Un libro esplosivo.

Scherzi a parte, quest'ultima lettura che ho fatto del manifesto (ed è la terza) mi ha fatto ragionare su quanto sia incorretto posizionare il caro Teddy insieme con gli anarcoprimitivisti più blasonati: primo perche questo manifesto analizza il mondo con la lente della psicologia più che della sociologia o dell'antropologia, cosa che già lo differenzia dagli altri, ma soprattutto perché la posizione di Kaczynski è veramente più vicina ad un ecofascismo tinto di anarchismo -ecofascismo volontario o meno- che, ok se proprio dovessimo inquadrarlo nel contesto anarco-neoluddista delle sue azioni lascerebbe intendere un egoanarchismo o un anarcoindividualismo, ma prendendo il testo a sé stante sembra di leggere un misto tra Peterson e Evola: conservatorismo radicale, giustificato dalla psicologia. Evviva l'uomo forte perché la sinistra è debole e non vuole la forza, e nella vita la supremazia sugli altri è l'unica cosa che conta... Dove l'ho già sentita questa al di fuori del manifesto?
Ah si, da un fascio.

A parte questo il testo è gradevole, a patto di leggerlo in lingua originale.

"Uncle Ted", as he is sometimes referred to in certain parts of the web, came to my attention because of his earnest letters, handwritten in meticulous script, in reply to various youths who had entered into unbidden correspondence with him at his prison address. These letters were uploaded and shared to various forums and can be easily searched. Whatever his opinions, they revealed a tidy and fastidious mind which - despite its forced seclusion from the world - had strong opinions on it, and yet did not seek to control or to coerce or brag or deceive, but to instruct. A mind like that is rare indeed, and discovery of its existence made it inevitable that I should read this book, or manifesto, as it is titled.

I was surprised to learn that the book was written while its author was still at liberty. It really reads like a prison book. I thought the author's incarceration explained its ack of citations and cross-referencing. In fairness, the author is open about the book's evident shortcomings: concepts are often mentioned only as general observations, lengthy expositions are undesirable or impractical, the reader must use his own judgement. Etc. Again, one does at times cynically wonder if the author may have welcomed these limitations, which make his task as a writer easier.

The book's strength is the power of its observations. Yes, the industrial revolution has been disastrous for humanity as we know it; things are getting worse; the people ("leftists") who proclaim to make things betters are making it worse; and nothing we could do to change this overall trajectory will have a reasonable prospect of success, or even any predictable result. Perhaps we all know that, deep down. It is another thing to see it plainly and persuasively stated by a convicted murderer who has killed for these beliefs (or so he claims).

Another weakness lies in the book's lack of any plausible solution or alternative to the "industrial technological system". There is none. Most people like it, or think they do. The author's tendency to refer to himself always as "we", or as a member of the "FC" (later said to stand for Freedom Club), when he was probably never anything more than a lone wolf, rings a little of desperation, of subterfuge, and of conceit. Yet these failings are human and the book is not, on balance, grandiose or deluded but intellectual and sane.

It is disjointed but, in certain areas, surprisingly insightful on a psychological level. His descriptions of leftism, and of the power process, are especially perceptive for their time.

A man killed because he wanted his book to be read. I have read his book. The dead lie still. The deed is done. The book offered no solutions but contained some hard truth. Despite his crimes I will remember him, and I may yet read him again: I suspect prison has not diminished him, hence the absence of parole. Possibly he may have matured. The truth may be spoken by a murderer as well as by anyone else. Perhaps even better than some. ( )

Amazingly revealing analysis. Opened my eyes to displacement activities. The ideas about technology that can exist independently vs that that requires an existing complex system in place to support it are something that I'd now like to explore more.
The biggest flaw, aside from brevity incompatible with the breadth of ideas discussed, is that the book doesn't describe the alternative and only shows what is to be destroyed but not what is to be built.

I also happen to quite like the industrial society. ( )

Nourishing food for thought even if you don’t agree with the conclusions. I found Industrial Society and Its Future to be a stimulating counterpoint to my usual technology-focused life where my professional and personal worlds revolve around the creation and usage of the enemy identified by Kaczynski. ( )

A great description of the problem, attached to an uninspiring attempt at a solution. His description of the leftist psychological type is especially valuable, as is the idea of a universal need for a power process to gain spiritual health which is generally unsuccessfully transferred into the surrogate activities of modern life. That said, I would rather be a computer programmer than a subsistence farmer; as would most of us, I think. ( )