of mailing package
bombs to individuals, have shut down all manner of development, including both
nuclear power plants and oil pipelines.

All the Unabomber accomplished was a lifelong stay in prison, the death of
three people, and the injury of dozens more. By your strong metric, neither
approach is successful. By a weaker metric, an organized campaign that doesn't
include bombing people is partially successful.

~~~
ethanwillis
It's not my strong metric. It's his strong metric. You only quoted the first
part but I'll try to streamline the point.

The point is that their approach is only going to slow down the status quo,
not permanently change it. Whether his approach was successful or not is
besides _my_ point. His approach was not successful, no.

However some of the criticisms he levies are valid. Which the one I'm trying
to convey. That some alternative approach must be formulated that will have a
lasting impact. Partial success is not a substitute for actual success.
Neither is a failing approach.

~~~
qpooqpoo
"His approach was not successful, no."

According to what criteria do you make this determination?

~~~
shadowgovt
He's in jail, and the course of history has basically gone unchanged.
Development, both in the town he was living in and nationwide, has gone on.

~~~
qpooqpoo
This only makes sense if you place a limited and arbitrary timeframe on when
"success" must be achieved, and what the "success" should be. Remember, the
communist manifesto was published in 1848, and by your standard of "success"
things more or less remained unchanged until the ideas in that manifesto
culminated in the Russian Revolution of 1917--nearly 70 years later. Kaczynski
understands this lag, and is quite sober and realistic about the long-term
effect of ideas. This is adumbrated by the manifesto:

"If the system succeeds in acquiring sufficient control over human behavior
quickly enough, it will probably survive. Otherwise it will break down. We
think the issue will most likely be resolved within the next several decades,
say forty to a hundred years." \--Industrial Society and Its Future, paragraph
162.

Further, your statement implies an assumption which is not correct. The
implication you're making is that because things have so far remain unchanged,
Kaczynski's actions were therefore unjustified and/or his writings were not
true. This does not follow. Just because an anti-tech revolutionary movement
has not (yet) materialized and the industrial system is not (yet) under
serious revolutionary threat does not invalidate the truth of Kaczynski's
ideas or the validity of Kaczynski's actions. You would not be justified in
implying this any more than you would be justified in claiming Galileo had no
effect or was wrong because he was placed under house arrest and almost nobody
believed him (at the time).

~~~
qpooqpoo
Now, when looking at the short-term (historically speaking), Kaczynski's
actions have been a resounding success. The manifesto and his other works are
read by millions--far far more than if they were published traditionally where
they would have been buried or left obscure. You may disagree with this point
given the new media technologies and their leverage. But even in that case
this overlooks a far more important aspect relating to revolutionary dynamics:
Kaczynski's works have established themselves as the most radical and
oppositional ideas in our world today by virtue of their violent context. This
has the (necessary) effect of preventing the ideas from being co-opted and
keeping away mild, reformist types who are offended by the actions (which is
exactly what you WANT to do in the formation of any revolutionary movement).

~~~
shadowgovt
Mein Kampf has also been read by millions, but nobody claims Hitler's work was
a resounding success. Is your criteria for success simply "Someone reads your
manifesto?"

~~~
qpooqpoo
On this point you would do well to read the third chapter of "Anti-Tech
Revolution." In it, Kaczynski argues for why an anti-tech revolution as he
lays out would succeed and why its success would be more or less permanent
while all other social revolutions and goals have failed and were
fundamentally doomed to fail.

~~~
shadowgovt
I've read him. I find his philosophy to be two things:

1) self-consistent

2) deeply misanthropic

As with so many seductive political philosophers (Rand and Hitler spring
immediately to mind), he creates a framework that checks out against its own
internal logic and that would work great if (a) humans behaved the way he
needs them to behave for his system to work and (b) you ignore all the death
and suffering his solution demands.

~~~
qpooqpoo
"(a) humans behaved the way he needs them to behave for his system to work."

This is flatly wrong. Humans aren't "needed" to behave in this system in any
way other than they have always behaved throughout history. The revolutionary
ideal is not to create a utopia, or to control society and human behavior, it
is only to destroy the industrial system. the world that will remain will
approximate the world prior to the industrial revolution: full bellies and
hunger, sickness and health, greed and compassion, etc. etc. But it's a world
where the biosphere and humanity are not threatened with existential
destruction.

"(b) you ignore all the death and suffering his solution demands."

No need to "ignore" anything. You just have to come the the conclusion that
FAR more death and destruction lays in store for humans and the biosphere if
technology is allowed to continue. This is a matter of facts and logic and can
be reasonably deduced. You can;t somehow shirk from your intellectual and
moral responsibility to think about something simply because it's painful to
think about, which is essential what your doing. Would it be wrong, for
example, for the Allies to have ever considered fighting and defeating Nazi
Germany because it would entail millions of people suffering, regardless of
the consequences of not doing anything???

~~~
shadowgovt
> But it's a world where the biosphere and humanity are not threatened with
> existential destruction.

That's unfortunately false. The technology stack needed to divert asteroids is
significant; bringing humanity to a pre-industrial revolution doesn't
guarantee the safety of the biosphere, it guarantees the biosphere is
unmodifiable by human activity. That leaves the biosphere vulnerable to
threats that humans could use technology to intervene against but will be
unable to.

> No need to "ignore" anything.

If one doesn't ignore the death and suffering but instead condemns humanity to
it purposefully, with the flip response "But in a technological society,
people will die anyway," that's misanthropic, and that's the part where his
philosophy demands humans act other than they will. Fewer humans are suffering
and dying---even with the threat of climate change---in a world where we have
a technology stack that can move vast resources around.

Avoiding the death of billions of people by crashing the industrial
infrastructure so billions of people die is a non-solution. Practically,
nobody will go for it. Philosophically, nobody _should_ go for it; it's the
solution of throwing up one's hands and saying "into Nature's good graces we
should go," and Nature's graces have never been good. "Red in tooth and claw"
is the moniker she tends to carry.

There's no guarantee that if we keep the industrial society, billions die to
climate change. Technology gave us the power to shape the climate and (if we
choose to invest the time and effort) it can give us the power to shape the
climate beneficially. If we pull the technological society up by its roots and
return to the pre-industrial society, billions die from starvation, disease,
and natural disaster, as we are no longer able to move resources to help them.

~~~
qpooqpoo
Thank you for this discussion. Suffice it to say I think you are dead wrong
here. But a debate on the points you now raise is beyond the time I have to
devote now.

------
lucideer
I have to say I had the exact opposite reaction.

I was also intrigued by the depiction in the Manhunt series and read the
manifesto as a result.

In the TV show, Kaczinky is portrayed as a highly intellectual, informed,
educated individual, mentally thwarting his interviewer in their debate on
morals and politics. After building up that expectation of Kaczinky's
intellect, the manifesto is an enormous disappointment. It's filled with base
broad assumptions, ignorant and unresearched assertions on "leftism" and in
particular his treatise on "oversocialization" is so transparently a defensive
lashing out at the elements of society that have not been personally accepting
of him.

Throughout, his arguments are made as plain, implicit statements. Nothing is
approached in an evidence-based manner and there are no attempts to contradict
obvious counter-arguments. His "facts" are simply stated as self-evident.

Take e.g.

> _it’s likely that many leftists of the oversocialized type would say that
> most people, including themselves, are socialized too little rather than too
> much, yet the oversocialized leftist pays a heavy psychological price for
> his high level of socialization._

This is centred around the idea of society imposing restrictions on our
autonomy through socialization; we believe strongly in our own freedom. He
proposes that "leftists" have this belief in their own freedom, but that this
freedom is a delusion. A delusion that results from their own
oversocialization. At no point does he explain how/why leftists are more
oversocialized than non-lefists, or why he believes that he himself is not
delusional in his sense of his own autonomy.

There are some central elements in there of value (his general focus on the
importance of effort and autonomy in fulfillment I would agree with), but
these can be found discussed more articulately in better writings without
being padded with political/social nonsense.

Overall, the manifesto is not worth reading.

~~~
Swenrekcah
>He proposes that "leftists" have this belief in their own freedom, but that
this freedom is a delusion.

Interesting, because my pet theory is that what determines if people lean left
or right is their belief in their own free will.

Those that truly believe they are completely free and autonomus from society
and their environment will naturally favor right wing policies, but those that
believe they are largely a product of their environment will favor left wing
policies.

This belief is perhaps (probably) not always explicit but rather somehow
implicit or 'felt'.

~~~
andrepd
Doesn't really matter what you "believe" if it's demonstrably true that you're
shaped by your environment.

~~~
wisty
Any reasonable definition of "you" would suggest a mind with free will (at
least to a certain level of approximation).

Also, aside from any philosophical mind / matter or free will / predestination
arguments, it's not just a question of what _is_ , but what is a more adaptive
belief.

------
daenz
Some people here can't seem to separate ideas from the person who generates
them, and that is sad. You can hate what a person did and still try to
understand why they did it. That does not equate to support for them. It's
this kind of closed-mindedness that is driving people apart all over the
world.

~~~
zozbot234
> Some people here can't seem to separate ideas from the person who generates
> them

Would these writings be considered famous or even worthwhile if it wasn't for
this person's actions? I think the answer is quite clear.

~~~
luckylion
Infamous is probably the right word. His writings aren't something that
everybody owns or that's taught in school. I don't believe a majority would
know the author if you asked them who wrote "Industrial Society and its
Future".

I also don't believe that a majority considers it worthwhile, it's a minority
that this line of thought speaks to, and I'm relatively sure that they'd find
it appealing even if he hadn't ever done anything but write books.

------
tptacek
I don't understand the fascination. Kaczynski was deeply ill, in ways that
were somewhat apparent even before we knew he was trying to murder people, as
he repeatedly failed to live a life in the continued presence of others.
Instead, he lived in a dirty shack with a hole cut in its floor as a toilet
(the irony of the lifestyle upgrade he's received with his cell in ADX
Florence is widely noted). Kevin Kelly does a good job of putting the
manifesto itself in context; there's little in it that hasn't been articulated
well elsewhere. For decades, he struck out practically at random --- we all
read about Gelernter, but less attention is paid to the time he attempted to
down a passenger airplane. To me, it's all just another instance of us
mascotizing the mentally ill. If these ideas appeared instead in a LiveJournal
archive, nobody would care.

It's not that his writing or his ideas are dangerous; deranged killers will
find reasons to maim and murder people whether or not we write blog posts
about "manifestos". It's that there's so little reason to believe any of his
work is worth our time.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I'm somewhat familiar with Kaczynski. I bought my first computer at a computer
store he bombed, and I met one of his victims firsthand - once before the
bombing, and once after. I've seen firsthand the pain that he caused another
human.

But I'm not familiar with him trying to crash a plane. Can you give some
specifics on that?

~~~
tptacek
Look up AA 444.

------
rainworld
Direct link to the manifesto:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/national/longterm/unab...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm)

------
LatteLazy
Plenty of people have pointed out that changes to society create problems and
even leave us worse off in terms of happiness or health or freedom etc. I'd
recommend Jared Diamond on agriculture for a shorter, better written, non
homicidal alternative:

[https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-worst-
mist...](https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-worst-mistake-in-
the-history-of-the-human-race)

But here is thing: you don't get to decide. You're whole society doesn't get
to decide. You have to do what guarantees your survival, not your
happiness/freedom/comfort/honour etc.

If you reject technology or agriculture or weapons, you may well be happier
for a while. Then you're technological/agricultural/militaristic neighbours
will come over and wipe you out.

American Indians were famously happier, healthier, freer people than European
settlers. Now they're mostly gone. It's not nice, but it's reality.

~~~
leto_ii
> But here is thing: you don't get to decide. You're whole society doesn't get
> to decide.

This is why we have established what is sometimes called a 'rule-based
international order', so that we can have a world where might makes right
doesn't apply anymore. Where the weak get protection and the strong are
compelled to act morally and legally.

Unfortunately, of course, the rules mostly stay on paper and the world
continues to be driven by power and violence. This however doesn't mean that
we shouldn't push for a better world and that we shouldn't hold people and
nations responsible for their brutality.

~~~
LatteLazy
This is the core issue: how do you get everyone, every single person on earth,
all 7bn to agree not to be dicks, not to want more than a bare subsistence
lifestyle, not to engage in violence or coercion and not to invent tech?

If we could solve human nature, we could have any ideological system.
Communism would work, or anarcho capitalism or whatever.

But we can't.

We can't get people to cut back enough to avoid a global warming catastropy.

~~~
leto_ii
> how do you get everyone, every single person on earth, all 7bn to agree not
> to be dicks

Unfortunately, as you can imagine, I don't have an answer. I'm actually quite
afraid that there's no answer and that we as a species aren't capable of large
scale rational and compassionate cooperation.

The global warming catastrophe won't wait for us. I'm quite afraid that my
life won't end nicely. I don't expect to have a long and peaceful retirement.

~~~
zozbot234
> we as a species aren't capable of large scale rational and compassionate
> cooperation.

Most likely true, as far as it goes. Ironically enough, the closest thing we
get to 'large-scale (even world-scale) rational and compassionate cooperation'
is the very "industrial society" mentioned in the OP. You may not like
industrial and post-industrial society, but it's not clear that there's any
alternative if you want "everyone" to be involved.

------
roelp_be
I was intrigued by "Industrial Society and its Future" by Ted Kaczynski after
watching the "Manhunt" series on Netflix. As a techno-optimist it helped me
put my feet on the ground. If you're like me, I can recommend the book. Not a
fan of books? Read my blog post.

~~~
DyslexicAtheist
I urge anyone who reads Kaczinski to dive into Jacques Ellul. Kaczinky was
heavily inspired by his writing. I studied Ellul for around 2 years and I
can't say that it didn't effect my whole attitude on "Tech as a solution" for
our problems. I certainly understood (although I don't condone) why Kaczinsky
did what he did:

The Technological Society:
[https://archive.org/details/JacquesEllulTheTechnologicalSoci...](https://archive.org/details/JacquesEllulTheTechnologicalSociety)

Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes:
[https://archive.org/details/Propaganda_201512](https://archive.org/details/Propaganda_201512)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Ellul](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Ellul)

~~~
yters
I guess not completely inspired by his writings:

> Ellul explained his view in this way: "By anarchy I mean first an absolute
> rejection of violence."

------
shmageggy
First, this post title is worded like clickbait. (edit: it has been updated)

Second, can someone suggest alternative readings for those of us who don't
want to give attention to work that was publicized via terrorism and murder?

~~~
DyslexicAtheist
Jacques Ellul (read his "La Technique" first - don't start with "Propaganda"
which builds on it):

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23746429](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23746429)

[https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=Jacques%20Ellul&sort=byPopularity&type=all)

~~~
crabmusket
La Technique is excellent and I'm stoked to see someone recommending it. But
it's very dense. I imagine it would also be highly frustratig to a lot of
people here for its polemic style and his fast-and-loose approach to
citations. (I always remember his line "books are meant to be read, not
consulted".)

The first 2/5 of the book would probably suffice to get a good understanding
of his argument. I read and loved the whole thing, and it's been very
influential on my thinking since then.

Two articles which cover his work:

[https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/confronting-
the-...](https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/confronting-the-
technological-society) [https://crabmusket.net/blog/it-turns-everything-it-
touches-i...](https://crabmusket.net/blog/it-turns-everything-it-touches-into-
a-machine/) (disclaimer, I wrote this)

There is also the 76 questions, which you can find across the internet and
which are attributed to Ellul:

[https://76questions.tech](https://76questions.tech)

------
torb-xyz
If you want to read a critique of modern industrialization and it impact on
nature and society by someone who’s not a violent terrorist and has solutions
beyond blowing shit up Murray Bookchin is probably a betyer bet.

~~~
DyslexicAtheist
another great author for understanding the dangers of reductive "Systems
Thinking" and how state & power takes away freedom (via Technology) is James
C. Scott.

I prefer quoting Ellul in this context though because he was instrumental in
forming Kaczinsky's views.

------
oldsklgdfth
"The concept of “mental health” in our society is defined largely by the
extent to which an individual behaves in accord with the needs of the system
and does so without showing signs of stress."

This part made me question the mental health of our society today. This are
large swaths of the population that use amphetamines, antidepressants, anti-
anxiety medication just to be able to function on a day-to-day basis. Maybe
the problem is not exclusively in the individual, maybe some of this stems
from society.

This idea along with some writing of Marcus Aurelius helped me find some peace
of mind and try to reduce the influence the external world has on me.

~~~
cameldrv
This was also Foucault's point in Madness and Civilization. You can see this
clearly when society's needs change. Someone who might be diagnosed as a
psychopathic mass murderer in peacetime might be given a medal in wartime.

------
jamesdhutton
He murdered people to publicize his manifesto. I feel that if I were to read
it, I would be encouraging others to kill to get their views known. So I won't
be reading it, regardless of its merits.

~~~
daenz
Do you think you are doing your part to discourage future murderers from
publishing manifestos? It's hard for me to follow the logic of how what you
describe works.

~~~
orisho
While just not reading it likely has no effect, making this public post about
it might dissuade others from reading and discourage manifesto publishing.

~~~
daenz
It seems like their energy is better spent educating themselves on the
controversial material so that they can explain to people why they think the
conclusions in it are wrong.

FWIW, I'm actually made more curious when people discourage me from reading
something, so they may want to rethink the actual impact of that strategy.

~~~
orisho
I'm not though. It had the intended effect on me. I don't believe what he has
to say is so revolutionary that I'm missing much by not reading it, and I
agree with the sentiment that I'm respecting the Unabomber's goals by reading
it - so I just wont. Good ideas are a dime a dozen, the tricky part is
execution. Fortunately, murder is usually an ineffective way to affect public
policies.

------
rorykoehler
My main takeaway from the Unabomber Manifesto is that to give up is to fail.
We only have one valid way out of this and that is using the tool set
(technology) that got us into this mess to get us out of it. All other options
will result in unthinkable suffering and destruction (given that we have to
work with the constraint that we already have 7B+ people on the planet).

------
vanderZwan
> _Theodore J. Kaczynski is an extremely intelligent yet wounded man_

Just a heads-up to the poster (who seems to also be the person who wrote the
blog), but the link in this passage goes to the wiki page for Bullshit Jobs by
David Graeber, while I suspect it was intended to link to Ted Kaczynski's page

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski#Industrial_Socie...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski#Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future)

------
skrebbel
Most western societies have some core values that, although often under
pressure, most people generally subscribe to. Eg freedom of speech,
bothsidesism, etc.

I wish we could add one to the list: if you commit violent acts, we will
ignore what you said, no matter how much or how little sense it makes.

Like, there's millions of weird extreme right manifestos out there, but the
one by Anders Breivik is the only recent one that got attention because he
killed an island full of young politicians. This bothers the shit out of me.
How can media that pretend to hold high journalistic values do this?

Same of Kaczinsky. The moment he started blowing up buildings, he lost the
right to be part of the debate in my opinion.

This is basically the media version of "we don't negotiate with terrorists /
kidnappers / hostage takers / etc". In each individual case, it usually _does_
make sense to negotiate. The reason states and organizations often take the
position to not negotiate by policy, is because it encourages _more_
terrorism, kidnappings and hostage situations.

As it stands, we're actively encouraging the use of violence to amplify an
argument, and this blog post takes part in that. I have no doubts about the
authors good intentions, but I'm flagging it nevertheless.

~~~
Miner49er
Do you actually do this? You do realize that means you need to ignore the
police, military, and virtually every politician? Especially every person who
has been president.

~~~
dangerface
Yes of course, all these people you mentioned work for me they follow my
orders not the other way around, why would I give a flying fuck what a
politician though?

I don't care what the military of France has to say if they start shit, my
countrys military will end it and me, my country and our military won't give a
flying fuck what the France military or policy or politician has to say.

I get a lot of people just want a big strong benevolent [police, military,
politician, president, terrorist] to rule and make them feel safe but power
pisses on the weak.

------
ajuc
Kaczynski is the Paulo Coelho of terrorists.

Writes deep-sounding phrases that (almost) everybody agrees with and that
provide zero new information.

------
bm3719
“The honest truth is that I am not really politically oriented. I would have
really rather just be living out in the woods. If nobody had started cutting
roads through there and cutting the trees down and come buzzing around in
helicopters and snowmobiles I would still just be living there and the rest of
the world could just take care of itself. I got involved in political issues
because I was driven to it, so to speak. I’m not really inclined in that
direction.”

[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/theresa-kintz-
interv...](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/theresa-kintz-interview-
with-ted-kaczynski)

------
PuffinBlue
I did. And wrote about it[0]. And I'm not a techno-optimist but you won't find
much to truly learn in the manifesto if you are one.

The manifesto is far more about 'control' than it is about technology. He
spreads the blame to the Left, the Over-Socialized, the 'Elite' and technology
- with thinly veiled stopover at the 'stupid' too.

And by 'control' he doesn't simply mean control through technology, it's about
Kaczynski's feelings of a lack of control over his own life and he latches
that onto this 'industrial society' concept.

But in the manifesto, if read carefully, it shows he really wants to be free
from control of the 'elite' and to return to having power (literally the power
process) over the entire abstract concept of life - by which I mean to be
completely outwith the control of external actors.

That's not to say he was 'wrong', in the post I argue in some ways he was
right about control and 'industrial societies' effects on the individual, just
misplaced in it's singular application to technology/industrial society
(control will emerge from any system) and uttely abhorrent, unforgivable and
unfollowable in his actions in pursuit of 'bringing down the system'.

Some of my concluding thoughts for those who don't read long posts:

"The manifesto has left me convinced of his anger against a system that abused
him, even a sense of pity and understanding that he took the actions he did.
But I can in no way even begin to accept what he did was right or even
remotely the correct way to achieve his aims.

If anything, he damaged his cause immeasurably.

I find much of the way he conducted himself in the face of a society he didn't
like to be repellent and lazy, running away to bomb and kill those ignorantly
innocent of any part in the 'great industrial-technological society' he hates
so much.

It's just such an unintelligent response to the objective goals he set. Which
has to lend credence to my suspicion that a lot of the content in this
manifest was really about his personal issues and not an intellectuals
response to an industrial-technological society.

There is nothing to be lauded in this manifesto. There are points that deserve
exploration and debate, perhaps even non-violent action - even the criminal
can be correct after all - but nothing more.

To me it is the malformed logic of an angry and mistreated man, an intelligent
one, but not one who should be forgiven his crimes."

[0] [https://www.josharcher.uk/blog/industrial-society-and-its-
fu...](https://www.josharcher.uk/blog/industrial-society-and-its-future-an-
analysis/)

~~~
DyslexicAtheist
to understand Kaczinsky is impossible without reading Jacques Ellul. His time
in the woods doesn't make sense, his anger doesn't make sense, his slow (yes
slow) self-radicalization and his terrorism doesn't make sense. Reading the
Manifesto alone is what leads to terrible one sided takes like the Netflix
documentary with its good-cop-bad-criminal narrative. if all one wants to do
is confirm their position why he should be in jail (and he should) than the
Manifesto is enough, but to understand the man you got to read what actually
radicalized him. Read Ellul!

~~~
dangerface
> His time in the woods doesn't make sense, his anger doesn't make sense, his
> slow (yes slow) self-radicalization and his terrorism doesn't make sense.

What part of this doesn't make sense? He did hide from society to wallow in
his loathing of society until he had radicalised him self all the while
blaming society for his actions. Yes that is exactly what I got from reading
the manifesto he is an uncomfortable human-being who blames every one else for
his uncomfortableness and uses technology as a scape goat.

> but to understand the man you got to read what actually radicalized him.
> Read Ellul!

This I agree with there is no reason to read his manifesto as no understanding
can be gained from it without first understanding the topic and if you know
the topic there is no reason to read it because it doesn't raise any new or
interesting ideas in the topic.

People can read it if they wan't I did im not going to stop any one, but even
if I wanted to recommend some one understand the ideas he was talking about I
wouldn't recommend him simply because he just doesn't know what he's on about.

------
raxxorrax
Very, very smart, but very disturbed man. If you are interested in reading
manifestos from murderers, which might not be the best leisure time pursuit,
this one is actually good compared to the common nazi stuff.

------
cm2187
I am no fan of cancel culture / deplatforming people but I do make an
exception for terrorists. I don’t think we should be promoting the manifesto
of terrorists as it creates horrible incentives, and vindicates their action.
I agree with the approach of obfuscating their names and not reporting on
their manifesto.

If you want to make a grand standing against science and technology, please
find another source.

~~~
Synaesthesia
Why don’t you say what you disagree with and provide a criticism?

~~~
cm2187
Again, this isn't about the manifesto. It is about giving a platform to a
terrorist. It is because they knew their manifesto would be published and read
that the terrorists behind the 2011 Norway attacks or Christchurch mosque
attack acted that way. And it worked as planned, providing incentives for more
acts of terror.

If you want to make a criticism again science and technology, please do. But I
think it is inappropriate to publish or reference a terrorist's manifesto.

~~~
Synaesthesia
If you care about terrorism and stopping it, then you should not ignore what
they’re saying. Sometimes they’re saying something important.

I don’t think this is going to encourage anyone to carry out acts of violence.

~~~
cm2187
ISIS has something important to say that I should read? My lifestyle isn't
conform enough to the standards of Wahhabism?

~~~
Synaesthesia
You have to use your judgement. For example the 9/11 hijackers were angry that
the USA was occupying Saudi Arabia militarily and that the Israel/Palestinian
issue hadn’t been resolved. I think those are legitimate demands.

~~~
zozbot234
If you listen to what these militant Islamists say in _Arabic_ (as translated
by reliable third-parties such as MEMRI) you get a _very_ different picture.
The asserted motivations are entirely or almost-entirely religious and linked
to militant Islam itself; there is no reference to reciprocity of any kind
with the Western world.

------
fennecfoxen
I think Ted gets the fundamentals a little bit off, and the entire work is
unsound as a result. Society doesn't just magically become more repressive
because of the need of industrial society to be more "organized". It becomes
more repressive because of powerful people who find personal profit in
organizing it in a repressive way.

The powerful have always been able to oppress the weak, and abandoning all
technology to go anarcho-primitivist leaves the powerful better-resourced than
ever, and leaves you scraping out a marginal living. Moreover, as technology
continues to advance, the need for mindless conformity is further eroded. Mass
production was pretty mind-numbing, but now we have robots to do the most
mindless tasks, and we are getting more of them.

The solution to control and repression, now as ever, is to structure society
so that ambition can counteract ambition, to enshrine the rights of the people
in law, to jealously guard those rights, and to inculcate the next generation
in their value. The US Constitution does an absolutely world-class phenomenal
smashing good job of the first two, such that even as society has been doing a
mediocre job at guarding them and teaching their value, we're still getting
by, and improving.

If you'd like to fight control, in the abstract, don't bomb people: preserve
the system that protects us through civic engagement, and work to build a
culture that celebrates the robust defense of rights like free speech
(including, critically, of unpopular people you don't like who are targeted by
the mob or by the powerful) and other civil rights (criminal justice issues in
particular).

------
thefounder
You have little power over diseases without technology, not to mention that a
disability may render you worthless/good as dead so you can count me out of
this "back to the cave" movement.

If you want ultimate "tranquility" build a spaceship and conquer the ultimate
frontier alone. Nobody will bother you in the cosmic void.

------
Synaesthesia
We can have a society in which people don’t need to work hard, and all our
material needs are satisfied. That would be much preferable to the current
one, in which much of the population lives precariously, stressfully and
frustrated.

------
qpooqpoo
Also check out Kaczynski's books: "Technological Slavery" and "Anti-Tech
Revolution."

------
mrslave
Another "How to get a FBI file in just one click!" post.

But I suppose I should be more open minded. Just because someone famously does
wrong does not mean everything they say is wrong, right?

