Response to the Unabomber Manifesto

The purpose of industrial society is to conduct warfare on an industrial scale, and my ultimate criticism of primitivists is they don’t have a realistic plan for conducting warfare against other technological societies. It’s a deceptive form of pacifism adopted by soul-sick men to preserve their egos while being out-competed by physically weaker men with superior social intelligence. In particular, Kaczinsky’s unspoken assumption is that America will have overwhelming military superiority forever such that he’ll never need a factory-made AK-47 and ammo produced by Russian industrialization. Primitivists point to the Taliban as if they would have done just as well without the AK-47s given to them by industrial society. In the final analysis, edenists are losers whining about how hard it is to adapt to the psychological mismatch of modern society. They are under the misapprehension that humans historically did not struggle to adapt to previous situations of psychological mismatch until their psychology was traumatically molded to fit each new situation. Hunting, herding, or farming may seem natural to a modern man, but there was a time when they were new and stressful.

There is a correct criticism of industrial society: too much of it too fast saps the society’s will to struggle and survive. You’ll note that this traces to the same premise that I’m using to criticize primitivism–that’s because the evolutionary purpose of both things, society and technology, is to kill people from other societies:

The will to live is at least as important as sheer numbers or bronze weapons, so this is another catastrophic failure mode for a civilization*. Women become decadent and men become disenchanted enough with these decadent women that they cease to be interested in violence. And I believe this disenchantment is the root of primitivism: if women aren’t worth fighting for, then there’s no good reason to stress yourself out adapting to the psychological mismatch of modern industrial warfare. The correct approach then is to introduce technology such that it maximizes military strength. It must not be pursued at the complete expense of morale, but neither can morale be pursued at the complete expense of industrial weaponry, as overemphasizing either variable leads to extinction at the hands of less foolish societies in group selection.

Kaczinsky otherwise has some good points and some bad points, but his purpose is misguided by the (presumably unexamined) belief that human life is supposed to be free and tranquil rather than ruthlessly competitive and filled with mass murder, rape, looting, slavery and other existential anxieties that produce psychological mismatch. But he’s just plain wrong–those things are the rule rather than the exception, and if he weren’t a soul-sick utopian he would be able to look at that historical reality directly and clearly with his extraordinary intelligence. It’s like Ed Dutton’s been saying lately: the new crucible of evolutionary selection is mental illness induced by industrial-scale social gaslighting, and like the feminists and the anti-natalists Kaczinsky and his followers didn’t make the cut.

This is a longer-form way of saying something I’ve said before, which is that I agree with Paul Cooijmans’ take on the matter. It’s likely that this mechanism of selection, failure to discern and navigate industrial-scale social gaslighting, is what causes the over-representation of autistic-leaning engineers among terrorists as observed by Diego Gambetta.

The importance of studying the Unabomber’s manifesto lies in trying to understand how an apparently highly intelligent individual gets to using violence against innocent.

[…]

The Unabomber’s central and fatal conclusion can be summed up as:

Technological society is incompatible with individual freedom and must therefore be destroyed and replaced by primitive society so that people will be free again.

I think this is an irrational conclusion, affected by the Unabomber’s mental illness. However, only part of the manifesto is directly related to this conclusion; much of the rest is sound and rational, whether one agrees with it or not. There is valid criticism in his writing that can not be dismissed as the product of a disordered mind.

https://paulcooijmans.com/psychology/unabomber.html

*It would be interesting to analyze the failure modes by way of these three military variables: quantity of men, quality of men, and the quantity/quality of their weapons. The quantity of men is the most fundamental, because getting wiped out makes the other two variables become irrelevant, and it’s the outcome that signifies failure in the other two areas. We care whether men lose the will to fight (i.e. treating their will as their “quality”) because when the morale variable drops to zero you lose wars, and then the quantity variable drops to zero, inarguably signifying total defeat.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Response to the Unabomber Manifesto

  1. bicebicebice says:

    if you can’t win modern mainstream society you bail and start your own cult, such thingies can be; anotehr branch of major religion, a niche selection/section of capitalism. the amish are christian and primtive but not staunch polticials: this cope of “no I can’t leave society because the will come after me and bomb me with a stealth fighter” is A cope of the altrights and incels and americans but the real reason is its not a coherent ideology for a new society.
    just being against something doesn’t mean WINNING.
    Also somethign the added humiliation of being forced to inject jewish mercury to participate in the same damn, declining, “society”…
    “how did my country start?” -…by conquest and plunder and co-operation to basically extract forms of gold/money from the soil blessed by some christian cult inb4 edenism and the whole world was set upon by cromagnons willingly-whipped by melonboons WINNING and even neanderthards could prosper from the technology to live in caves making computer games and daydream awake on the internet just as naturally as a beaver builds a dam.

    the chinese are stoically crushed by modern machinery all damn day long, as told cy ountless .webms – the long march through technology.

    teleport a roman or a victorian into the modern world – does he assume and wield the technology to be a WINNER? why wouldn’t a herder from 4000bc just WIN with modern machinery? Ted KAY would have loved the borgonizer, a failsafe to access the upper leves of technology that will destroy ani mortal man of average IQ, just as 5year old chillums are instantly corrupted and zogged the minute mommy or daddy hands them the snake apple(phone).

    tldr: we just need to defeat the gay and the general non-Christianenss and people will Naturally be more humane again, the social order in current year society can be restored, no need for breakaway socities even if it just takes genetically speaking 40 men and 40 women to start a new population without inbreeding as per SCIENCE. *ahem*…treestump

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E8_SdO4X0AwNRX9?format=png&name=medium

  2. MM says:

    Yeah things will always be in flux (alive) until humanity is destroyed or ‘transcends’ its nature.

    And then that transcended race, or monolithic being or hivemind-fuck, will have the privilege
    of fighting whatever lurks out there in the cold dark universe for its survival… or just ‘entropy’ idfk.

    It doesn’t end until/if you are God, and then you have to live vicariously through creatures that strive.

    (hmm… that seems to be how the creatures of the real relate to fiction these days anyway)

    *takes draw off that mf crack rock*

  3. Trad AF Boneflour says:

    Primitivism isn’t far back enough. If you think about it… if monkeys became modern man, then even Retvrn to Monke is just gonna get us back here.

    We’re going to need to roll back to before mitochondria. If we all become small clusters of cells, then no humans will be left to abort us. I see no downside.

    Retvrn to Eukaryote https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocercomonoides#Metabolic_processes

  4. aiaslives says:

    > In the final analysis, edenists are losers whining about how hard it is to adapt to the psychological mismatch of modern society.
    > They are under the misapprehension that humans historically did not struggle to adapt to previous situations of psychological mismatch until their psychology was traumatically molded to fit each new situation.

    Edenists aren’t primitivists.
    Euskera survived.

    > Hunting, herding, or farming may seem natural to a modern man, but there was a time when they were new and stressful.

    That’s a bad example.

  5. Big Guy says:

    > The purpose of industrial society is to conduct warfare on an industrial scale
    Excellent point. That’s precisely the reason the Meiji Restoration happened. Japan rapidly industrialized following a looming threat from Western powers who had far surpassed them in technology.

  6. Pingback: The naturalistic fallacy in the Unabomber’s manifesto | Aeoli Pera

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s