The Unabomber Manifesto

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not supporting anything the Unabomber did to get his views across, obviously. But, has anyone ever read the Unabomber manifesto?

I have to say that it makes more sense than the sick and corrupt system we currently live in!

- Ray M -

I don't read criminals writtings.

the Unabomber was aspie i feel so sure of it after reading the Manifesto. Sooo aspie.

There is no such thing as a criminal writing, unless you want to take thought crimes into account.
And if anything should be criminal, it should be the very concept of thought crimes.

Here it is for anyone who is interested

The Manifresto makes sense in some places and nonsense in others. I think it simply proves that there's a fine line between brilliance and madness.

Bah. I don't believe in any such line
Rather, the two are independant of each other.

You might not have known this, but the prison population is filled with some of the most thoughtful people. If the US does not want you around, they'll just send you to prison. That's what happened with Mumia Abu-Jamal. Sure, the Unabomber did commit heinous crimes, and his methods were completely ruinous, but the manifesto itself is a brilliant work of social art. It was a thorough analysis of what is actually going on, but of course ... killing innocent people isn't going to end any of it.

How do you handle the superfluous population, that part of the population that does not like to engage in the cycle of work and despair? You harrass them. You bully them. You anger them. You make thim commit a heinous act. If that doesn't work, then you frame them. Then you put them in prison. Then, they're no longer a nuisance to the grand scheme of things.

- Ray M -

No one made him bomb a lot of innocent people. The only person responsible for doing something like that is the person who decided to do it.

Sc, haven't you read at least *something* written by a criminal? I can't name a criminal whose work i've read but I'm sure at least one of the required readings at school was written by a criminal (their making us read some of that junk should be a crime in itself:lol:).

The unabomber was not intentionally suppressed, he just had a difficult time adapting to life. He was a genius, he had a PhD in mathematics and he could have been a teacher at UC Berkeley, the department staff wanted to keep him there but he quit his job, he went into the middle of nowhere and he became a bomber.

Mumia Abu-Jamal is a person who is controversial anyway, some people do believe that he shot the cop and others may not, but considering the fact that groups outside the government have come to the conclusion that he was fairly convicted on their own says much towards the idea that his punishment was not just assigned by a spiteful government.

I would say that the prison population is not typically filled with the most thoughtful people, some might go there but most people in prison are not thoughtful but rather are gang members, and drug-users. The government really does not care about the people and I doubt that they even try to harass the part of the population that does not like to engage in the cycle of work and despair. After all, to incite them is to increase the crime rate and does not benefit the government at all, governments would prefer to let nonworking aspects of the population to die on their own.

Not true, the two are closely related if we take a look at what they describe. What is brilliance? Is it not a different way of seeing things that is more beneficial to solving the problem at hand? And what is madness? Is it not a different way of seeing things that is unbeneficial to any situation at all? The point here is that they are both different ways of seeing things.

However, when one comes up with a solution that is so brilliant, it may be beyond the understanding of humanity, which in turn makes it useless because something is only beneficial (i.e. brilliant) if other people can understand and apply your solution. Thus, we hear phrases like, "he was ahead of his time", where the solution was so beyond the comprehension of humanity that the person would likely have been viewed as mad. It was not until the rest of humanity caught up with the knowledge to understand such ideas that the person in turn was viewed as a genius.

Brilliance turns to madness at the point where comprehension of other people break down. This is not to say that there are not truly mad ideas which are not even in the realm of brilliance, but this is not the type of madness we are talking about here. The most brilliant people that have ever lived have been very lonely people because they 'see' things differently, sometimes so much so that the normal population views them as being insane, and the only people that can understand them are very bright also. But, if a person is so intelligent that he surpases even the other geniuses, than he may very well be viewed as mad.

Yes, that's true, in terms of the Unabomber. The Unabomber believed, truly believed, that he was serving justice to a world that he saw as very unjust. His methods were criminal, sure. I tend to think he was more of a vigilante, and vigilantism is still a crime. I don't consider most of his targets to be innocent, though innocent people ended up getting hurt, since in some cases the actual targets didn't get the bombs. I also don't believe that people have the right to take a life in support of something. There is a reason why we shouldn't allow people to take the law in their own hands. That's what the Unabomber tried to do.

But, looking beyond the Unabomber, say in the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal ... there is a much different picture. Now we're talking about simple economic injustice and legal abuse. It is unclear whether or not he intentionally killed a police officer, and the entire trial was a shambles. There is more evidence to prove that OJ was guilty than there was with Mumia Abu-Jamal.

- Ray M -

The drug laws alone are an example of harrassment. Contemptuous laws against smoking are another. There are a lot of signs that the government harrasses people. Cops do it all the time. If they don't like you standing in front of a store, they will harrass you, especially if the store owner thinks you're a nuisance. There is little freedom out of your own house. I'm an anarchist. I believe authority has become a social disease. Most of our lands have been turned into tracts of private property, and stepping in a wooded area can land you a misdemeanor charge in many areas for trespassing. With all of this going on, people are going to break. They are going to lash out. We want to do away with social security, while placing everyone under surveillance. Kids can't even play in a small backwoods road anymore, because traffic congestion has become a nuisance and laws have been enacted to prevent kids from playing in a road while funding for a park is slashed, and yet we keep on failing to mobilize effective public transportation. Kids, therefore, stay around storefronts, and they can't even stay there for too long. So, they get in trouble. It all starts from there. People are getting really fed up.

There are quite a few political prisoners currently in prison, such as Tre Arrow, Leonard Peltier, etc... These are people, whom in my opinion, have much more to offer a society than the typical industrial denizen.

- Ray M -

So what sort of system do you propose as ideal?

Usually what happens is that when people complain about the system, they have no suggestion for an alternative superior system. Or if they do have an alternative, it is wildly impractical.

it is reasonable and acceptable to make a complaint about something without having a fully thought out hypothesis of what will replace it. the reason you feel peoples alternatives are so wildly impractical is because the world is currently so steeped in the authoritarian power system, that any other possible system of living seems utopian and unworkable. this is not to disqualify a persons right to comaplain about the current system though.

That is just more blowing hot air. Useless huffing and puffing. If you are serious and not just having a childish whine, then let's hear some suggested solutions. Focusing on potential solutions is far more practical and useful than just whining. Whining is for losers. Focusing on devising solutions is for winners.

i am not whining at all. i just state that people have a right to express their opinions. their are no winners and losers. we all end up dead anyway.