Let's not make this a moral discussion about whether the unabombers methods where alright or not, he was just pretty desperate to be heard. But I'm reading his manifesto at the moment http://www.thecourier.com/manifest.htm And it's a really interesting read, and he points out a lot of the "bad things" in our society, and the guy has loads of good points. Anybody else read this?
Fascinating Story. Kazinski's brother recognized him by his style in the rant the family turned him in with the stipulation he would be spared the death penalty.
What do we know about Ted Kaczynski (aka the Unabomber)? That he was a "volunteer" in CIA MK-ULTRA mind control experiments at Harvard in the late 50's. The guy was a Manchurian Candidate and was programmed to commit the atrocities he did.
Programed by the CIA ? So the CIA wanted that manifesto to be published? hmm.. the manifesto seems abit too "counter-culture" for the CIA me thinks
Though I disagree with his methods, I think the manifesto makes a lot of good points like you said. If you're interested in the whole anti-civilization thing, definitly check out books by Daniel Quinn and Derrick Jensen...
Hehe.. thats funny.. im reading Ishamael as we speak. It's really good, although it has a style which makes that not many people will take it seriously. But the points in there are really well thought. ^^
First of all, the CIA was largely, if not entirely behind the 60's counter-culture. Many of the "heroes" of that era were working for the CIA, including Timothy Leary and Gloria Steinem. Most of the acid from the 60's came from the CIA -- not some guy in his basement lab. But I digress. Kaczynski may have written his own manifesto, but that doesn't mean he wasn't under mind control. Because the fact is that he did undergo government CIA mind control back in the late 50's, and this is admitted. Kaczyinski exhibited many of the signs of a mind controlled killer.
Iv'e heard a few conspiracy stories in my days.. but this one takes the [size=-1]biscuit[/size]. I'm intrigued though, please tell me.. Why would CIA promote a counter culture movement? How would that in any way benefit them?
No offense to you pressed_rat, but I feel often times your conspiracy theories, while not completely off based a little too extravagent to be fully carried out. Though I love to see you constantly pushing the envelope and people's buttons to think a little more critically. That said... why would the CIA want that to be published? BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN BY A FUCKING TERRORIST!!!!!!!! While you managed to be open minded enough to read his ideas objectively the vast majority of the public, both in america and across the globe will be unable to get over the fact that this man is the unabomber and as such will associate everything in that manifesto, possibly just unconciously with terrorism, death, and sadness. Not, hey you know that unabomber guy has some decent ideas! That was not a manifesto written by some peace and love societal satirist that some people might be able to simpathize with. Take yourself out of your clearly free and forward thinking mind for a minute and put it into the shoes of someone completely hindged on tonights senational news report! A good historical example was social reform in the 80s. Is social security a good idea (say nothing of it's feasability to actually happen). It might be hard to find a hippy who thinks taking care of people when they are older is a bad idea. HOWEVER, there were lots of people in the 80s against social secuirty. Not because they could see into the future or because they were economics/math geniuses. But simply because it was a "red" idea. Only commies think of things like that! THESE are the kinds of people we're talking about here. As for your (rat) theory about the 60s counterculture... I'm not so sure EVERYONE was working for the CIA but the reasons for the CIA being for it are easy enough to surmize. 1) The rampant excess was part of a counter culture, something that the majority of americans did NOT agree with or partake in. 2) As much as I love the hippie movement we're not always the best for complete ideas with follow through. Just look around here, only a few of our members posting about their dreams and desires ever take them out to fruition most end with the next bong/acid hit. 3) What happen to the majority of "hippies" in the 70s? They doned disco suits and by the 80s traded them in for real suits and joined the rat race. 4) The excessive drug use and hedonism also made it easy to push an even more conservative agenda on a post war, fed up, sick and tired working class America. THAT'S why. I must also say I don't necessarily AGREE with everything I just said. But making the case was too easy to pass up.
I can explain the 60's counter-culture and answer your questions for you if you'd like. But perhaps I should start another thread as to not go too far off-topic from this one? I don't know. It depends on what the author of this thread wants as it's his thread.
Haha.. very interesting indeed... Well, yeah, I'm pretty capabell of putting myself in the average american reading the manifesto (to be honest, i dont think that many bothered to try and read it)... but yet, I hope that some average people who read can relate to what he is saying, cause basicly the manifesto is a rant on whats f.u in society (I havn't read far enough to see what his suggestions for change are yet). And hopefully many average americans DO feel unsatisfied with the consumer lives they lead, and understand that as they read the manifesto. But hey.. you're probably right, they can't think "objectivly".. I never saw what they said on the news when he was bombing... but I can imagine it was a lot of "Crazy person!", "man of the devil!" "Mad-man!!" and "terrorist!!" going on. Gah.. That said. Rat, please to make a new thread, I'd love to hear. I'd prefer people discussed the actual content on the manifesto here.
i read it a while back and while i find his insights into the nature and direction of the Industrial-technological beast to be fascinating i can't say that i completely agree with the "leftists" rants he has in there, while i have no love for "leftists"(he's awfully vague about what qualifies one for the term) it seems abit off tangent and throws a misplaced conspiritorial shadow on an otherwise interesting sociological phenom. besides, if you find yourself agreeing with at least 75% of what's there you might as well go kill yourself because the future is a bleak one of genetic manipulation, chemical sedation and replacement with machine parts. the worst of terminator meets Brave New World meets The matrix. except with no john connor or neo. i guess kacinski thought he could be neo, but random bombings arent going to start the kind of deep societal changes that would be needed to fight the monster he's outlined. besides, using pipe bombs to get a philosophical point across isn't exactly good PR and there have plenty of others along the primitivist/tribalist/luddite set that have made much more insightful journeys into that line of thought without resorting to violence and living in a hole and refusing to bathe. that said, i especially liked his "voluntary use of automobile leading to eventual restrictions on personal travel freedom" bit, good stuff.
anyways, he's doing little but screaming into the void, eventually the machines will take over, it's fucked, but there aint much we can do other than useless acts of misunderstood violence/direct action that gets no one thinking about anything except for the need for security or maybe, at most, a little bit of philosophical masterbastion, the best we can do is start weeping and enjoy what bit of the "natural world" is left. anything regarding the unabomber should go into the philosophy or future or technology forums if you want a decent response.
ishmael is good, but personally iv found zerzan has a much better voice than quinn. if you're going to try and talk to others about green/primitivist/luddite philosophical critique on civ they are a much better route than someone as controversial as a person known to the world as "unabomber"... my 2 cents anyway. heads up: you're going to run into a lot of opposition outside of greenanarchy.org with this line of thinking, even among the most anti-social anarchists the idea of dropping our population level below 1 billion and living in the woods as "feral humans" and the like tends to bring out the worst in otherwise polite people.
