6 ms·

Yes. Someone linked the manifesto in an HN thread ages ago, and I found more level-headed and thought-provoking than I would have imagined from someone able to

by sph 3y ago

Yes. Someone linked the manifesto in an HN thread ages ago, and I found more level-headed and thought-provoking than I would have imagined from someone able to commit such evil acts. I do not agree with everything he wrote in the manifesto, and certainly not with his violent methods, but it's stuck with me in this era of naive techno-optimism which I find myself more disillusioned with by the day. If the name on the front page was not of a murderer, I truly believe it would be recommended reading in schools and philosophy clubs. As a very progressive person, I quite enjoyed his critique of the modern Leftist ideals and why they would create the factionalism and alienation we see today; he's not arguing as a 21st century conservative, but as a third position that is not represented by any mainstream camp. I had to read the manifesto of a killer to remind myself that there is more social critique to explore than the binary Liberal vs Conservative that's all the rage in our politicised world.

anon291 3y ago
> As a very progressive person, I quite enjoyed his critique of the modern Leftist ideals and why they would create the factionalism we see today, and he's arguing not as a conservative, but as a third position that is not represented by any mainstream camp. Realistically his opinions are held by a substantial amount of people that most would label conservative, although it's not mainstream conservatism for sure. And certainly not mainstream republicanism.
- sph 3y ago
  As a non American, the dichotomy that is all the rage nowadays is two camps whose position is literally just "we hate everything the other side loves". The point of Kaczynski is that both camps are mostly composed of middle-class Western academics living a sheltered life that are deciding who is socially accepted and who need to be cancelled. Our culture wars are not minorities shouting for a better life, our culture war is made of middle-class white people getting offended on behalf of minorities. They are no Martin Luther King, no Malcolm X, they just are posers that are making the racial (and gender and sexual) divide even worse than it is, by polarising or alienating the silent neutral majority. This is a longer argument that's put more eloquently in the manifesto than I could ever write on a comment box.
  - watwut 3y ago
    You don't know much about Martin Luther King, do you?
    - Alenycus 3y ago
      > You don't know much about Martin Luther King, do you?
      - watwut 3y ago
        Definitely a bit more then someone who is trying to use his name in the above context.
  - katamarimambo 3y ago
    Kaczynski was a middle-class Western academic who tried to literally cancel the lives of those he deemed unacceptable, which included people from both camps. Thank god there's a divide, otherwise I would be obliged to agree with you.
- notahacker 3y ago
  And most of his arguments about the Left specifically is the generic list of conservative/right-wing characterisations of the Left (obviously the rest of his philosophy has little to do with conservatism, mainstream or otherwise!). Leftists hate strength and rationality. Leftists only pretend to care about minorities. Leftists are self-hating losers who are afraid of competition Genuinely amazed someone identifying with the Left would find these ideas interesting, and if so, they're going to love the deep philosophical musings on leftism offered by the likes of Tucker Carlson and Ron de Sanctis!
timeon 3y ago
> I truly believe it would be recommended reading in schools and philosophy clubs Andreas Breivik copied large part of it in his manifesto, but then again he is murderer too.
- sph 3y ago
  Both are murderers, that doesn't mean they have the same ideas or ideals. Breivik is a right-wing fascist obsessed with racial and religious purity, Kaczynski's manifesto is critique of the Industrial Age not very distant from any 19th century anarchist essay. I'm not sure if he got more politicised in his later work, I'm only talking about that document. The point I'm trying to make is that people are more nuanced than your observation is trying to imply.
  - rvense 3y ago
    > 19th century anarchist essay I think primitivism is a later invention. Certainly Kropotkin is very pro-mechanization. If there is a point of contention, it's to do with ownership, not technology itself.
watwut 3y ago
> If the name on the front page was not of a murderer, I truly believe it would be recommended reading in schools and philosophy clubs I assure you a lot of incredibly smart writing doing absolutely accurate predictions is ignored by schools and clubs. Literally only thing that sets Kaczynsky apart are the bombs. > , I quite enjoyed his critique of the modern Leftist ideals and why they would create the factionalism and alienation we see today Considering overwhelming majority of violence, authoritarianism and fictionalized is from right, by a large margin, this is massive meh.
- isityouyesitsme 3y ago
  "Right" or "left" wing is entirely meant as a sweeping generalized insult these days. The words are otherwise meaningless. Or more, they only mean whatever the person speaking them means to say. Example: Some of the most infamous acts of violence of the 20th century were sanctioned by a left-wing radical. Or a right-wing radical. It simply depends on which specific ideals you want to vilify when you by associating them with Hitler. Were the 2020 US riots were ultra surprising to you because they mostly left wingers burning cities and violently declaring demilitarized zones, or were they "meh" because right wingers are the only violent ones?
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  [flagged]
shrimpx 3y ago
This "third position" is basically anarchy, or anarcho-primitivism. It's not really a political position, it's more like a pathological insistence that civilization should be destroyed. Kaczynski went as far as saying we're biologically wired to live primitive lives and we're misusing ourselves in perversions that he calls 'surrogate activities', which include science and art. To him, hunting or trying to survive while being hunted in the woods is the perfect utilization of the human mind-body, and we should all abandon society and go do that instead.
- spurgu 3y ago
  I'd say it's more about autonomy, self-sufficiency and freedom, rather than just "living primitive lives". Technological progress tends to stifle all of the above, in the grand scheme of things. Think about owning horses back in the day, which you could simply breed to get more of. You could travel freely pretty much anywhere, no roads required. Compare that to a car which is manufactured somewhere far away with tons of special expertise and which basically cannot be repaired by a layman anymore (as opposed to not too many decades ago). And you rely on a huge infrastructure network for building and maintaining the roads. There are probably better examples (horses just came to mind). We tend to choose the more "advanced" option because it seems more convenient, without considering the externalities of that convenience, whether that's pollution or handing over part of our self-sufficiency in order to do so. Something like a Carrington event would cripple us and cause utter chaos. Just think of the huge amount of technology that we rely on in daily life and it's not changing direction. At all. We are not becoming more resilient, we're becoming less. We are quickly losing the skills required to adapt to a "lower" level of technology, meaning any quick disruption in the system could be catastrophical. Technology can potentially enable us to have more freedom, autonomy and self-sufficiency, but for it to be sustainable it would need to be at the top of the decision-making tree. Right now it's mostly a balancing act between convenience and affordability on behalf of consumers and profitability of producers. And well, mix in some environmental concerns (but those tend to be secondary as well as almost always reactionary). And yes I'm probably somewhat of a neo-luddite. I take pride in being self-sufficient, to the extent possible. And I'm more than willing to sacrifice convenience for freedom. Technology creates more boundaries, rules and bureaucracy, not less. Technology controls us, rather than the other way around.
NovaDudely 3y ago
> If the name on the front page was not of a murderer, I truly believe it would be recommended reading in schools and philosophy clubs. This is the saddest part, he didn't have to do it the way he did.
edgyquant 3y ago
> and I found more level-headed and thought-provoking than I would have imagined from someone able to commit such evil acts. No one thinks themselves evil. Every evil act, or most of them, was conducted by a person who thought they were doing what’s best.
stubybubs 3y ago
> If the name on the front page was not of a murderer, I truly believe it would be recommended reading in schools and philosophy clubs. I disagree. His ideas are not novel or new. There are large bodies of work around the evils of technology, increasing polarization, isolation, disconnection from nature etc. Leftists are trending toward authoritarianism is old hat. It's all pretty standard stuff. There have been literally hundreds of popular books and films about these very subjects. The only reason people are reading it is because he murdered people. He said as much: “In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we’ve had to kill people.” You can get everything he said elsewhere, without accidentally or intentionally lionizing a murderer.

by sph 3y ago

anon291 3y ago

> As a very progressive person, I quite enjoyed his critique of the modern Leftist ideals and why they would create the factionalism we see today, and he's arguing not as a conservative, but as a third position that is not represented by any mainstream camp. Realistically his opinions are held by a substantial amount of people that most would label conservative, although it's not mainstream conservatism for sure. And certainly not mainstream republicanism.

sph 3y ago
As a non American, the dichotomy that is all the rage nowadays is two camps whose position is literally just "we hate everything the other side loves". The point of Kaczynski is that both camps are mostly composed of middle-class Western academics living a sheltered life that are deciding who is socially accepted and who need to be cancelled. Our culture wars are not minorities shouting for a better life, our culture war is made of middle-class white people getting offended on behalf of minorities. They are no Martin Luther King, no Malcolm X, they just are posers that are making the racial (and gender and sexual) divide even worse than it is, by polarising or alienating the silent neutral majority. This is a longer argument that's put more eloquently in the manifesto than I could ever write on a comment box.
- watwut 3y ago
  You don't know much about Martin Luther King, do you?
  - Alenycus 3y ago
    > You don't know much about Martin Luther King, do you?
    - watwut 3y ago
      Definitely a bit more then someone who is trying to use his name in the above context.
- katamarimambo 3y ago
  Kaczynski was a middle-class Western academic who tried to literally cancel the lives of those he deemed unacceptable, which included people from both camps. Thank god there's a divide, otherwise I would be obliged to agree with you.
notahacker 3y ago
And most of his arguments about the Left specifically is the generic list of conservative/right-wing characterisations of the Left (obviously the rest of his philosophy has little to do with conservatism, mainstream or otherwise!). Leftists hate strength and rationality. Leftists only pretend to care about minorities. Leftists are self-hating losers who are afraid of competition Genuinely amazed someone identifying with the Left would find these ideas interesting, and if so, they're going to love the deep philosophical musings on leftism offered by the likes of Tucker Carlson and Ron de Sanctis!

timeon 3y ago

> I truly believe it would be recommended reading in schools and philosophy clubs Andreas Breivik copied large part of it in his manifesto, but then again he is murderer too.

sph 3y ago
Both are murderers, that doesn't mean they have the same ideas or ideals. Breivik is a right-wing fascist obsessed with racial and religious purity, Kaczynski's manifesto is critique of the Industrial Age not very distant from any 19th century anarchist essay. I'm not sure if he got more politicised in his later work, I'm only talking about that document. The point I'm trying to make is that people are more nuanced than your observation is trying to imply.
- rvense 3y ago
  > 19th century anarchist essay I think primitivism is a later invention. Certainly Kropotkin is very pro-mechanization. If there is a point of contention, it's to do with ownership, not technology itself.

watwut 3y ago

> If the name on the front page was not of a murderer, I truly believe it would be recommended reading in schools and philosophy clubs I assure you a lot of incredibly smart writing doing absolutely accurate predictions is ignored by schools and clubs. Literally only thing that sets Kaczynsky apart are the bombs. > , I quite enjoyed his critique of the modern Leftist ideals and why they would create the factionalism and alienation we see today Considering overwhelming majority of violence, authoritarianism and fictionalized is from right, by a large margin, this is massive meh.

isityouyesitsme 3y ago
"Right" or "left" wing is entirely meant as a sweeping generalized insult these days. The words are otherwise meaningless. Or more, they only mean whatever the person speaking them means to say. Example: Some of the most infamous acts of violence of the 20th century were sanctioned by a left-wing radical. Or a right-wing radical. It simply depends on which specific ideals you want to vilify when you by associating them with Hitler. Were the 2020 US riots were ultra surprising to you because they mostly left wingers burning cities and violently declaring demilitarized zones, or were they "meh" because right wingers are the only violent ones?
zmgsabst 3y ago
[flagged]

shrimpx 3y ago

This "third position" is basically anarchy, or anarcho-primitivism. It's not really a political position, it's more like a pathological insistence that civilization should be destroyed. Kaczynski went as far as saying we're biologically wired to live primitive lives and we're misusing ourselves in perversions that he calls 'surrogate activities', which include science and art. To him, hunting or trying to survive while being hunted in the woods is the perfect utilization of the human mind-body, and we should all abandon society and go do that instead.

spurgu 3y ago
I'd say it's more about autonomy, self-sufficiency and freedom, rather than just "living primitive lives". Technological progress tends to stifle all of the above, in the grand scheme of things. Think about owning horses back in the day, which you could simply breed to get more of. You could travel freely pretty much anywhere, no roads required. Compare that to a car which is manufactured somewhere far away with tons of special expertise and which basically cannot be repaired by a layman anymore (as opposed to not too many decades ago). And you rely on a huge infrastructure network for building and maintaining the roads. There are probably better examples (horses just came to mind). We tend to choose the more "advanced" option because it seems more convenient, without considering the externalities of that convenience, whether that's pollution or handing over part of our self-sufficiency in order to do so. Something like a Carrington event would cripple us and cause utter chaos. Just think of the huge amount of technology that we rely on in daily life and it's not changing direction. At all. We are not becoming more resilient, we're becoming less. We are quickly losing the skills required to adapt to a "lower" level of technology, meaning any quick disruption in the system could be catastrophical. Technology can potentially enable us to have more freedom, autonomy and self-sufficiency, but for it to be sustainable it would need to be at the top of the decision-making tree. Right now it's mostly a balancing act between convenience and affordability on behalf of consumers and profitability of producers. And well, mix in some environmental concerns (but those tend to be secondary as well as almost always reactionary). And yes I'm probably somewhat of a neo-luddite. I take pride in being self-sufficient, to the extent possible. And I'm more than willing to sacrifice convenience for freedom. Technology creates more boundaries, rules and bureaucracy, not less. Technology controls us, rather than the other way around.

NovaDudely 3y ago

> If the name on the front page was not of a murderer, I truly believe it would be recommended reading in schools and philosophy clubs. This is the saddest part, he didn't have to do it the way he did.

edgyquant 3y ago

> and I found more level-headed and thought-provoking than I would have imagined from someone able to commit such evil acts. No one thinks themselves evil. Every evil act, or most of them, was conducted by a person who thought they were doing what’s best.

stubybubs 3y ago

> If the name on the front page was not of a murderer, I truly believe it would be recommended reading in schools and philosophy clubs. I disagree. His ideas are not novel or new. There are large bodies of work around the evils of technology, increasing polarization, isolation, disconnection from nature etc. Leftists are trending toward authoritarianism is old hat. It's all pretty standard stuff. There have been literally hundreds of popular books and films about these very subjects. The only reason people are reading it is because he murdered people. He said as much: “In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we’ve had to kill people.” You can get everything he said elsewhere, without accidentally or intentionally lionizing a murderer.