I can definitely see where he was coming from, although I still don’t condone his actions.
That is a fake that has been going around.
The real on has already been posted on the main discussion thread.
I thought as much. It reads like a fanfic.
As manifestos go, the “real” one by Mangione is a piddling effort compared to the Unabomber’s.
You expect more from an Ivy League grad.
Underachiever all around. Probably a legacy admission.
Ted Kaczynski was a certified genius and a talented mathematician, and had decades to work out his manifesto. Having read the manifesto, I have to note that while it makes a number of valid critiques of modern industrial society and anticipates certain social and technological developments, it doesn’t really present a cohesive alternative and at time becomes an almost incoherent narrative of what was clearly someone suffering from a schizoaffective disorder. It is not a staggering work of prescient genius or a manual for creating a more just and sustainable society.
Having worked with and for a number of ‘Ivy Leaguers’…I don’t. I’m sure it takes drive and talent to get into a top tier Ivy League or comparable school like Stanford (excepting ‘legacy’ admissions, of course) but results are not guaranteed upon graduation. I can name any number of less celebrated smaller private and state-sponsored institutions which consistently produce better graduates in STEAM fields and humanities despite not being regarded as “Ivy”-class schools.
Stranger
George W. Bush went to Yale.
“OK, Fermat.”
Is that the same as a DEI admission?
I have an uncle who went to Yale, Yale Divinity. I have a hard time thinking of a more stupid man I have ever met. And a Trumper to boot. So much for the value of divinity school.
Serious question? No. It refers to being admitted because a parent attended the same institution.
You can always tell a Yale man…
but you can’t tell him much.
White folks need inclusion too!
262 words? In high school that wouldn’t even count as a “report,” much less an “essay.”
If he cut 12 words out of it, our local paper would publish it as a letter to the editor.
Recently, the head of MI5 made their regular appearance before a House of Commons committee to explain (up to a point) how the Security Services went about the job of keeping us all safe.
Naturally enough, they spent some time discussing the nature of the threats Britain was facing. There was discussion of the usual suspects, but there was also this;
We’re encountering more volatile would-be terrorists with only a tenuous grasp of the ideologies they profess to follow. People viewing both extreme right wing and Islamist extremist instructional material, along with other bits of online hatred, conspiracy theories and disinformation.
I don’t want to be all “in my day terrorists had an intellectual hinterland” or “say what you like about national socialism, at least it’s an ethos” (not least because I suspect most political assassins didn’t necessarily have a strong theoretical framework for their actions) but I think it is increasingly the case that a person can easily be sucked into a radicalism based more on chaotic vibes and half-baked nonsense than on a coherent ideology.
There are one hell of a lot of socially marginalized people in every country who spend a lot of time alone with their thoughts and a keyboard. Some of whom are going to find the violent and crazy side of themselves mirrored and amplified by what they can dig up. Which aggravating content will soon be algorithmically spoon-fed to them in ever increasing doses.
In some sense I’m actually surprised we don’t have lots more wackos acting out than we do.
You know…morons.
Right now, CNN is addressing the Unabomber, and that David Kaczynski has made a statement that said, in so many words, “I loved my brother, and turning him in was the hardest thing I’ve ever done. His manifesto gave us something to think about, but his actions were wrong.”