Unabomber Manifesto: The thread that makes even Igbore fascinating… - Brawl-Hall.com Forum

BEnzo · 02-23-2012, 03:51 PM

I was watching a documentary about Ted Kaczynski (aka The Unabomber) and became interested as to the underlying motivation of his “domestic terrorist” acts (I won’t recount those here). I had forgotten about his manifesto printed in a few newspapers at the time (pushing twenty years ago), so I figured I’d give it a glance. I became somewhat intrigued. This guy actually may have been somewhat of a prophet, albeit misguided.

I will post some of the more interesting excerpts from time to time and discuss. Any other opinions are welcome.

Keep in mind “The Unabomber” unleashed a letter bombing campaign that spanned nearly 20 years. He was a Harvard graduate before earning a PhD in Mathematics from the University of Michigan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...festo.text.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prologue

Editor's Note: This is the text of a 35,000-word manifesto as submitted to The Washington Post and the New York Times by the serial mail bomber called the Unabomber. The manifesto appeared in The Washington Post as an eight-page supplement that was not part of the news sections. This document contains corrections that appeared in the Friday, Sept. 22, 1995 editions of Washington Post. The text was sent in June, 1995 to The New York Times and The Washington Post by the person who calls himself “FC,” identified by the FBI as the Unabomber, whom authorities have implicated in three murders and 16 bombings. The author threatened to send a bomb to an unspecified destination “with intent to kill” unless one of the newspapers published this manuscript. The Attorney General and the Director of the FBI recommended publication.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unabomber

INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY AND ITS FUTURE

Introduction

1. 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 (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries.

Right off the bat this guy pegged it way back in ‘95 with his opening statement. The IR (Industrial Revolution) does indeed have disastrous consequences for the human race that are beginning to slowly manifest themselves in developed countries. To make the point here in the US around 40 million people are relying on food stamps (SNAP) to feed their families. A condition completely brought about by the failure of mainly Oligopolies.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/...e-food-stamps/
As the old saying goes “We’re only a bread line away from revolution.”
If society can’t afford to feed itself, it will become destabilized.

The Third World country’s are also in turmoil, with the developed countries at the root of the problem. Mexico is a prime example (where society is truly unstable). Iran posturing to close the straits of Hormuz (thus causing a possible catastrophe to the supply of the lifeblood to the IR), North Korea causing instability wherever it can, China and Russia supporting proxy wars against the west, the list goes on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unabomber

2. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy.

I believe it will survive, but I also believe we are currently passing through the long painful adjustment period Ted speaks of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unabomber

3. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than later.

Again, valid point. I can apply this theory to China where the system is growing extremely fast and large, mostly at the expense of the people and to their detriment overall. A complete breakdown in China could spread throughout Asia and would certainly involve the West.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unabomber

4. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system. This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We can’t predict any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the measures that those who hate the industrial system should take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of society. This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society.

I find if humorous Ted used the plural “We.”
Personally, I won’t say I advocate a revolution against the industrial system. To say so implies it may not happen. There will be a revolution. I believe the seeds to its beginnings have already been sown. I have never been so alienated by political parties here in the US ever in my long life as much as now. Therefore, he’s right in my opinion, it won’t be a political revolution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unabomber

5. In this article we give attention to only some of the negative developments that have grown out of the industrial-technological system. Other such developments we mention only briefly or ignore altogether. This does not mean that we regard these other developments as unimportant. For practical reasons we have to confine our discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which we have something new to say. For example, since there are well-developed environmental and wilderness movements, we have written very little about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild nature, even though we consider these to be highly important.

I will also follow the above and Igsnore the stale parts of The Unabomber’s treatise.

Benzo’s off the keyboard-