So, The Unabomber Was Right...

If nothing else, his takes would probably cut across modernity's ideological lines.

There is a new article in The New York Times discussing the “gut-level hatred” that our political system has become, which on many days feels accurate. I do think this needs a slight caveat, though: a lot of the American public is not that intelligent and doesn’t follow the news and mostly just consumes pop culture, tries to make ends meet, and breeds. While that’s good for the tax base and the Kardashians, I wouldn’t say everyone is out there having “gut-level hatred” for each other. Most are just hoping to afford Cheetos and put their kids in front of a tablet to catch a break here and again.

If you concern yourself with ideology and politics and “the soul of America,” then yes, you probably have a gut-level hatred of “the other side.”

Here’s that article.

Here’s the nut paragraph:

Because political beliefs now reflect deeply held worldviews about how the world ought to be — challenging traditional ways of doing things on the one hand and putting a brake on that change on the other — partisans look across the aisle at each other and absolutely do not understand how their opponents can possibly understand the world as they do.

Yep. I’ve mentioned this before too.

Well, what’s funny about this is that a few weeks ago, a 81 year-old man died in a jail cell in North Carolina, even though we were taught to believe he was in FedMax in Colorado. He was the Unabomber. I will not attempt to spell his actual last name, as I will get it wrong.

If you watch streaming shows, you may be familiar with the concept that once the Unabomber manifesto was released, his brother identified the writing style, and that led to his capture. Cool!

Here’s the manifesto, which in 1995 or so appeared unhinged and sparked a lot of debate about journalism and ethics.

But nowadays, the Unabomber Manifesto … would be one of the only things that cuts across party lines.

If you remember the basic storyline, the Unabomber thought technology was bad for us. A lot more people now are thinking that. The big problems with the Unabomber and modernity are (a) he railed against progress, and most people like to see themselves as pro-progress and (b) he killed people with mail bombs, so supporting his views are pro-murderer, which most people don’t like to be.

Still, though, let me give you some stuff from Wall Street Journal, which even commences by saying “his ideas aren’t so marginal now.”

Let’s walk through a couple of different pull quotes herein.

At the time, the manifesto set off a debate about media ethics, but virtually no one expressed much interest in the ramblings of a mad bomber. Reading “Industrial Society and Its Future” today, however, what’s striking isn’t the weirdness of Kaczynski’s ideas, but their familiarity. The obsessions that turned him into a killer have become mainstream, from hatred of what was not yet called “wokeness” to fear that artificial intelligence will render human beings obsolete. Even the format of the manifesto — a relentless march through 232 numbered paragraphs, laying out the source of every problem in the modern world — feels less crankish today, now that the Internet has turned tweetstorms and “rants” into familiar genres.

OK, and now let’s find something the far right would applaud:

Some of his sentences could get applause from conservatives: “In the United States, a couple of decades ago when leftists were a minority in our universities, leftist professors were vigorous proponents of academic freedom, but today, in those of our universities where leftists have become dominant, they have shown themselves ready to take away from everyone else’s academic freedom.”

Here’s what is doubly crazy: The Unabomber essentially defined “woke” before we started calling everything “woke.” And, on top of that, he apparently was thisclose to getting a sex change but walked it back right before he did it. He was a pioneer in the whole trans/reversal debate as well, purportedly!

Now let’s find something liberals would agree with:

Kaczynski rails against “blather and obfuscation from the people who have power” on environmental issues, while “we keep on piling up environmental problems that our grandchildren will have to live with.” The manifesto begins with a declaration that “The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race,” a view shared by Greta Thunberg, who has described the British as “climate villains” because the Industrial Revolution took off in 18th-century Britain.

Hmm. OK. And …

“I’ve recently been reading the collected writings of Theodore Kaczynski. I’m worried that it may change my life,” wrote the British thinker Paul Kingsnorth in an influential 2013 essay, “Dark Ecology.” While rejecting the Unabomber’s violence, Kingsnorth was “convinced by the case he makes,” particularly the idea that modern society is incapable of reforming itself. Instead of mailing bombs, Kingsnorth calls on people of conscience to withdraw from the modern world and “build refuges” to protect themselves from its impending collapse.

Politicians love the appeal to unity. While it’s usually performative bullshit and not much else, I do think a lot of people look at modern America and wish it could be more unified or connected. It happens at the neighborhood level, but I also know neighbors that brawl repeatedly. A dude wore a MAGA hat to our 4th of July parade and some people got in his face. But still, I think neighbors are mostly civil while the rest of us pine for unity.

And it turns out we have unity: in the ramblings of a serial killer mail bomber who recently died as an octogenarian in prison. Go figure.

I personally don’t agree with the core of the Unabomber, but it’s hard to not scroll the manifesto and nod vigorously a few times as you do so. Is that weird?