4 ms·

I have to say I had the exact opposite reaction. I was also intrigued by the depiction in the Manhunt series and read the manifesto as a result. In the TV sho

I have to say I had the exact opposite reaction. I was also intrigued by the depiction in the Manhunt series and read the manifesto as a result. In the TV show, Kaczinky is portrayed as a highly intellectual, informed, educated individual, mentally thwarting his interviewer in their debate on morals and politics. After building up that expectation of Kaczinky's intellect, the manifesto is an enormous disappointment. It's filled with base broad assumptions, ignorant and unresearched assertions on "leftism" and in particular his treatise on "oversocialization" is so transparently a defensive lashing out at the elements of society that have not been personally accepting of him. Throughout, his arguments are made as plain, implicit statements. Nothing is approached in an evidence-based manner and there are no attempts to contradict obvious counter-arguments. His "facts" are simply stated as self-evident. Take e.g. > it’s likely that many leftists of the oversocialized type would say that most people, including themselves, are socialized too little rather than too much, yet the oversocialized leftist pays a heavy psychological price for his high level of socialization. This is centred around the idea of society imposing restrictions on our autonomy through socialization; we believe strongly in our own freedom. He proposes that "leftists" have this belief in their own freedom, but that this freedom is a delusion. A delusion that results from their own oversocialization. At no point does he explain how/why leftists are more oversocialized than non-lefists, or why he believes that he himself is not delusional in his sense of his own autonomy. There are some central elements in there of value (his general focus on the importance of effort and autonomy in fulfillment I would agree with), but these can be found discussed more articulately in better writings without being padded with political/social nonsense. Overall, the manifesto is not worth reading.

Swenrekcah 6y ago
>He proposes that "leftists" have this belief in their own freedom, but that this freedom is a delusion. Interesting, because my pet theory is that what determines if people lean left or right is their belief in their own free will. Those that truly believe they are completely free and autonomus from society and their environment will naturally favor right wing policies, but those that believe they are largely a product of their environment will favor left wing policies. This belief is perhaps (probably) not always explicit but rather somehow implicit or 'felt'.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  I don't think so. What would it matter if one or the other would be correct? I think this question is philosophical masturbation in most instances. I think you will find both on either side of the political isle and also that there isn't one fundamental position on anything that determines your camp.
- nicolas_t 6y ago
  The problem is that right and left is a bit of a strange spectrum, there are a lot of people on the right that vote for right wing policies not because of economic freedom but because they instead are deeply religious and want to enforce their religions on others... So, I certainly wouldn't call the religious right as believing they are free and autonomous from society and their environment...
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > The problem is that right and left is a bit of a strange spectrum, there are a lot of people on the right that vote for right wing policies not because of economic freedom but because they instead are deeply religious and want to enforce their religions on others... That's most of the actual right; “economic freedom” is a libertarian viewpoint more than a right-wing one, though in the US system the more-right-wing of the major parties also frequently uses libertarian rhetoric, which can confuse the issue. From the outset of the left/right or liberal/conservative divide, the right/conservative side has been centrally about protecting the position of established elites against forces that would transfer (principally, in the case of the left, more widely distribute) power, largely justified by appeals to traditional, especially religious and nationalist, values.
- andrepd 6y ago
  Doesn't really matter what you "believe" if it's demonstrably true that you're shaped by your environment.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    "Shaped" is somewhat different from fatalism though. Do you have a choice in the matter, or is there no choice at all and you're just going through the motions that your genes ("what you started with") + the environment ("what happened to you") determined for you?
ethanwillis 6y ago
The manifesto is worth reading for what it was. But it should also be followed up by his further books. He would agree with you that it is not as solid as it should be and he has been writing since then to fill in the gaps and even refute some of his own arguments.
- dangerface 6y ago
  > He would agree with you that it is not as solid as it should be and he has been writing since then to fill in the gaps and even refute some of his own arguments. He killed 3 people on his belief now he is trying to come up with reason to justify it.
oldsklgdfth 6y ago
"Those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles" To me this reads like a decent description of groups like SJWs and anti-fa, which resort to violence and at time suppressing the rights of others to match the model of the world they have. "The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values." I think this is roughly valid in the context of technology changes they way we live in unpredictable ways. A much better read of this is Technopoly by Neil Postman. I tend to agree that the society critique parts read like an angry rant against society, that a structured critique. It's unfortunate these subjects don't get discussed openly (the manifesto opened a door to these topics), rather than getting them from Kaczinky.
- lucideer 6y ago
  This comment is a really good demonstration of what I'm talking about. I really thought from his portrayal in "Manhunt" that Kaczinky would be slightly more nuanced than someone who thinks things like "antifa" are real and uses pejoratives such as "SJW". I was wrong.

Swenrekcah 6y ago

>He proposes that "leftists" have this belief in their own freedom, but that this freedom is a delusion. Interesting, because my pet theory is that what determines if people lean left or right is their belief in their own free will. Those that truly believe they are completely free and autonomus from society and their environment will naturally favor right wing policies, but those that believe they are largely a product of their environment will favor left wing policies. This belief is perhaps (probably) not always explicit but rather somehow implicit or 'felt'.

raxxorrax 6y ago
I don't think so. What would it matter if one or the other would be correct? I think this question is philosophical masturbation in most instances. I think you will find both on either side of the political isle and also that there isn't one fundamental position on anything that determines your camp.
nicolas_t 6y ago
The problem is that right and left is a bit of a strange spectrum, there are a lot of people on the right that vote for right wing policies not because of economic freedom but because they instead are deeply religious and want to enforce their religions on others... So, I certainly wouldn't call the religious right as believing they are free and autonomous from society and their environment...
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > The problem is that right and left is a bit of a strange spectrum, there are a lot of people on the right that vote for right wing policies not because of economic freedom but because they instead are deeply religious and want to enforce their religions on others... That's most of the actual right; “economic freedom” is a libertarian viewpoint more than a right-wing one, though in the US system the more-right-wing of the major parties also frequently uses libertarian rhetoric, which can confuse the issue. From the outset of the left/right or liberal/conservative divide, the right/conservative side has been centrally about protecting the position of established elites against forces that would transfer (principally, in the case of the left, more widely distribute) power, largely justified by appeals to traditional, especially religious and nationalist, values.
andrepd 6y ago
Doesn't really matter what you "believe" if it's demonstrably true that you're shaped by your environment.
- luckylion 6y ago
  "Shaped" is somewhat different from fatalism though. Do you have a choice in the matter, or is there no choice at all and you're just going through the motions that your genes ("what you started with") + the environment ("what happened to you") determined for you?

ethanwillis 6y ago

The manifesto is worth reading for what it was. But it should also be followed up by his further books. He would agree with you that it is not as solid as it should be and he has been writing since then to fill in the gaps and even refute some of his own arguments.

dangerface 6y ago
> He would agree with you that it is not as solid as it should be and he has been writing since then to fill in the gaps and even refute some of his own arguments. He killed 3 people on his belief now he is trying to come up with reason to justify it.

oldsklgdfth 6y ago

"Those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles" To me this reads like a decent description of groups like SJWs and anti-fa, which resort to violence and at time suppressing the rights of others to match the model of the world they have. "The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values." I think this is roughly valid in the context of technology changes they way we live in unpredictable ways. A much better read of this is Technopoly by Neil Postman. I tend to agree that the society critique parts read like an angry rant against society, that a structured critique. It's unfortunate these subjects don't get discussed openly (the manifesto opened a door to these topics), rather than getting them from Kaczinky.

lucideer 6y ago
This comment is a really good demonstration of what I'm talking about. I really thought from his portrayal in "Manhunt" that Kaczinky would be slightly more nuanced than someone who thinks things like "antifa" are real and uses pejoratives such as "SJW". I was wrong.