Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/reports/unabomber.manifesto.short

Internet Message Format | 1995-08-02 | 9KB

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa01623;
          2 Aug 95 22:36 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA03089 for telecomlist-outbound; Wed, 2 Aug 1995 16:28:51 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA03082; Wed, 2 Aug 1995 16:28:45 -0500
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 16:28:45 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Text of Unabomber Manifesto


The person who has become widely known in recent months as Unabomber
has written a manifesto explaining his beliefs and conduct. He first
contacted the {New York Times} and the {Washington Post} requesting
that they publish the manifesto.

Unabomber has also requested that his manifesto be made available to
readers of the Internet/Usenet newsgroups, and some excerpts from his
message are printed here. I think he believes his message will reach
the 'technophiles' whom he condemns with publication in an electronic
medium such as this network.

I must say I do not find myself completely in disagreement with Unabomber's
message. I repudiate the violent method of expression he has chosen to
use, favoring instead a continuing dialogue with the 'industrial system'
of which he speaks. But I suppose Unabomber would say that after all the
dialogue has been given; after all is said and done, the system will not
change without the violent overthrow of which he speaks.

Perhaps ... but his message is worth our consideration, and I am pleased
to be one conduit by which it can be disseminated on the Internet.  For
what should be obvious reasons, I have *no method of contacting Unabomber*
and cannot forward replies nor can I respond to personal replies. I'm sure
he will see them. In about a week I will publish the best replies here.


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Digest Editor

            -----  begin text of Unabomber message -----

The industrial revolution and 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 destablized society, have
made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led
to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suff-
ering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The
continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will cer-
tainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater
damage on the natural world. It will probably lead to greater social disrup-
tion and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical
suffering even in 'advanced' countries ...

We 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 relative-
ly 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 tech-
nological basis of the present society ...

For primative societies the natural world (which usually changes only
slowly) provided a stable framework and therefore a sense of security.
In the modern world it is human society that dominates nature rather than
the other way around, and modern society changes very rapidly owing to
technological change. Thus there is no stable framework.

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 ...

We are going to argue that industrial-technological society cannot be
reformed in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing
the sphere of human freedom. But, because 'freedom' is a word that
can be interpreted in many ways, we must first make clear what kind of
freedom we are concerned with.

By 'freedom' we mean the opportunity to go through the power process,
with real goals, not the artificial goals of surrogate activities, and
without interference, manipulation or supervision from anyone, especially
 from any large organization. Freedom means being in control (either as
an individual or as a member of a *small* group) of the life-and-death
issues of one's existence: food, clothing, shelter and defense against
whatever threats there may be in one's environment. Freedom means having
power; not the power to control other people but the power to control
the circumstances of one's own life. One does not have freedom if anyone
else (especially a large organization) has power over one, no matter how
benevolently, tolerantly, and permissively that power may be exercised.
It is important not to confuse freedom with mere permissiveness.  ...

"Oh!", say the technophiles, "Science is going to fix all that! We will
conquer famine, eliminate psychological suffering, make everybody healthy
and happy."  Yeah, sure. That's what they said two hundred years ago.
The industrial revolution was supposed to eliminate poverty, make everybody
happy, etc. The actual result has been quite different. ...

The average man may have control over certain private machines of his
own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large
systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite -- just as it
is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite
will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will
no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden
on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterm-
inate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propoganda or
other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate
until the masses of humanity become extinct, leaving the world to the
elite.  Or if the elite consists of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide
to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They
will see to it that everyone's physical needs are satisfied, that all
children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that
everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who
may become dissatisfied undergoes 'treatment' to cure his 'problem'.
Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be
biologically or psychologically engineered wither to remove their need
for the power process or to make them 'sublimate' their drive for power
into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy
in such a society, but they most certainly will not be free. ...

The technophiles are taking us all on an utterly reckless ride into the
unknown. Many people understand something of what technological progress
is doing to us yet take a passive attitude toward it because they think
it is inevitable. But we (FC) don't think it is inevitable. We think it
can be stopped ...

Until the industrial system has been thoroughly wrecked, the destruction
of that system must be the revolutionaries' *only* goal.

      ------  end text of Unabomber message ------

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Unabomber's reference above to 'FC' is
to the Freedom Club. The number of members in the 'club' is unknown,
however the US Federal Bureau of Investigation believes membership
consists of only one person, Unabomber himself and no others.

Since 1978, Unabomber is credited with killing three people and injuring
23 others with a series of bombs directed primarily at university
researchers and their employees. Some bombs have been directed to
airlines and other 'high-tech' industries.

The first bombs attributed to Unabomber were in 1978 in the Chicago area
at Northwestern University and the University of Illinois at Chicagp.
The FBI believes Unabomber moved to the Salt Lake City area in 1980, and
then to northern California in 1981, where he had 'some sort of contact'
with the University of California at Berkeley, where two bombs were
placed. For many years Unabomber chose to remain silent following his
attacks, leading investigators to believe his attacks were simply random
in nature.  PAT]