The Unabomber: Is He Serious?

There comes a time when everyone has something to say. The next step
would be to find someone to listen. If that doesn\'t work, I suppose you just
have to make them listen.

The Unabomber\'s Manifesto was probably one of the most interesting and
thought provoking points of view that I have read in a while. It\'s just too bad
that every time he made a point that I could relate with, he would contradict
himself before I was finished with the paragraph. In my opinion, the entire
manifesto and every viewpoint expressed therein, was a strange mix of confusion,
fact and storytelling. Although written with an abundance of detail and many
strong convictions, I finished reading the selection without being able to see
the purpose behind it all and what he stood to gain. I\'m sure that wasn\'t
exactly his intentions when he wrote it.

I feel there is one thing the author deserves credit for right from the
start; his uncanny ability to set a pessimistic mood. From the minute you
glance at the introduction, he, assuming the author is male, begins to paint a
picture of destruction and demise of the world in which we live. What could
cause such a catastrophe? According to the author, it would have to be industry
and technology of all things. He was convinced that due to the industrial-
technological system in which we live, ultimately humans are going to be
subjected to world wide suffering and inevitably a total shut down of humanity.
Now at this moment I felt a little disbelief. I had heard he was actually an
intelligent person, but I was starting to wonder.

His whole theory was based on the fact, that at one point or another,
the human race will be taken to the point of complete break down. He feels that
if it\'s bound to happen, we should make it happen now. The longer we wait, the
more people will suffer. Now, I know our sun will eventually burn out, so does
that mean that it should be the concern of everyone on the planet to devise a
method to destroy it immediately and save us the trouble of having to do it
later? I guess I wasn\'t too surprised when I read how he intended to induce an
early break down with a revolution, but the next thing I read left me a little
confused. I was interested in how and when he planned to do this. It didn\'t
take me long to run across it. I would expect a violent display from the
Unabomber, especially in a revolution, but his answer to that was that he may or
may not use violence. Well, maybe he\'ll keep some details quiet, but I was sure
he would release an approximate idea of how long he planned this new world
revolution to last.. He wrote that it may be sudden or it may span decades.
There were many things that made sense to me after reading that, for instance,
if he was this vague when he walked his pen across, it\'s no wonder he\'s been
able to stay free for this long.
Now, from this point on, I think his writing became much more
understandable to me. I started to agree with much of what he had to say and
what he used to describe the majority of our society. I shared a lot of his
beliefs in the fact that our society needs help, we all do sometimes. I just
don\'t believe that things are so bad that it\'s time to clear the pallet and
start over.
He seems to have a perfect ideal of how each group of people should
act and respond to the world around them. If they don\'t posses these features,
then there has to be something wrong with society, because that\'s not the way he
remembers them. He seems to group everyone in the world into two groups: the
weak, and the weaker. There are the leftists, or the ones who should the social
rebels, and the oversocialized, or the ones who have to grow up obeying
society\'s rules.
Now, I feel it wouldn\'t matter which category he placed me in.
According to him, people jump from one group to another constantly. Either
group, in his opinion, has deteriorated into a flock of sheep. No one has a
mind of their own, nor do we stand up for ourselves, nor believe in anything.
He believes that due to this evil industrial-technological