I do not support in any way the crimes perpetrated by this terrorist.
Its a shame he used such violent and extream means, I think some of his points, not most of them, but some of them were interesting when I self reflect on how I depend on society and how technology is basically become a part of human evolution.
That said I can't condone what he did or how he used violence to further his own agenda.
Then they're no longer protesters, but rather rioters.
Alaskan off grid YouTube is a great resource, as are a lot of sustainable off grid tiny home channels.
Theodore kazynskis manifesto alone does irreparable harm to the thesis that any person should look to his deeds or acts as a source of self improvement.
isn't that a bit of an oxymoron?
How did the Mongolian Horde manage to travel and live in the horseback? No, please don’t do that. There are hundreds of peaceful horse riders out there you could learn from. Those other guys killed people.
"Why the Future Doesn't Need Us" (2000)
<https://web.archive.org/web/20170801001546/https://www.wired...>
There are much better writers. E.g. Ugo Bardi, Gail Tverberg that have a skeptical outlook on our future.
I found the manifesto interesting, but it wasn’t compelling beyond the few strokes of wisdom. In academia, you see exactly what he is talking about, especially nowadays.
In saying whataboutists, I was referring to a section of ISaiF called, “The Danger of Leftism.” I was trying to avoid a direct callout to a political practice by saying this, but it may have obfuscated the point too much. Here, he talks about the derailing of discussion that happens when your space includes leftists. As I remember, he says this is due to the rabbit hole creation that happens in attempting to address issues pertaining to minorities. In this way, your discussion veers away from the point at hand,which is actually a part of the CIA guide to disrupting dissidents (get people to fight over definitions and what the purpose of conversations is).
The bureaucracy point is my own playfulness. I think a lot of people in governmental or academic circles have dealt with people who are more concerned with the rules at hand and the perception of following those rules than they are with the creation of good work. The section on oversocialization in ISaiF may clarify what I mean. It points at a class of people who are very, very concerned with the perception of others that is very common in the academic world.
Edit: I forgot to address Byung-Chul Han’s relation. He writes short books in the style of Baudrillard, in that, it is heavy on social criticism. Specifically, I am thinking of “In the Swarm” and its critique of group thought in the social media age.
Without absolving him of his crimes, I think Kaczynski's writings are fascinating, but the interviews from this page are pretty mundane. There's nothing particularly remarkable or "unabomber" about anything said on that page.
what made him pathetic was he never escaped the system he hated. what he struck out at were not its mechanisms and gears, but yet still just symbols he thought he could destroy to direct its attention to his writing. imo he never found the base reality that is immediately accessible to anyone who doesn't impose their conditions on it. ask a parent about what's true and real and good or someone missing a hand about compassion.
If you're interested in this stuff, read just Walden and go camping, he didn't have any particularly meaningful insight into anything that's worth following.
untreated (untreatable?) mental illness
