---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 23:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: CoE <coe@netcom.com>
To: snuffit-l@netcom.com
Subject: THE UNABOMBER: UPDATED MANIFESTO
A MORE COMPLETE VERSION OF THE UNABOMBER'S MANIFESTO
The following text was assembled from two sources; excerpts that appeared
in the New York Times on August 2, and an article that was posted
anonymously to the alt.fan.unabomber Usenet newsgroup on August 4.
Careful examination of the latter leads us to conclude that it is
authentic, and that the combination of the two is more readable and
effective than either text by itself. Though we have made every effort to
weave the two texts together seamlessly, the 4870 word result is obviously
no substitute for the original 35,000 words.
In addition to the FBI and three newspapers, a substantial number of
university professors are now in possession of the elusive manuscript. We
assume that one of them is the anonymous poster, and we hope that in near
future, he or she will see fit to disseminate it in its entirety, for the
edification of all. We fail to see the benefit of suppressing the
manuscript, or for that matter any manuscript. Ideas are ideas, and they
will stand or fall on their own.
Space is of course a concern, particularly in the big daily newspapers;
they must weigh their advertising revenues against the gravity of the
Unabomber's threats. We do not envy their position. Here on the
Internet, space is much more readily available. We would like to take
this opportunity to offer the anonymous poster, or anyone else, free space
on our web site for the complete manifesto. Simply mail it, preferably in
numbered chunks of 64k or less, to coe@netcom.com. In return, we will
convert it to html and make it public.
A word about our organization:
The Church of Euthanasia is an alternative religious organization for
those who feel excluded from more traditional religions by their beliefs
about euthanasia, abortion, vegetarianism, and sexuality. We believe that
any hopes for the continuation of life on this planet depend on restoring
balance between the human species and the other sentient beings. This
will entail a massive leap of consciousness to a new "species awareness,"
and since time is very short, we rely on black humor and "DADA" to cut
through people's comfortable belief systems and communicate a more
realistic world-view. Widely known for our outrageous tactics, we are
considered the "Act Up" of population-awareness groups, and we are at the
forefront of the right-to-die, pro-abortion, animal rights, and
sex-education movements.
While we have a great deal of sympathy for the FC'c outrage, we are also
vehemently opposed to all forms of ~involuntary~ population reduction,
including murder. There is a great deal of truth in the FC's analysis,
but there is also a notable absence of ~compassion~. As humans move
further into the Yang universe of manifestation and material science, the
Yin universe of energy and spirit becomes ever more remote and
inaccessible. Many harsh ideologies have sprung from this imbalance, and
FC's is no exception.
A philosophy based on violence will lead only to more violence, no matter
how enlightened the goal. According to ancient Vedic wisdom, "You become
what you resist." We believe that the healing of the Earth must begin
with healing of the self, through acceptance, compassion, and love. We
call on all human beings to begin this great healing at once, by
abstaining from further procreation, by abstaining from the flesh of other
beings, and by refusing to play their assigned roles in the Planetary Work
Machine.
We also call on the leaders of Earth to immediately cease production of
the nuclear weapons prophesied by the Hopi people. We especially call on
President Chirac of France to abandon his plans to resume testing these
weapons on the island of Mururoa in September.
We encourage all interested readers to investigate the following leads:
_The Case Against Art_, by John Zerzan, published in a compilation called
_Apocalypse Culture_, easily available from Tower Books and elsewhere.
_The Technological Society_, by Jacques Ellul, at any good library.
_Entropy: Into the Greenhouse World_, by Jeremy Rifkin, the revised
edition, June 1989, also at any good library.
_The Hopi Address to the United Nations General Assembly_, at
<gopher://wiretap.spies.com/00/Gov/UN/hopi.un>
_Bolo'bolo_, by Ibu, a wonderful but obscure anarchist text, excerpts of
which are available at <ftp://etext.archive.umich.edu/pub
/Politics/Spunk/anarchy_texts/misc/Spunk137.txt>
_Population #1: Bricks Carved from the Chaos_, by Mike Merrill, at the CoE
web site, <http://www.paranoia.com/coe/e-sermons/populat1.html>
And now, without further ado, the latest version of FC's manuscript:
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Industrial Society and Its Future
>
>The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for
>the human race. They have greatly increased the life expectancy of those
>of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have destabilized
>society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to
>indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third
>World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on
>the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen
>the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater
>indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will
>probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering,
>and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in "advanced"
>countries.
> The industrial-technological system may survive, or it may break down.
>If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of physical and
>psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very
>painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing
>human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and
>mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives, the
>consequences will be inevitable: there is no way of reforming or modifying
>the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and
>autonomy.
> If the system breaks down, the consequences will still be very
>painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results
>of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down
>sooner rather than later.
> We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system.
>This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or
>it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We can't
>predict any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the measures
>that those who hate the industrial system should take in order to prepare
>the way for a revolution against that form of society. This is not to be
>a POLITICAL REVOLUTION. Its object will be to overthrow not governments
>but the economic and technological basis of the present society....
>
> Psychology of Leftism
>
>Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One
>of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is
>leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an
>introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in
>general.
> But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century
>leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the
>movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a
>leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly
>socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and
>disability activists, animal-rights activists and the like....
> The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call
>*feelings of inferiority* and *oversocialization*. Feelings of
>inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while
>oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern
>leftism; but this segment is highly influential....
> Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors
>who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of
>whom are heterosexual white males from middle to upper middle-class
>families.
> Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of
>groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American
>Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists
>themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to
>themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they
>do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems.
>(We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians etc. ARE inferior; we are
>only making a point about leftist psychology.)
> Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong
>and as capable as a man. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may
>NOT be as strong and as capable as men.
> Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good
>and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they
>hate white males, they hate rationality....[they hate] America and the
>West because they are strong and successful....
> Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance," "initiative,"
>"enterprise," "optimism," etc., play little role in the liberal and
>leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic,
>pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's problems for
>them....The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because,
>deep inside, he feels like a loser....
> His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive
>of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of
>the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization
>or a mass movement with which he identifies himself....
>
> Pressure to Conform
>
>The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel
>and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to
>hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other,
>whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly
>socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a
>severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they
>continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find
>moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a
>nonmoral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe such
>people....
> Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of
>powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by
>which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of
>behavior or speech that is contrary to society's expectations. If this is
>overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such
>feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF....
> The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty
>behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws,
>they goof off at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they
>use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The
>oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he
>generated in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized
>person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that
>are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think "unclean" thoughts.
>And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to
>conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of
>morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash
>and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him.
>In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and
>powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that
>oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human beings
>inflict on one another....
> Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist
>shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society
>while pretending to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists push for
>affirmative action, for moving black people into high prestige jobs, for
>improved education in black schools and more money for such schools; the
>way of life of the black "underclass" they regard as a social disgrace.
>They want to integrate the black man into the system, make him a business
>executive, a lawyer, a scientist just like upper middle-class white
>people. The leftists will reply that the last thing they want is to make
>the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they want to preserve
>African-American culture. But in what does this preservation of
>African-American culture consist? It can hardly consist in anything more
>than eating black-style food, listening to black-style music, wearing
>black-style clothing and going to a black-style church or mosque. In all
>ESSENTIAL respects most leftists of the over-socialized type want to make
>the black man conform to white middle-class ideals. They want to make him
>study technical subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his
>life climbing the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as
>white. They want to make black fathers "responsible," they want black
>gangs to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the
>industrial-technological system. The system couldn't care less what kind
>of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what religion
>he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a respectable job,
>climbs the status ladder, is a "responsible" parent, is nonviolent and so
>forth. In effect, however much he may deny it, the oversocialized leftist
>wants to integrate the black man into the system and make him adopt its
>values....
> A movement that exalts nature and opposes technology must take a
>resolutely anti-leftist stance and must avoid all collaboration with
>leftists. Leftism is in the long run inconsistent with wild nature, with
>human freedom, and with the elimination of modern technology....
>
> The Power Process
>
>Human beings have a need (probably based in biology) for something that we
>will call the "power process." This is closely related to the need for
>power (which is widely recognized) but is not quite the same thing. The
>power process has four elements. The three most clear-cut of these we
>call goal. (Everyone needs to have goals whose attainment requires
>effort, and needs to succeed in attaining at least some of his goals.) The
>fourth element is more difficult to define and may not be necessary for
>everyone. We call it autonomy and will discuss it later....
>
>We divide human drives into three groups:
>
>1. those drives that can be satisfied with minimal effort; 2. those that
>can be satisfied but only at the cost of serious effort; 3. those that
>cannot be adequately satisfied no matter how much effort one makes.
>
>The power process is the process of satisfying the drives of the second
>group. The more drives there are in the third group, the more there is
>frustration, anger, eventually defeatism, depression, etc....
> In modern industrial society natural human drives tend to be pushed
>into the first and third group, and the second group tends to consist
>increasingly of artificially created drives.
> It is true that primitive man is powerless against some of the things
>that threaten him; disease for example. But he can accept the risk of
>disease stoically. It is part of the nature of things, it is no one's
>fault, unless it is the fault of some imaginary, impersonal demon. But
>threats to the modern individual tend to be MAN-MADE. They are not the
>results of change but are IMPOSED on him by other persons who decisions
>he, as an individual, is unable to influence. Consequently, he feels
>frustrated, humiliated and angry....
> Thus primitive man for the most part has his security in his own hands
>(either as an individual or as a member of a SMALL group) whereas the
>security of modern man is in the hands of persons or organizations that
>are too remote or too large for him to be able personally to influence
>them. So modern man's drive for security tends to fall into groups 1 and
>3; in some areas (food, shelter, etc.) his security is assured at the cost
>of only trivial effort, whereas in other areas he CANNOT attain
>security....
> We suggest that modern man's obsession with longevity, and with
>maintaining physical vigor and sexual attractiveness to an advanced age,
>is a symptom of unfulfillment resulting from deprivation with respect to
>the power process. The "mid-life crisis" also is such a symptom. So is
>the lack of interest in having children that is fairly common in modern
>society but almost unheard-of in primitive societies....
> Someone will say, "Society must find a way to give people the
>opportunity to go through the power process." For such people the value
>of the opportunity is destroyed by the very fact that society gives it to
>them. What they need is to find or make their own opportunities. As long
>as the system GIVES them their opportunities is still has them on a leash.
>To attain autonomy they must get off that leash....
> We consider it demeaning to fulfill one's need for the power process
>through surrogate activities or through identification with an
>organization, rather than through pursuit of real goals....
>
> Surrogate Activity
>
>When people do not have to exert themselves to satisfy their physical
>needs they often set up artificial goals for themselves....
> We use the term "surrogate activity" to designate an activity that is
>directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for themselves
>merely in order to have some goal to work toward, or let us say, merely
>for the sake of the "fulfillment" that they get from pursuing the goal.
>Here is a rule of thumb for the identification of surrogate activities.
>Given a person who devotes much time and energy to the pursuit of goal X,
>ask yourself this: If he had to devote most of his time and energy to
>satisfying his biological needs, and if that effort required him to use
>his physical and mental faculties in a varied and interesting way, would
>he feel seriously deprived because he did not attain goal X? If the
>answer is no, then the person's pursuit of goal X is a surrogate
>activity....
> In modern industrial society only minimal effort is necessary to
>satisfy one's physical needs. It is enough to go through a training
>program to acquire some petty technical skill, then come to work on time
>and exert the very modest effort needed to hold a job. The only
>requirements are a moderate amount of intelligence and, most of all,
>simple OBEDIENCE....Modern society is full of surrogate activities. The
>include scientific work, athletic achievement, humanitarian work, artistic
>and literary creation, climbing the corporate ladder, acquisition of money
>and material goods far beyond the point at which they cease to give any
>additional physical satisfaction, and social activism when it addresses
>issues that are not important for the activist personally, as in the case
>of white activists who work for the rights of nonwhite minorities....
>
> Sources of Social Problems
>
>For most people it is through the power process--having a goal, making an
>AUTONOMOUS effort and attaining the goal--that self-esteem, self
>confidence and a sense of power are acquired. When one does not have
>adequate opportunity to go through the power process the consequences are
>(depending on the individual and on the way the power process is
>disrupted) boredom, demoralization, low self-esteem, inferiority feelings,
>defeatism, depression, anxiety, guilt, frustration, hostility, spouse or
>child abuse, insatiable hedonism, abnormal sexual behavior, sleep
>disorders, eating disorders, etc.
> Any of the foregoing symptoms can occur in any society, but in modern
>industrial society they are present on a massive scale. We aren't the
>first to mention that the world today seems to be going crazy. This sort
>of thing is not normal for human societies. There is good reason to
>believe that primitive man suffered from less stress and frustration and
>was better satisfied with his way of life than modern man is....
> We attribute the social and psychological problems of modern society
>to the fact that society requires people to live under conditions
>radically different from those under which the human race evolved and to
>behave in ways that conflict with the patterns of behavior that the human
>race developed while living under earlier conditions. It is clear from
>what we have already written that we consider lack of opportunity to
>properly experience the power process as the most important of the
>abnormal conditions to which modern society subjects people....
> For primitive societies the natural world (which usually changes only
>slowly) provided a stable framework and therefore a sense of security. In
>the modern world it is human society that dominates nature rather than the
>other way around, and modern society changes very rapidly owing to
>technological change. Thus there is no stable framework.
> The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional
>values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and
>economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can't make
>rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society
>without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well,
>and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values....
>
> The Nature of Freedom
>
>We are going to argue that industrial-technological society cannot be
>reformed in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing the
>sphere of human freedom. But, because freedom is a word that can be
>interpreted in many ways, we must first make clear what kind of freedom we
>are concerned with.
> By freedom we mean the opportunity to go through the power process,
>with real goals, not the artificial goals of surrogate activities, and
>without interference, manipulation or supervision from anyone, especially
>from any large organization. Freedom means being in control (either as an
>individual or as a member of a SMALL group) of the life-and-death issues
>of one's existence: food, clothing shelter and defense against whatever
>threats there may be in one's environment. Freedom means having power;
>not the power to control other people but to control the circumstances of
>one's own life. One does not have freedom if anyone else (especially a
>large organization) has power over one, no matter how benevolently,
>tolerantly and permissively that power may be exercised. It is important
>not to confuse freedom with mere permissiveness....
> It is said that we live in a free society because we have a certain
>number of constitutionally guaranteed rights. But these are not as
>important as they seem. The degree of personal freedom that exists in a
>society is determined more by the economic and technological structure of
>the society than by its laws or its forms of government....
> As for our constitutional rights, consider for example that of freedom
>of the press. We certainly don't mean to knock that right; it is a very
>important tool for limiting concentration of political power and for
>keeping those who do have political power in line by publicly exposing any
>misbehavior on their part. But freedom of the press is of very little use
>to the average citizen as an individual. The mass media are mostly under
>the control of large organizations that are integrated into the system.
>Anyone who has a little money can have something printed, or can
>distribute it on the internet or some such way, but what he has to say
>will be swamped by the vast volume of material put out by the media, hence
>it will have no practical effect. To make an impression on society with
>words is therefore almost impossible for most individuals and small
>groups. Take us (FC) for example. If we had never done anything violent
>and had submitted the present writings to a publisher, they probably would
>not have been accepted. If they had been accepted and published, they
>probably would not have attracted many readers, because it's more fun to
>watch the entertainment put out by the media than to read a sober essay.
>Even if these writings had had many readers, most of those readers would
>soon have forgotten what they had read as their minds were flooded by the
>mass of material to which the media expose them. In order to get our
>message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression,
>we've had to kill people....
> Constitutional rights are useful up to a point, but they do not serve
>to guarantee much more than what might be called the bourgeois conception
>of freedom. According to the bourgeois conception, a "free" man is
>essentially an element of a social machine and has only a certain set of
>prescribed and delimited freedoms; freedoms that are designed to serve the
>needs of the social machine more than those of the individual....
> It should not be assumed that a person has enough freedom just because
>he SAYS he has enough. Freedom is restricted in part by psychological
>controls of which people are unconscious, and moreover many people's ideas
>of what constitutes freedom are governed more by social convention than by
>their real needs....
> It is not possible to make a LASTING compromise between technology and
>freedom, because technology is by far the more powerful social force and
>continually encroaches on freedom through REPEATED compromises....The
>system cannot be reformed in such a way as to reconcile freedom with
>technology....
>
> Role of Scientists
>
>Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate
>activities....to work mainly for the fulfillment they get out of the work
>itself....Thus science marches on blindly, without regard to the real
>welfare on the human race or to any other standard, obedient only to the
>psychological needs of the scientists and of the government officials and
>corporation executives who provide the funds for research....
> The system HAS TO force people to behave in ways that are increasingly
>remote from the natural pattern of human behavior. For example, the
>system needs scientists, mathematicians and engineers. It can't function
>without them. So heavy pressure is put on children to excel in these
>fields. It isn't natural for an adolescent human being to spend the bulk
>of his time sitting at a desk absorbed in study. A normal adolescent
>wants to spend his time in active contact with the real world. Among
>primitive peoples the things that children are trained to do tend to be in
>reasonable harmony with natural human impulses. Among the American
>Indians, for example, boys were trained in active outdoor pursuits--just
>the sort of thing that boys like. But in our society children are pushed
>into studying technical subjects, which most do grudgingly.
> Because of the constant pressure that the system exerts to modify
>human behavior, there is a gradual increase in the number of people who
>cannot or will not adjust to society's requirements: welfare leeches,
>youth-gang members, cultists, anti-government rebels, radical
>environmentalist saboteurs, dropouts and resisters of various kinds.
> In any technologically advanced society the individual's fate MUST
>depend on decisions that he personally cannot influence to any great
>extent. A technological society cannot be broken down into small,
>autonomous communities, because production depends on the cooperation of
>very large numbers of people and machines. Such a society MUST be highly
>organized and decisions HAVE TO be made that affect very large numbers of
>people. When a decision affects, say, a million people then each of the
>affected individuals has, on the average, only a one-millionth share in
>making the decision. What usually happens in practice is that decisions
>are made by public officials or corporation executives, or by technical
>specialists, but even when the public votes on a decision the number of
>voters ordinarily is too large for the vote of any one individual to be
>significant. Thus most individuals are unable to influence measurably the
>major decisions that affect their lives. There is no conceivable way to
>remedy this in a technologically advanced society. The system tries to
>"solve" this problem by using propaganda to make people WANT the decisions
>that have been made for them, but even if this solution were completely
>successful in making people feel better it would be demeaning....
>
> Technology and the Elite
>
>If the system breaks down there may be a period of chaos, a "time of
>troubles" such as those that history has recorded at various epochs in the
>past. It is impossible to predict what would emerge from such a time of
>troubles, but at any rate the human race would be given a new chance. The
>greatest danger is that industrial society may begin to reconstitute
>itself within the first few years after the breakdown. Certainly there
>will be many people (power-hungry types especially) who will be anxious to
>get the factories running again.
> Therefore two tasks confront those who hate the servitude to which the
>industrial system is reducing the human race. First, we must work to
>heighten the social stresses within the system so as to increase the
>likelihood that it will break down or be weakened sufficiently so that a
>revolution against it becomes possible. Second, it is necessary to
>develop and propagate an ideology that opposes technology and the
>industrial system. Such an ideology can become the basis for a revolution
>against industrial society if and when the system becomes sufficiently
>weakened. And such an ideology will help to assure that, if and when
>industrial society breaks down, its remnants will be smashed beyond
>repair, so that the system cannot be reconstituted. The factories should
>be destroyed, technical books burned etc:...
> No one knows what will happen as a result of ozone depletion, the
>greenhouse effect and other environmental problems that cannot yet be
>foreseen. And, as nuclear proliferation has shown, new technology cannot
>be kept out of the hands of dictators and irresponsible third-world
>nations. Would you like to speculate about what Iraq or North Korea will
>do with genetic engineering?
> "Oh!" say the technophiles, "Science is going to fix all that! We
>will conquer famine, eliminate psychological suffering, make everybody
>healthy and happy!" Yeah, sure. That's what they said 200 years ago.
>The industrial revolution was supposed to eliminate poverty, make
>everybody happy, etc. The actual result has been quite different....
> The average man may have control over certain private machines of his
>own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large
>systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite--just as it is
>today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite
>will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no
>longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on
>the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to
>exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use
>propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the
>birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world
>to the elite. Or, if the elite consists of soft-hearted liberals, they
>may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human
>race. They will see to it that everyone's physical needs are satisfied,
>that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions,
>that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who
>may become dissatisfied undergoes "treatment" to cure his "problem." Of
>course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be
>biologically or psychologically engineered, whether to remove their need
>for the power process or to make them "sublimate" their drive for power
>into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in
>such a society, but they most certainly will not be free. They will have
>been reduced to the status of domestic animals.
> The technophiles are taking us all on an utterly reckless ride into
>the unknown. Many people understand something of what technological
>progress is doing to us yet take a passive attitude toward it because they
>think it is inevitable. But we (FC) don't think it is inevitable. We
>think it can be stopped....
> The two main tasks for the present are to promote social stress and
>instability in industrial society and to develop and propagate an ideology
>that opposes technology and the industrial system. when the system
>becomes sufficiently stressed and unstable, a revolution against
>technology may be possible....
> We have no illusions about the feasibility of creating a new, ideal
>form of society. Our goal is only to destroy the existing form of
>society....
> But an ideology, in order to gain enthusiastic support, must have a
>positive ideal as well as a negative one; it must be FOR something as well
>as AGAINST something. The positive ideal that we propose is Nature. That
>is, WILD nature: those aspects of the functioning of the Earth and its
>living things that are independent of human management and free of human
>interference and control. And with wild nature we include human nature,
>by which we mean those aspects of the functioning of the human individual
>that are not subject to regulation by organized society but are products
>of chance, or free will, or God (depending on your religious or
>philosophical opinions)....
> The kind of revolution we have in mind will not necessarily involve an
>armed uprising against any government. It may or may not involve physical
>violence, but it will not be a POLITICAL revolution. Its focus will be on
>technology and economics, not politics....
> The revolution must be international and worldwide. It cannot be
>carried out on a nation-by-nation basis....
> Until the industrial system has been thoroughly wrecked, the
>destruction of that system must be the revolutionaries' ONLY goal.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Church of Euthanasia coe@netcom.com
ftp: ftp.etext.org /pub/Zines/Snuffit
gopher: gopher.etext.org Zines/Snuffit
www: http://www.paranoia.com/coe/
news: talk.euthanasia
C.O.E., Box 261, Somerville, MA 02143
SAVE THE PLANET! KILL YOURSELF!
To subscribe to the SNUFFIT-L mailing list, send an
e-mail to listserv@netcom.com containing only the line:
subscribe snuffit-l