The Unabomber Manifesto: Industrial Society and Its Future

Table of Contents

Editor's Preface

INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY AND ITS FUTURE

Introduction

The Psychology of Modern Leftism

Feelings of Inferiority

Oversocialization

The Power Process

Surrogate Activities

Autonomy

Sources of social Problems

Disruption of the Power Process in Modern Society

How some People adjust

The Motives of Scientists

The Nature of Freedom

Some Principles of History

Industrial-technological Society cannot be reformed

Restriction of Freedom is unavoidable in industrial Society

The ›bad‹ Parts of Technology cannot be seperated from the ›good‹ Parts

Technology is a more powerful social Force than the Aspiration for Freedom

Simpler social Problems have proved intractable

Revolution is easier than Reform

Control of human Behavior

Human Race at a Crossroads

Human Suffering

The Future

Strategy

Two Kinds of Technology

The Danger of Leftism

Final Note

Editor's Preface

THE UNABOMBER, whose real name is Theodore John (Ted) Kaczynski, was an infamous American domestic terrorist, known for his 17-year bombing campaign that targeted individuals, associated with modern technology. Born on May 22, 1942, in Chicago, Kaczynski displayed exceptional intelligence from an early age. He graduated from Harvard University and went on to earn a Ph. D. in mathematics from the University of Michigan.

In 1971, Kaczynski abruptly ended his promising academic career and retreated to a remote cabin in Montana. It was during this time that he began planning and carrying out a series of mail bombings, which earned him the moniker »Unabomber« (short for »University and Airline Bomber«). From 1978 to 1995, Kaczynski targeted universities, airlines, and individuals involved in technology, mailing explosive devices to his victims.

The Unabomber’s bombs were carefully constructed and designed to cause maximum harm. He meticulously crafted the devices using common materials and employed a variety of methods to conceal the true nature of the packages. The 16 bomb attacks that have become known, claimed at least three lives and injured dozens more; the onslaught sparked widespread fear and panic across the United States.

The motives behind the Unabomber’s actions were outlined in his Manifesto, titled »Industrial Society and Its Future«, also known as the »Unabomber Manifesto«. In it, Kaczynski expressed deep-seated opposition to technological advancements and industrialization. He believed that modern society’s reliance on technology and the industrial system resulted in dehumanization, environmental degradation, and the loss of individual liberty.

After years of investigation, the FBI launched a massive manhunt to capture the Unabomber. In 1995, Kaczynski’s sister in law recognized elements of the Manifesto in Ted’s letters and his way of articulation, and contacted the authorities – leading to his arrest. In 1998, he pleaded guilty to multiple federal charges and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. On June 10, 2023, Kaczynski was found in his cell unresponsive. He was taken to a hospital and died, presumably as a result of suicide, on the same day, at the age of 81.

Kaczynski’s actions were driven by a combination of extreme ideologies and a deeply held belief in the need to resist technological progress. While his campaign of violence came to an end, the impact of his crimes and the questions they raised about the relationship between society and technology continue to reverberate today – more then ever with the upcoming of artificial intelligence.

The Manifesto

THE MANIFESTO ARGUES that technological advancements and industrialization have led to the dehumanization of individuals, the erosion of personal liberties, and the destruction of the natural environment. The Unabomber believed that society’s increasing reliance on technology had created a system that prioritizes efficiency and control over individual well-being and self-determination.

His ultimate goal was to dismantle the industrial-technological system and return society to a simpler, more natural state. He saw technological progress as a threat to individual freedom, creativity, and fulfillment. Kaczynski believed that by targeting those involved in the advancement of technology through his bombing campaign, he could disrupt and challenge the system he viewed as oppressive.

The Unabomber managed to get his Manifesto publicized by promising to halt his bombing campaign if media published his declaration in its entirety. In 1995, he sent it to The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other media organizations. He also threatened to continue the bombings if his demands were not met. The media organizations faced a difficult decision but ultimately chose to publish. On September 19, 1995, The Washington Post and The New York Times jointly published the 35.000-word Manifesto, titled »Industrial Society and Its Future«. It was the Unabomber’s attempt to convey his beliefs and motivations to a wider audience and gain attention for his anti-technology ideology.

The decision to publish the Manifesto was controversial and sparked intense public debate. While some criticized the media for giving a platform to a domestic terrorist, others argued that it was necessary to understand the motivations behind his crimes. Though the publication of the Manifesto played a significant role in the subsequent identification and arrest of the Unabomber.

While the Unabomber’s actions were condemned as acts of terrorism, his Manifesto ignited debates and discussions about the impact of technology on society. Some of his ideas have been scrutinized and explored by scholars and intellectuals, even though the violent means he employed to convey his message were widely rejected.

Overall, the Manifesto reflected the Unabomber’s deep-seated concerns about the consequences of technological progress and his desire to resist and dismantle the industrial-technological system in order to preserve individual autonomy and freedom.

© Joe Andersen, June 2023

INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY AND ITS FUTURE

INTRODUCTION

1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in »advanced« countries, but they have 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. It will certainly subject human beings to 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.

2. 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 to 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 to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy.

3. If the 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 it had best break down sooner rather than later.

4. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system. This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We can’t predict any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the measures that those who hate the industrial system should take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of society. This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society.

5. In this article we give attention to only some of the negative developments that have grown out of the industrial-technological system. Other such developments we mention only briefly or ignore altogether. This does not mean that we regard these other developments as unimportant. For practical reasons we have to confine our discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which we have something new to say. For example, since there are well-developed environmental and wilderness movements, we have written very little about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild nature, even though we consider these to be highly important.

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF

MODERN LEFTISM

6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.

7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, »politically correct« types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by »leftism« will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. (Also, see paragraphs 227-230)

8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn’t seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call »feelings of inferiority« and »oversocialization.« Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.

FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY

10. By »feelings of inferiority« we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings