[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 24 KB, 340x357, unabomber.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3673060 No.3673060 [Reply] [Original]

With the recent attacks in Boston, I've been reading up on other terrorist attacks (especially domestic ones) and I've been wondering:

Have any of you actually read the Unabomber manifesto? Or Brevik's? Are there any other prominent ones? Do these documents ever contain an original, intelligible idea, or are they mostly racist or unsophisticated anarchist rants?

>> No.3673072

I haven't read any of them but in /lit/ spirit I claim I have, and proceed to spam buzzwords.

racissssss
ignorannnnt

>> No.3673075

>>3673060
>unsophisticated anarchist rants

fuck you

>> No.3673077

>>3673075
What are you mad about, bruh?

I wasn't saying anarchism is unsophisticated; I was asking whether these manifestos offered a very simplistic, unsophisticated view of anarchist ideals or not.

>> No.3673083

I might be missing something but Unabomber's manifesto seems legit retarded to me - which conflicts with his credentials. itz a consipracy

>especially domestic ones
this is not a murikunt board, fuckwit

>> No.3673084

>>3673083
Well, I meant terrorist acts performed internally by citizens on their own nations, not especially murrika.

Fuckwit.

>> No.3673088
File: 19 KB, 410x331, 1342980318304.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3673088

>or are they mostly racist
>"evolution stopped at neck"
quoting your sick mind

>> No.3673090

The boston bomber is a muslim from chechnya?

>> No.3673091

>>3673060
>Have any of you actually read the Unabomber manifesto?
Yes.
>ever contain an original, intelligible idea?
Other people have said the same things, but in different forms.
>are they mostly racist or unsophisticated anarchist rants?
No, it was fairly well thought out. It seems to follow on from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's argument that the increased science and technology that our society is has is bad for us, and that mans natural state is superior. Rousseau said 'it's to late to go back', the Unabomber calls for a form of anarcho-primitivism. Also, despite his hatred of 'leftists' -- a term he actually redefines in the start -- he seems to rely on a form of Marx's 'labour theory of value', but instead of arguing for equality, he says the financial imbalance is enslaving people further and we need to get rid of all monetary forms.

Aside from the bad psychology in it, his argument is fairly sound and coherent; that we are enslaved by material possessions, that we consume dogmas and focus on trivial, banal things, fight idological wars, spend all of our slaving away to buy things we don't need; with those who can afford to live at their own leisure, become disillusioned and fill their lives with some trivial eccentric obsession. The only way, he thinks, to 'be free' from modern trappings is to adopt a primitive 'hunter-gatherer' lifestyle, in small communities, before we all end up passive consumers, stuck in tiny boxes and watching reality TV full time.

Although not an ideology I subscribe to at all, I can empathise with his mindset. It's a very short document and can be easily found online.

>> No.3673104

>>3673091
Thanks for being concise. I've actually read the first couple pages of the .pdf of the Unabomber document I downloaded, and you elaborated on a few of the summations I've read.

>Although not an ideology I subscribe to at all, I can empathise with his mindset
This is something I struggle with, to be honest. The ideas are not 'wrong' per se, and hold much more than mere 'kernels' of truth, yet I can't see myself actually advocating the destruction and de-establishment of industry and infrastructure, his anarcho-primitivism. Most manifestos or similar declarations profess important ideas, but mostly fantastical, idealized social concepts that could never be fulfilled.

>> No.3673117

I read Dorner's manifesto. It was actually somewhat cogent until he started calling out all these celebrities.

I read a snippet of Brevik's, it was horrifically written.

I was surprised to see this one day:
>http://www.amazon.com/Technological-Slavery-Collected-Kaczynski-k/dp/1932595805

Never thought a major publisher would touch the stuff.

>> No.3673123

>>3673117
>It was actually somewhat cogent until he started calling out all these celebrities.
lol. You should try reading HIS actual manifest instead. The rambling about celebrities was put in by /b/ and circulated until a media outlet picked it up and ran with it. AFAIK there is nothing taken away from the original in that one, just all that celebrity rambling added.

>> No.3673124

I've read them. Breivik is pretty much just a desperate desire for belonging couched in nationalism. The unabomber is mainly just stuff on alienation, same old stuff you saw get thrown around in the 19th century, but with a greater edge of personal desperation. The unabomber is slightly less coherent. Breivik is more pragmatic, he sees it as being a sort of mixture of instruction manual as well as being a sort of biography more. He expects people to read it and celebrate him, the unabomber is more ideological in nature. The unabomber wants to sell an idea, Breivik wants to sell his secret club. Both are acting out of a profound sense of not-belonging, Breivik tries to create an identity. The unabomber is rebelling against the things he thinks prevents him from having an identity.

Both are crazy.

>> No.3673135

>Have any of you actually read the Unabomber manifesto? Or Brevik's?

I've read both. They're a mix of legitimate ideas and idiotisms.
Breivik was right about criticizing the postmodern "all civilizations are equal" opinion, but he supported the idea that the European Union is a conspiracy to islamize Europe, too. Unabomber would be pretty sensible if he wasn't fucked in the head and started sending bombs to people.

>> No.3673144

>>3673135
You don't think his actions helped to emphasize his points? Unabomber, that is.

>> No.3673157

>>3673144
Nope. Blowing people up has never been considered a solid rhetorical technique.

>> No.3673158

>>3673144

Not really. How do terrorist attacks support the idea that anarchoprimitivism is possible and correct to enforce?

>> No.3673161

>>3673144
>You don't think his actions helped to emphasize his points?
It was a necessary evil. You wouldn't be discussing his manifesto now if he hadn't done it.

>> No.3673164

>>3673157
>>3673158
I guess not, I suppose. Yet, I mean, if one wishes to inflame a revolution, one can't sit in their armchair trying to incense the crowds. One has to act.

>> No.3673166

>>3673161
The fact that his words cannot stand on their own is not justification.

>> No.3673171

>>3673166
His words can stand on their own, but how is he going to get his words heard over the droning of Kim Kardashian and Simon Cowell? That was the point.

>> No.3673179

>You wouldn't be discussing his manifesto now if he hadn't done it.

Nietzsche, Marx or Derrida all changed the world just by putting out a book. They didn't have to blow stuff up to do it. But I get what you're saying, the probability of your ideology's success is bigger if you kill some people to propagate it. Not that it's not fucked up.

>> No.3673175

>>3673164
Yes, but even then the actions don't emphasize your point, they're just actions, the logic is distinct from them. The actions may be necessary to bring about a resolution of some form, but they don't make the point itself. Further more his point was flawed it was his own insecurity he was projecting onto the world.

>> No.3673178

>>3673171
I don't think either of those people were in the public eye when he done did what he did.

>> No.3673180

>>3673178
Oh come on, they're just conceptual place holders and can be substituted for many names.

>> No.3673181

>>3673179
I doubt the probability of its success is higher. The probability people will hear about it is higher, but the likelihood to get real support when they're having to wear the albatross of your crimes about their neck at every debate doesn't help. Unless you're counting teenage nihilists, but I never do.

>> No.3673188

>>3673180
well speak clearly. I have no intention of buying into the game of human reductionist just so you can feel superior to the 'sheeple'. What concept do you want to deal with specifically?

>> No.3673194

>>3673181
People still talk about the american dream and american exceptionalism and look how many millions are dead because of that. Its not fair to judge terrorists for their 10s killed.

>> No.3673196

>>3673181
I feel that those sort of actions (terrorism) may not increase the chances of your ideological success, but it definitely divides people and entrenches them. Before, people are murky, yet after a terrorist act, most obviously stand against such violence and what not, but those who actually agree with the ideas professed probably feel more motivation and support to carry out acts of their own, further propagating the ideas.

>> No.3673215

>>3673194
>Its not fair to judge terrorists for their 10s killed
yes it is. In fact that's the exact reason why we have "judges".

>> No.3673227

>>3673196
Seems shortsighted. Where's the endgame. "i'll have a small group of followers who will feel MORE dedicated because they have to overcome the guilt by association." I think its supposed to be like an ideological revolution, not a cult.

>> No.3673229
File: 11 KB, 480x360, 0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3673229

>>3673215
>America committed genocide on their native population, but if a judge says that's cool its allright

>> No.3673237

>>3673227
No no, I agree. In fact, if the ideas are only propagated by actions following actions following actions, the ideas will be entrenched in that cycle, and will never be able to break free from that. It does bring about 'ideological success' if one measures that in the succession of the idea by people through the years. However, that would never be able to incite a revolution, for it's too small of a scale and the continued and sustained attacks would fuel an ever-growing opposing majority. I was only saying that 'success' could be measured by the propagation of ideas not only through the hard numbers of followers, but the sustained following through the years, which would be cult-like.

>> No.3673239

>>3673229
nah, its alright anyway. I'm an american, if not for the profit from that genocide I would never have been born. To condemn the conquest America would be to resent my own existence.

>> No.3673292

>>3673229
>but if a judge says that's cool its allright
The UN has ruled that the Iraq war was an illegal act of genocide. What use are judges?

>> No.3673312

>With the recent attacks in Boston
BBC news just said that one one of the guys -- apparently they are two Chechnyan brothers -- has been killed already, and the whole of Boston is locked down under Marshall law while they hunt the other one.

>> No.3673315
File: 13 KB, 177x278, questionable.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3673315

>>3673292

>> No.3673326

>>3673312
>marshall law

All of that has been circulating all morning. I get that it's the BBC, but that's old news.

>> No.3673338

>>3673312
>Marshall law

What are you doing with your life?

>> No.3673340

>>3673326
>but that's old news.
Give me a break, I've only just woken up.

>> No.3673343

>>3673340
oh, well carry on then

>> No.3673346

>>3673338
Clearly he means that the federal Marshall have been given direct and total executive power... Or a man named Marshall Law is in charge now.

>> No.3673347

>>3673312
>Marshall law
>Marshall
It's martial law, Marshall Law sounds like a bad '80s cop show.

>> No.3673351

>>3673347
If anything, it sounds like an AMAZING '80s cop show.

>> No.3673356

I think the Son of Sam wrote a few interesting letters.

>> No.3673365

>>3673117

Dorner's manifesto was just him all pissed off at the LAPD for the injustice and corruption he saw in the department, I don't remember seeing anything about celebrities.

>> No.3673372

>>3673188

All he's saying is that the purpose of the attacks was to draw attention to the manifesto rather than add to the manifesto in some way. I'm not even involved in this but seriously you're being incredibly obtuse. Actually discuss what you want to discuss instead of playing dumb and using other lame argumentative techniques.

>> No.3673377

>>3673060

unabomber had some decent ideas about using less tech and protecting the environment, but the reasoning behind them is wacky and extreme

>> No.3673379

>>3673372
Nah, what he was suggesting was that society wouldn't listen to even good ideas because of media personalities for some reason that rings of elitism.

>> No.3673381
File: 10 KB, 251x201, marshall.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3673381

> Marshall Law sounds like a bad '80s cop show.

>> No.3673384

>>3673090
No that was false information. He's a Muslim from Kyrgyzstan.

>> No.3673390

>>3673379
He seemed to be implying that as the Unabomber felt that western society was drowning in celebrity culture, sending a few bombs was the only way to get his voice heard... That nobody would bother reading his manifesto while the bright lights of popular entertainment was a distraction without a radical move.

>> No.3673397

>>3673384
From Dagestan before he came to Anerica.

>> No.3673409

>>3673397
Please spell America correct and then check your privilege. Anyway, the younger ones been here for like ten years so I doubt it really matters.

Also it's been said that he smoked weed in high school so this is pretty much proof that pot smokers are really just eventual terrorists.

>> No.3673414

>>3673351
When criminals strike the heart of Boston, who has the strength to strike back?

*punches through wall*

MARSHALL LAW

>> No.3673416

>>3673091

Actually the unabomber was more directly influenced by Jacques Ellul, a philosopher of technology who advocates an "autonomist" approach to tech. (in a nutshell: technology is advancing too quickly and making humans redundant, and enslaving them to technocratic systems). His manifesto is incredibly lucid and coherent, and I think it's even better and more thorough than Ellul's work. He was not crazy in any way shape or form. Just because you don't agree with "propaganda of the deed" doesn't mean the guy is a lunatic. His actions followed directly and rationally from his ideas.

Just because you love reason and logic does not mean that actions that make your fuckwad little cowardly self quiver in your boots are inherently irrational.

That said, I don't advocate "propaganda of the deed" and the death camps of Dora Buchenwald, Auschwitz etc. were good examples of the overly rational implementation of irrational ideas.

tl;dr Reason is our hope and our destruction simultaneously. Just because humans are capable of reason does not mean that reason is the dominant mode of being of humans. Habermas: get fucked.

>> No.3673418

Tim Mcveigh apparently had some ideas. Gore Vidal visited him in prison for a chat and a rimjob.

>> No.3673430

Stop watching tv, or at least eating all they say. And by that I'm not saying you agree with their assertions but rather that you accept their questions and the logic they feed.

Putting Kaczynski and the oslo guy at the same level just cause they used the same methods makes no fucking sense.

It doesn't matter if you read those texts or not, you won't get shit if you approach them like that.

Terms like "terrorism" or "violence" are generic words that say nothing without a context.

>> No.3673440

>>3673416
well as a philosopher of getting enslaved to the technocratic nightmare I advocate enslavement to the insensate apparatus of the technocaracy and therefore propose that you are the one who is the fuckwad

>> No.3673448

The Unabomber takes a bunch of good premises (industrialization having negative consequences; obsession with efficiency) and reaches a batshit insane conclusion.

Brevik basically stole a bunch of shit from the Unabomber and changed some words to make it about multi-culturalism being the devil instead of industrial society.

>> No.3673462

>>3673418
lol he was a paranoid schizophrenic who thought he was going to bring the Turner Diaries to life and start "the great race war" or some shit, not even in the same league as TK, intellectually or in terms of terror caused

>> No.3673472

Fuckwad = source of life.

I'm okay with this.

>> No.3673488

>>3673060
>Bob Guccione of Penthouse volunteered to publish it, but Kaczynski replied that, since Penthouse was less "respectable" than the other publications, he would in that case "reserve the right to plant one (and only one) bomb intended to kill, after our manuscript has been published

lmbo

>> No.3673495

If I wanted to read the paranoid ravings of mouthbreathers I'd go to /pol/.

>> No.3673507

>>3673495
I know, right? They're nothing but a bunch of bigoted redneck homophobes who hate African-Americans and G-d's Chosen People.

>> No.3673522

>>3673507
They could be children's doctors with a heart of gold who volunteer every weekend at a shelter for adorable kittens, it doesn't chnage the fact that what they write is shit.

>> No.3675635

>>3673060
The Unabomber is a pretty run of the mill militant primitivist. I can see his point but his actions were mostly futile and I don't agree with primitivism. I've read parts of Breivik but he was basically a neo-con culturalist with crusader fantasies.

Neither make really good cases.

>> No.3675642

Carl Panzram was a sort of militant nihilist serialkiller who afterwards wrote memoirs and opinions. He walked the walk and talked the talk. Edgy as fuck.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_Panzram

>> No.3675648

>>3673088
>intelligence develops to a universal preordained level because 'evolution' is about attaining a higher level of being rather than simple adaptation