<story><title>“Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the Unabomber</title><url>https://www.roelpeters.be/industrial-society-and-its-future-the-intelligent-yet-angry-writings-of-a-terrorist/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>Swenrekcah</author><text>&amp;gt;He proposes that &amp;quot;leftists&amp;quot; have this belief in their own freedom, but that this freedom is a delusion.&lt;p&gt;Interesting, because my pet theory is that what determines if people lean left or right is their belief in their own free will.&lt;p&gt;Those that truly believe they are completely free and autonomus from society and their environment will naturally favor right wing policies, but those that believe they are largely a product of their environment will favor left wing policies.&lt;p&gt;This belief is perhaps (probably) not always explicit but rather somehow implicit or &amp;#x27;felt&amp;#x27;.</text></item><item><author>lucideer</author><text>I have to say I had the exact opposite reaction.&lt;p&gt;I was also intrigued by the depiction in the Manhunt series and read the manifesto as a result.&lt;p&gt;In the TV show, Kaczinky is portrayed as a highly intellectual, informed, educated individual, mentally thwarting his interviewer in their debate on morals and politics. After building up that expectation of Kaczinky&amp;#x27;s intellect, the manifesto is an enormous disappointment. It&amp;#x27;s filled with base broad assumptions, ignorant and unresearched assertions on &amp;quot;leftism&amp;quot; and in particular his treatise on &amp;quot;oversocialization&amp;quot; is so transparently a defensive lashing out at the elements of society that have not been personally accepting of him.&lt;p&gt;Throughout, his arguments are made as plain, implicit statements. Nothing is approached in an evidence-based manner and there are no attempts to contradict obvious counter-arguments. His &amp;quot;facts&amp;quot; are simply stated as self-evident.&lt;p&gt;Take e.g.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;it’s likely that many leftists of the oversocialized type would say that most people, including themselves, are socialized too little rather than too much, yet the oversocialized leftist pays a heavy psychological price for his high level of socialization.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;This is centred around the idea of society imposing restrictions on our autonomy through socialization; we believe strongly in our own freedom. He proposes that &amp;quot;leftists&amp;quot; have this belief in their own freedom, but that this freedom is a delusion. A delusion that results from their own oversocialization. At no point does he explain how&amp;#x2F;why leftists are more oversocialized than non-lefists, or why he believes that he himself is not delusional in his sense of his own autonomy.&lt;p&gt;There are some central elements in there of value (his general focus on the importance of effort and autonomy in fulfillment I would agree with), but these can be found discussed more articulately in better writings without being padded with political&amp;#x2F;social nonsense.&lt;p&gt;Overall, the manifesto is not worth reading.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>archagon</author><text>What? How can you possibly say this when the entire modus operandi of the conservative right (in the US) is unwavering deference to authority?&lt;p&gt;(On reflection, I guess &amp;quot;we have rules and you should have known better&amp;quot; could be construed as a belief in free will, in the sense of justifying the myriad ways in which systems pressure individuals. But it&amp;#x27;s ironic that the purported side of free will is the side of &amp;quot;president&amp;#x2F;cops&amp;#x2F;military&amp;#x2F;corporation&amp;#x2F;party knows best&amp;quot;, while the other side is the one actually trying to enact change in these systems. &lt;i&gt;Actual&lt;/i&gt; free will implies a feedback loop of observation, action, and reaction.)</text></comment>
<story><title>“Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the Unabomber</title><url>https://www.roelpeters.be/industrial-society-and-its-future-the-intelligent-yet-angry-writings-of-a-terrorist/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>Swenrekcah</author><text>&amp;gt;He proposes that &amp;quot;leftists&amp;quot; have this belief in their own freedom, but that this freedom is a delusion.&lt;p&gt;Interesting, because my pet theory is that what determines if people lean left or right is their belief in their own free will.&lt;p&gt;Those that truly believe they are completely free and autonomus from society and their environment will naturally favor right wing policies, but those that believe they are largely a product of their environment will favor left wing policies.&lt;p&gt;This belief is perhaps (probably) not always explicit but rather somehow implicit or &amp;#x27;felt&amp;#x27;.</text></item><item><author>lucideer</author><text>I have to say I had the exact opposite reaction.&lt;p&gt;I was also intrigued by the depiction in the Manhunt series and read the manifesto as a result.&lt;p&gt;In the TV show, Kaczinky is portrayed as a highly intellectual, informed, educated individual, mentally thwarting his interviewer in their debate on morals and politics. After building up that expectation of Kaczinky&amp;#x27;s intellect, the manifesto is an enormous disappointment. It&amp;#x27;s filled with base broad assumptions, ignorant and unresearched assertions on &amp;quot;leftism&amp;quot; and in particular his treatise on &amp;quot;oversocialization&amp;quot; is so transparently a defensive lashing out at the elements of society that have not been personally accepting of him.&lt;p&gt;Throughout, his arguments are made as plain, implicit statements. Nothing is approached in an evidence-based manner and there are no attempts to contradict obvious counter-arguments. His &amp;quot;facts&amp;quot; are simply stated as self-evident.&lt;p&gt;Take e.g.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;it’s likely that many leftists of the oversocialized type would say that most people, including themselves, are socialized too little rather than too much, yet the oversocialized leftist pays a heavy psychological price for his high level of socialization.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;This is centred around the idea of society imposing restrictions on our autonomy through socialization; we believe strongly in our own freedom. He proposes that &amp;quot;leftists&amp;quot; have this belief in their own freedom, but that this freedom is a delusion. A delusion that results from their own oversocialization. At no point does he explain how&amp;#x2F;why leftists are more oversocialized than non-lefists, or why he believes that he himself is not delusional in his sense of his own autonomy.&lt;p&gt;There are some central elements in there of value (his general focus on the importance of effort and autonomy in fulfillment I would agree with), but these can be found discussed more articulately in better writings without being padded with political&amp;#x2F;social nonsense.&lt;p&gt;Overall, the manifesto is not worth reading.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>AnimalMuppet</author><text>Interesting.  That would let you look at the same set of problems in society, and decide either that you need to fix the individuals (rightist) or fix the environment, that is, the structure of society (leftist).  And their answer would feel so right to them (on both sides) that they would think that anyone who saw it the other way had to be maliciously advocating for a bad agenda.&lt;p&gt;And, in truth, neither view will do.  We are more the product of our environment than the rightists think, but we are less the prisoner of our circumstances than the leftists think.</text></comment>