The Unabomber’s Manifesto [Ted Kacyzinski] on *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Unabomber was the target of one of the Federal. Industrial Society and Its Future has ratings and reviews. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human ra. On this day in , a manifesto by the Unabomber, an anti-technology terrorist, is published by TheNew York Times and Washington Post in.
|Published (Last):||13 December 2004|
|PDF File Size:||17.53 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||8.28 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Search the history of over billion web pages on the Internet. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster Tor the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they hitvc destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering in the Third World to physical suffering as well and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world.
The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. Il will certainly subject human beings lo greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries.
The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down.
If it survives, it may eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms lo engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine.
Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable; There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as lo prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy. If lie system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful.
But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down il had best break down sooner rather than later. Manifieesto therefore advocate a revolution against ihe industrial system.
This revolution may or may not make use of violence: We can’l predict any of that. Bui we do outline in n very general way the measures that those who hale the industrial system should take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form or society. This is not lo be a political revolution. Its object will be lo overt h ro w not governments but the economic and technological basis of Ihe present society. In this mliclc we give atlcnlion to only some of ihe negative developments Hurt have grown out of llie industrial-technological system.
Other such developments we mention only briefly or ignore altogether. This docs not mean that we regard these unabombdr developments as unimpor- tant, For practical reasons we have lo confine our discussion lo areas thai have received insufficient public attention or in which we have something new lo say.
For example, since there arc well-developed environmental and wilderness movements, we have written very little about environmental degradation or manifuesto destruction of wild nature, even though we con- sider these lo be highly important. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society.
One of the most wide- spread manifestations of thecraziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychol- ogy of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of ihe problems of modern soci- ety in general.
But what is leftism? During the first half of ihe 20th ceolury leftism could have been practi- cally identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and il is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivism, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, ani- mal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these move-mcnls is a leftist.
What we are trying to gel at in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type, Of rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by “leftism” will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychol- ogy Also, see paragraphs Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn’t seem lo be any remedy for this.
All we arc trying to do is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that wc believe arc the maiu driving force of modern leflism.
We by no incnns claim to be Idling the whole truth about leftist psychol- ogy. We leave open the ques- tion of the extent lo which our discussion could be applied o the leftists of he 1 9lh and early 20th century. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism wc call “feelings of inferior- ‘ it y” and “ovcrsocinlizaiion. Feelings Of Inferiority By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strictest sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: We argue that modem leftists tend to have such feelings possibly more or less repressed and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.
When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him or about groups witli whom be identifies wc conclude that he has Inferiority feelings or low self- esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend.
They arc hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities.
The terms “negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “cluck” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connota- tion. Some animal rights advocates have rel so far us to reject the word “pel” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion.
They want to replace the word “primitive” by “nonl iterate.
Industrial Society and Its Future: The Unabomber Manifesto
Wc do not mean to imply that primitive cultures are inferior to ours. Wc merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftist anthropologists. Those who arc most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology arc not the average black ghcllo-dwcllcr, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from privi- leged strata of society.
Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, dell have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom arc het- erosexual, white males from middle-class families. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak womendefeated American Indiansrepellent homosexualsor otherwise inferior.
The leftists themselves feel that these groups arc inferior.
They would never admit it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems, Wc do not suggest that women, Indians, etc.
Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are M strong as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may not be as strong and as capable as unabomner.
Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hale white mates, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for haling the West, etc. They say they hate the Fl because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist Finds excuses for them, or at best he grudgingly admits that they exist; whereas unaabomber enthusiastically points out and often greatly exaggerates these faults where they appear in Western civilization.
Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West, lie hales America ami the West because I hey are strong unavomber successful Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative”, “enterprise,” “optimism,” clc. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collcctiv- The leftist is oriented toward large scale manigiesto. He emphasizes the duly of the indi- vidual to serve society and the duly of society to take care of the individual.
He has a negative attitude toward individualism. He dek takes a moralistic tone. He tends to identify with victims. He tends to be against competition and against violence, but he often finds excuses for those leftists who do commit violence. He is fond of using the common catch-phrases of the left like “racism, “”sexism, ” “homophobia, ” “capitalism,” “imperialism,” “neocolonialism ” “geno- cide,” “social change,” “social justice,” “social responsibility.
Anyone who strongly sympathizes with all of these movements is almost certainly a leftist. The more dangerous leftists, that is.
However, the most dangerous leftists of all may be certain oversocialized types who avoid irritating displays of aggressive- ness and refrain from advertising their leftism, but work quietly and unobtrusively to promote collcclivisl values, “enlightened” psychological techniques for socializing children, depen- dence of the individual on the system, and so forth, These crypto- Icliisls as wc may call them approximate certain bourgeois types as far as practical action is concerned, but differ from them in psychology, manofiesto and motivation.
The ordinary bourgeois tries lo bring people under control of the unabkmber in order to protect his way of wl, or he docs so simply because his attitudes arc conventional. The crypto- leftist tries to bring people under control of the system because he is a True Believer in a collcctivistic ideology. The crypto- leftist is differentiated from the average leftist of the oversocialized type by the fact that his rebellious impulse is weaker and he is more securely socialized.
He is differentiated brim the ordinary well-socialized bourgeois manifkesto the fact that ihcrc is some deep lack within him thai makes it necessary for him to devote himself to a cause and Immerse Mntsetf rl a collectivity. And may he his well-sublimated drive fur power is stronger than that of the average bourgeois. Throughout this article we’ve made imprecise statements and statements that ought to have had all sorts of qualifications and reservations attached to them; and some of our statements may he flatly false.
Lack of sufficient in formation and the need for brevity made it impossible for us to fomulale our assertions more precisely or add mznifiesto the necessary qualifications.
And of course in a discussion of this kind one must rely heavily on intuitive judgment, and that can sometimes be wrong. So we don’t claim that this article expresses more than a crude approxi- mation to the truth. AH the same wc arc reasonably confident that the general outlines of the picture we have painted here arc roughly correct. Wc have portrayed leftism in its modern form as a phenom- enon peculiar to our time and as a symptom of the disruption of the power process.
But we might possibly be wrong about this. Oversocialized types who try to satisfy their drive for power by imposing their morality on everyone have certainly been around for a long time.
But wc think that the decisive role played by feelings of inferiority, low self-esteem, power- lessness. Identification with victims by people not themselves victims can be seen lo some extent in 19th century leftism and early Christianity but as far as we can make out, symptoms of low self-esteem, etc. But we are not in a position to assert confidently that no such movements have existed prior lo modern leftism.
This is a significant question to which historians ought to give their attention. The feminist, gay rights, etc. Presumably a liuc-belicving uazi, lor instance is very different psychologi- cally from a iruc-believing Icftisl. Because of their capacity for single-minded devotion lo I cause, True Believers arc a useful, perhaps a necessary, ingredient ninny revolutionary move- ment.
This presents a problem with which wc musl admit we don’l know how to deal. We aren’t sure how to harness lite energies of unbaomber True Believer lo h revolution against technol- ogy. Al present all we can say is thai no True Believer will make a safe recruit lo llie revolu- tion unless his commitment is exclusively lo the destruction of technology. If he is committed also lo another ideal, he may want to use technology as a lool for pursuing thai olhcr ideal sec paragraphs Some readers may say, “This sluffuboui leftism is a lot of crap.
I know John and June who are lefiish types and hey don’l have all these lotalitarian Icndcncics.
Login – Dropbox
Our remarks about leftism are nol meant to apply to every individual lefiisi but to describe ihe general character of leftism as a movement.
And the general character or a movement is not necessarily determined by the numerical proportions of the various kinds or ieople involved in Ihe movement. The people who rise lo positions of power in leftist ntovcincnls lend to be leftists of ihe most power-hungry lypc because power-hungry people arc those who manfiiesto rive battiest lo gel into positions of power. Once ihe power-hungry types have captured conlrol of ihe move- ment, ihere arc many leftists of a genllcr breed who inwardly disapprove of many of the actions of ihe lenders, but cannot bring themselves lo oppose them.