A Review of The Unibomber Manifesto

The UB opens by describing technological society as a disaster and advocating an unclear form of revolution.

He next defines his idea of modern leftism which is actually feminism poorly understood. He considers that "feelings of inferiority" emanate from "modern leftism". This is certainly a projection, that is, he represses his own accurate feelings of inferiority and projects them onto society. These feelings, shared by many no doubt, are produced by an overly intelligent person, highly trained in a specialty by masculinists, to the exclusion of development of basic social capabilities and then judged by feminists as crippled for that reason.

The UB concentrates excessively on the concept of inferiority, thereby displaying his own subjectivity. Inferiority no doubt is strong in the extreme feminist movement, but it does not characterize it as a whole. In fact identifying things as inferior or superior is masculinist since it involves ordering and creativity. The motive is to identify that which is to be pursued.

In the final two paragraphs of this section, 22 and 23, the UB throws out two caveats that tend to defeat his own arguments. He first belittles the leftists as capable of generating meaningless problems for their own amusement and then says that his own comments shouldn't be taken too seriously.

In paragraph 25, the UB again describes himself as over socialized to the point of having to invent moral reasons for his actions to avoid feelings of guilt. This explains his preoccupation with environmentalism. He suggests that since his victims were technologists and trashing the environment, we should take no offense at his killing and maiming them. So, we can see that the UB is an over socialized leftist, as defined by him. This is no surprise, since he was socialized to the point of getting a Phd and profoundly rejects the masculinism of the culture that has created him.

In paragraph 30 the UB describes his motives for committing violence against society. He says he needs to do it to break out of the constraints over socialization has forced upon him. He is wrong. He wants revenge against those who ignored him at Harvard.

In the next section, the UB describes power psychology and informs us of the difficulty he has had in providing himself with attractive goals that are sufficiently hard to attain. This probably is a motive for his efforts to live non technologically and his attraction to the act of sending letter bombs. I agree that this is a major flaw in the design of technological society, and one that has been well known throughout history, else why the bromide, "idle hands are the devil's playground".

In paragraph 39 we learn that the UB considered himself deprived due to the lack of feminine companionship. He also concludes that society and he are mainly consumed by surrogate activities which he defines as artificial goals used to defeat boredom, created by too easy attainment of the necessities of survival. Very accurate analysis, though he doesn't realize that this is the method of the masculinist towards the end of providing the motivation and means to express creativity.

The UB recognizes a need for autonomy in his efforts to achieve his goals, so we can guess that autonomy was markedly absent from his childhood life.

The UB identifies loss of an autonomous sense of power for males as the most important problem in our culture, followed by overpopulation, isolation from nature, rapid social change, and family breakdown. He demonstrates his own arrogance in paragraph 50 when he describes conservatives (all psychological problems in humans wind up in or emanate from arrogance or hubris). The UB suggests that loss of autonomy is the main culprit fueling the rise in antisocial behavior in our society. His argument is very compelling, to me. He also provides an analysis of goals and demonstrates a tendency for current goals to be too easy of attainment or impossible of attainment.

Failing to understand that passivity is feminine and the opposite of aggression, the UB fails to satisfactorily explain the ability of most people to adapt to modern times. The UB thus adds his name to the list of people trying to describe the reasons for the problems emanating from Western culture, especially US culture. From those in the third world who see no problems of a serious nature with our culture to the Christians who conclude that it is the decline of religion in America to the feminists that conclude that it is due to American imperialism, to the East that concludes it is preoccupation with materialism, and so on to many lesser groups that conclude that government is overbearing or not fulfilling its responsibilities. Actually the problem is the rise of feminism which is induced by overpopulation and over reliance on technology and is therefore a necessity.

The UB provides an excellent definition of that freedom that is worth fighting for and the true value that underlies the establishment of this country and demonstrates that it is in steady decline. Since the UB is striking back at the forces that are depriving us of our freedom, he can reasonably be declared a public hero. Unhappily, the issues are so obscure, they aren't likely to be understood by many. Also, it is very politically incorrect to endorse terrorism. Our establishment takes care to obscure the differences between political killing and murder. The first is the employment of violence to defeat what is thought to be a destructive political organization, as was done by the founding fathers, while the second is done in pursuit of personal gain. Thus, the UB is a politician that has resorted to violence to defeat his political enemy, as have many others.

The UB says his motive in killing people was to get his message before the people and make an impression on them. To the extent this is true, he has succeeded, but hubris is at work here, also. He concludes that what he understands is not understood by anyone else and that it is important that it be read and understood by society at large. This is an arrogant conclusion and unjustified. First, because the ideas presented here aren't unique and second because they assume that the path of our culture could be otherwise and more healthily so. Also incorrect.

I would add to the UB's definition of a free society that it is most important, not to provide freedom, but to provide an environment wherein people can find as much freedom as they need, and I would say that ours does that as well as any.

The UB's conception of governments and cultures and the forces that effect them is very accurate and places the Founding Fathers in context. He concludes that our culture cannot be changed without recognizing that he is a manifestation of that which is in the process of changing it. All cultures can and do change constantly. But change is exceedingly complicated and therefore is accurately considered to be an act of God. For those that can do it, the best that can be hoped for is observing with understanding. Since Jesus did alter humanity in a profound and permanent way, the UB's rules aren't comprehensively true though. He is also wrong in concluding that technology and freedom are incompatible. What is incompatible is freedom and population growth. If the population could be reduced, technology could survive. The UB demonstrates his case by looking at the freedom man has conceded to the automobile, but, were the population much smaller, no significant loss of freedom would be imposed by it. For example, with a small enough population, no driver's license would be called for.

In paragraph 211, the UB demonstrates his lack of understanding of ideological dynamics. He states that the reasons for Europe's dynamism in the middle ages are unknown and that explanations are only speculation. Readers of this review that have read Millennium know the reasons for this dynamism and are, therefore, better informed than the UB.

The UB further demonstrates his lack of understanding by confusing leftism with feminism. He believes that feminism is just one faction in monolithic leftism, probably due to the fact that feminism was introduced in the West, as a political entity only after many other left oriented factions became evident. This error occurs because of the tendency of masculinists to demand order of some sort in any political movement. Since feminism is chaotic and requires no order to function, masculinists are left in confusion when trying to define it. The only way to overcome this confusion is to identify the characteristics of feminism: uncreative, passive, and chaotic, and to look for these characteristics in the various political movements. All leftist entities demonstrate these characteristics to various degrees and all masculinist one's demonstrate the opposite. The UB himself is a feminist, if he only knew it. But, it is unnecessary that he know, he will fulfill his function, anyway.

The UB understands politics in terms of his "drive for power". Not understanding the masculinist character of our culture, he cannot see that every criticism leveled at Western Culture tears down masculinist institutions so that they can be replaced with feminist ones. He is close to the truth, however, as can be seen in paragraph 222 when he identifies the politically opposite extremes as leftists and nazis. Nazis embodied extreme masculinism. This can be seen in the degree of organization and the creativity of the movement. It succeeded, from nowhere to establishing itself and contesting for world dominance in only twenty or thirty years.

The UB's ideological confusion is clearly stated in paragraph 227. He even says that he has difficulty identifying "leftists". It is true that the world is designed in terms of spectra, meaning that there is lots of gray and very little black and white. None the less, were the UB to have understood feminism aright, this confusion would have left him.

The UB makes another effort in paragraph 229 to define a leftist, to no avail. He is, himself, not easily definable. He most clearly approximates an anarchist or libertarian, but he is violently opposed to technology and central government, the hallmarks of establishment masculinism, so he is, finally, a feminist. That is because, should he succeed, he would destroy masculinism which would be replaced by feminism. Also, he displays characteristics of his developing feminism. He worships the earth and dismisses as unimportant the worship of the spirit. Trying to live close to the earth and to eliminate from one's life the trappings of technology is to adopt a worshipful attitude towards the earth.

Finally, the attempt to understand the UB from his writings may lead some to speculate that the main motive is manipulation. That the entire manifesto amounts to a manual for revolutionaries and the UB imagines a future in which the Luddites have succeeded and consider this manifesto as their guiding document, thus providing the UB immortality and final acceptance.

In the end, we are left doubtful about this manifesto as an explanation for the acts of the UB. This, I think, drives us to a psychological evaluation.

Also see my Theory of Complexes.