Customer Reviews

The Unabomber Manifesto: Industrial Society & Its Future

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This manifesto is very well done. Although most who think of this document will think of screwed over patients, the book is great. If one seperates from the press for some time and decides to read this as literature, you will find alot of truth. Do not read it as "the document from some messed up guy" but just as a document. Some of it is extremist, but most is not. This is a must read for anyone interested in technology, history or politics! Pick up a copy.

I just followed a link here from the interview with Larry Downes, who claims to have read the manifesto carefully. In his words "The only difference that I had with the Unabomber was the conclusion! He said, "And it's a bad thing," and I read the exact same history and said, "It's a good thing."

If this is how Downes actually feels, I'm frightened for him. Aren't you?

My favorite part of the manifesto was the description of the power process, and how advanced industrial society deflates people's ability to achieve anything. The result are the "surrogate goals" that seem to address our need for accomplishment, but do not fulfill it in a meaningful way.

The "Readers who bought...also liked..." links below are not-so-hot. If you're into this kind of discussion, search "Herbert Marcuse"

Feelings of inferiority accompanied by frustration, depression, anxiety and several other problems are largely a result of the disruption of what the author of this manifesto calls the power process. A convincing arguement that this disruption on a large scale can be directly linked to the industrial/technological system is made. High tech industrialized societies cannot exist without extremely large pyramind hierarchies which inevitably leaves most people in the bottom and powerless.

In order to properly understand and appreciate the arguments given in this manifesto regarding the power process disruption, one must imagine examples. One of the best examples that I can think of is the commute to and from work everyday. In modern industrialized countries in the big cities, a two or three hour commute is not farfetched. These long commutes, whether via commuter rail or car are very stressful. We are completely powerless to the traffic conditions and how people on the road will react to what we do. Work places in modern society are increasingly repetitious (i.e. data entry, mass production and assembly) and governed by a select few at the top who just sit on their behinds all day. People who have the best job security are mindless drones who simply do what they are told with little or no freedom or power. One has to put up with traffic, being packed in trains like sardines and rude and offensive people. They even have names for conditions directly attributable to the industrial/technological system such as "road rage", "chronic fatigue syndrome", "carpal-tunnel syndrome", "repetitive motion sickness", etc. Indeed, if one uses his imagination he can find tons of other examples.

The author advocates a revolution against the system which may or may not involve violence. Based on what I know of history, a revolt against the system WILL involve violence. Plausible targets would be universities (particularly Engineering departments) and the purveyors of high technology/innovation. What I don't understand is why did the alleged author of this manifesto target mostly individuals instead of things which could have had a much lasting impact like a Tim McViegh style attack on a university building or a suicide attack into a computer software company. Also, why he didn't target highways, bridges, subways and booby trap and sabotage heavy contruction equipment is a mystery to me.

This is not the type of thing to be read just once and forgotten, it should be studied and discussed among like-minded individuals.

Although this is an excellent read, I doubt that Ted Kaczynski would encourage his work being sold in any way. Go to google, and search for "Unabomber Manifesto." You will find countless online publications of this that are free.

A RARE philosophy book. But becareful: FBI is on the lookout for revolutionaries (some who buy this book) !!

Quite easily the greatest book of modern times. I encourage you to read it, but do not buy it here..jeeze. Just go to google and do a search for it.

Any lefty who thinks the planet can sustain another six billion is kidding himself and fits Ted's description of the leftist very well.

This manifesto is not totally original but he has some good, well articulated points. It is worth reading for those interested in social issues and problems, like Civilization and its Discontents, Brave New World and the other standards. It is perhaps a troubling thing that this writing is being discussed and obtained via the internet / technology. At the same time, ironically, the manifesto has reached a much larger audience via computers. Taking a frank and critical look at our use of technology is the first step towards any possible change, and "FC" invites this honest questioning within the reader.

This book _The Unabomber Manifesto: Industrial Society and Its Future_ is the published version of the Unabomber's Manifesto made available by Jolly Roger Press. In this manifesto, the man dubbed the Unabomber by the FBI (a noted murderer, now known to be Ted Kaczynski) writing under the name "FC" and claiming to belong to a larger organization gives his reasons for why he unleashed his terror upon the American people. The chief aim of the Unabomber appears to have been a desire to overthrow "the system", i.e. industrial society, completely obliterating mankind's dependence on technology and restoring man to his rightful place within "wild nature". Indeed, "FC" writes, "Never forget that the human race with technology is just like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine." Despite the fact that the Unabomber resorted to the most reprehensible and cowardly methods to achieve his aims, his manifesto is actually a thought provoking piece which attempts to shed light on modern man, his civilization, and its discontents. Like the anarchist Luddites before him, the Old Order Amish, and radical environmentalists, Kaczynski perceived the fundamental problem brought about by technology, regarding it as a source of problems for modern man, and completely rejected the naïve belief in "progress" and scientific rationalism. Much of this book is spent explaining the psychology of defeatism and the process of oversocialization brought about by man's reliance upon "surrogate activities" to achieve realizable goals within the "power process". Kaczynski provides one of the best critiques of leftism and political correctness available, showing how a psychology of defeatism arises among the upper strata of society causing them to experience excessive feelings of guilt resulting in their over-identification with the downtrodden, "minorities" (only the "respected" minorities, though), and the weak, all of whom they secretly despise. The leftist is oversocialized and thus prone to moralistic preaching; however, they will seek means to vent their natural hostilities by taking them out on "society" and becoming rebellious. Kaczynski also explains the power process, by which man comes to exert himself in order to attain a goal. If either the exertion is insufficient and the goal comes too readily or the exertion occurs but the goal is not reached, then depression, demoralization, and defeatism may eventually result. To rectify this situation, Kaczynski offers the insane suggestion that it is technology and "the system" which is to fault. Kaczynski shows how science is being used to create machines which control every aspect of an individual's life - with particularly horrorific consequences involving the untamed science of genetic engineering. Kaczynski also shows how "rules and regulations" result in the suppression of freedom, and how deprived of his freedom, man will become demoralized. With each new technological advance comes another suppression of freedom. Kaczynski's answer to these problems is revolution of the most violent kind. His revolutionaries are to reject propaganda (marketing and advertising, which lead man along like an animal to slaughter) and opt instead for the individual and small communities. In addition, they are to replace the ideal of progress with that of wild nature. Nature may invoke religious or mystical feelings for many and thus provides a suitable rallying point for the coming revolution against technological society. Further, his revolutionaries are to reject the leftist and collectivism as potential dangers. Kaczynski shows how leftism leads to totalitarianism once the leftists gain power (the communist countries illustrate this perfectly, as well as modern day political correctness within the university system) and within leftism itself there is not suitable grounds for preventing this totalitarianism. For Kaczynski, this revolution is man's only hope for reversing the Industrial Revolution and reclaiming man's natural place in the world again.

While Kaczynski's thoughts are certainly interesting, his methods are to be deplored. Rather than waking man up from within, Kaczynski sought to achieve his ends through violence and resulted in many innocent deaths. Also, his schemes are utopian in nature because no one has been alive long enough to remember what society was like before the Industrial Revolution. While Kaczynski went out to live in the woods alone, his story may be contrasted with another individual who went out to live in the woods alone who had set out to accomplish his anarchist goals through much more admirable means; that is Thoreau. Violence is not the answer!

Brigham Young once observed that "We should not only study good, and its effects upon our race, but also evil, and its consequences." (Discourses of Brigham Young, 256-257.)

Frankly, I found this essay rather perceptive and very insightful about many of the problems of society. Mr. K. is an unquestioned genius-child prodigy at 15, educated a Harvard, and professing at Berkley-and this superman ability show through in his essay. He reminds us of Hannibal Lecter, Wolf Larsen, or the other Ted, Ted Bundy. And that is what is so . . . spellbinding about reading this Manifesto. He is intelligent, has a lot of good ideas and observations, but killing people?

I find Mr. K. an easy ready, and for a mathematician, he has a great facility for prose. However, I quite disagree with Mr. K's solution. And not just killing innocents. His madness goes beyond murder. For example, Mr. K advocates undoing the Industrial Revolution. In "Hurtling Toward Oblivion: A Logical Argument for the End of the Age," Richard A. Swenson makes the point that one of the factor that futurists follow is the principle of irreversibility. Commonlky stated, "We can't put the genie back in the bottle," or "You can't turn back the clock."

Mr. K. gets rather vague about how this revolution is to occur. How do you unscramble an egg? Not only is this madness, it is pure insanity!

The means taken to achieve the end was flawed and cruel, and it's unfortunate (see the argument in the section "The nature of Freedom") that someone who could compose a well thought out "manifesto" that purports to redeem the individual and save him from the machine, the society and the bourgeois ended up having to murder an innocent lady who worked at a computer store and others who according to his description are "mere cogs" in the social machine he was trying to disrupt and the "Human Suffering" he was trying to end. The above points aside, the "manifesto" hits the spot on the effects of technology and industrialization on the individual. The points here are all very valid; the concerns are certainly not new; the negative effects addressed in the manifesto have been pointed out by many others in their writings. It talks about how the tentacles of the society and the technological machinery is completely overwhelming the individual, depriving him of the "power process" and thereby making the individual lose his bearing. One has to admit, his thoughts are clearly articulated (clarity, perhaps, provided by his remoteness from the society, both physically and psychologically)