The Unabomber Manifesto: Industrial Society and Its Future

First let me state that I in no way support, condone or admire any of the terrorist actions taken by the author as the Unabomber, I was intrigued enough by the Wikipedia posting of this pamphlet to get the hard copy, so as to sit down and spend some time inside the mind of someone outside the realm of our normal everyday life. And I realize that as a result of buying this, I am now, no doubt, on at least one Government watch list, such is the world we now live in, but information is information and for the moment at least, I have the right to read what I want to. This is not an easy pamphlet to read, it really does meander all over (endless footnotes and citings), as Kaczynski's mind seems to have and yet I found myself in unwilling agreement with some of his arguments (or rants, if you prefer) against the effects of a technological society on the rights and well being of the individual and the planet. Now the reader must bear in mind that this "work" was done over some time, but started long before the Green Movement was most Westerners new religion, so to say that the author was in some ways prescient about the global tipping point we find ourselves at and the true root of it all (technological society/Big Business) at least in Kaczynski's mind, is troubling, after all, isn't he criminally insane? How can he be "right" or "correct" about anything, or more to the point, how can his "manifesto" find any resonance with those of us professing to be sane in an increasingly insane world? Perhaps this work called to the Luddite or the closet conservative in me, but regardless of it's origins, I thought it worth the read. Enter at your own risk... here there be dragons.

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.

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.

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"