The Unabomber Manifesto

Post Reply New Topic

Charles Manson is another example of a brilliant thinker that comes to mind.

Especially if you were on his list

Actually, that's not true. I am more or less an anarchist ... an anarcho-syndicalist, possibly. I believe that what is called competition in the economic arena is the reason for most injustice, and the fact that people have to outdo one another just to survive and keep their heads afloat.

- Ray M -

Well, yes, most serial and mass murderers are brilliant thinkers. So was Jeffrey Dahmer, John Gacy, etc... These are not the kinds of people that I am talking about.

The prison system is full of people who do not belong there and who are just there because of the rabid injustice of the system. I supported the breaking of Timothy Leary out of prison, for example. He never belonged there, and the use of the drug laws was primarily thought of to curb the 60s radical movements, movements which have inspired a new era of thinking.

- Ray M -

While I can't comment on his work, some of his supporters and sympathizers do seem to have anarchist-primitivist views, which are from what I've noticed very simular to the eco-fascists of the 1930's.

Correct. The Unabomber was an anarcho-primitivist, fashioned after the John Zerzan model. I'm not too attuned to this sort of anarcho-primitivism, for I feel its fundamental precepts to be unrealistic, like Zerzan commonly talks about the need to do away with language, numbers and anything symbolic, really. I just think that he has made a lot of statements in this manifesto that should be opening people's eyes. It also can shed light on libertarianism to the topics of environmental progress and anti-industrialization, something mainstream libertarians in America tend not to do, opting instead for anarcho-capitalist solutions to everyday struggles.

- Ray M -

I think that myself and my fellow Aspies would be pretty miserable in pre industrial societies. If you think you are misunderstood now.. Imagine a time when emotion and not logic was the basis of understanding humanity.

Not true you say? You just demonstrated that it is true by again failing to propose an alternative system (and merely saying that you are an "anarchist" is not proposing an alternative system).

emp says: "The next person who speaks will not say the word 'apples'."
Aeturnus says: "Actually, that's not true."
emp says: "See, I told you so. I bet you still will not say 'apples'."
Aeturnus says: "You're so wrong."

Our fellow Aspies wouldn't exist at all according to Mister Darwin as we just wouldn't be able to cope with the enviroment.

i'm not sure that asperger individuals might not fare better in pre-industrial societies.

Aspies can sometimes cope with the environment and people with some aspie genes but not the entire package can many times cope with the environment. Darwinian evolution does not say that evolution obliterates all bad traits but it does say that it makes sure that bad traits are less prevalent in future generations and good traits are more common which is quite possibly true given a population with a large enough genetic variety(people marrying their cousins usually have sicker offspring). Most people will agree with micro-evolution to be true but macro-evolution and the rise of species from evolution is disputed.

I tend to doubt that we would. In past societies we would have less freedom to pursue our own interests because of pressing needs and a lack of the spread of knowledge, we would not likely have high social status as we are not warlike nor are we charming, we would not likely have great status. Aspies today have more opportunities to find their way and their interest than they have in the past. Information is available at our fingertips, knowledge is important for the economy and academia also has great importance in our world, modern people are more tolerant and have less crazy witch hunts where they kill the guys that they like least or find most suspicious(which could easily be us in any given community), pretty much we are better now because we now know more and it is easier for us to use that knowledge for our benefit(does not mean that we are as well off as the average person but I don't think that the past was really that great for us)

Aside from the I.D. crowd, who disputes macro-evolution??

That's only based on a individual selection model of evolutiuon. Many biologists believe that mankind has evolved more on a group selection model.

Ironic his use of the institiutions he decries in order to get his message across.

I don't nessasarly agree there have always been places were we could have fit in and just becuse there was no computers or ready acess to information wouldn't make you miserable becuse you wouldn't know it existed. Also for one there were less people and being able to figure things out or make improvements has always had value. We have been around as long as people have its not a new thing. During the inquistion it probally would have not been to good though but think of Roman,Greek or Egyptian times and the inovation that came from them.

Anarcho-syndicalism is an alternative system, though it wasn't one proposed by me. If one were to be proposed by me, I'd just call it cooperativism ... that is, ownership of a firm is cooperatively owned, thus each person pays into the firm as an 'investor' of sorts, thus doing away with the corrupt ethics of Wall Street. This allows decision-making to be handled cooperatively through voting procedures and more. Loosely based, it could be considered self-employment for everyone. This is actually being practiced in many areas as we speak. Anarcho-syndicalism revolves around this idea, but is more attuned to the practice of labor unions.

- Ray M -