Eric Rudolph--a symbol of America

0 views
Skip to first unread message

SULAIR Kiosk

unread,
Apr 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/11/98
to

The Kaczynskis and McVeighs and Rudolphs get a lot of bad press.
I'm not excusing what they did, but I think they serve a useful
social role: their activity demonstrates that there is
a dangerous undercurrent of dissent in American society, much
of it directed at the policies of our "President". Such dissent
needs to be addressed, and where appropriate, met with concessions.

Larry

unread,
Apr 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/11/98
to SULAIR Kiosk

There is no good purpose for neo-nazi's!!!!!!

Michael Stein

unread,
Apr 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/12/98
to

SULAIR Kiosk <sulk...@sulmail.stanford.edu> wrote:
: The Kaczynskis and McVeighs and Rudolphs get a lot of bad press.
: I'm not excusing what they did, but I think they serve a useful
: social role: their activity demonstrates that there is
: a dangerous undercurrent of dissent in American society, much
: of it directed at the policies of our "President". Such dissent
: needs to be addressed, and where appropriate, met with concessions.

Is it really dangerous as such or is it a reaction to a societal
system that no longer addresses the needs of individuals? Why do
most people feel like outsiders in this society? Why do people
consider the government as an enemy instead of an ally or servant?
If you accept those premises then it makes perfect sense to react
in the way that Kaczynski, McVeigh, Rudolph, and many others have
done. Futhermore, those who suffer under the current system and
do not attempt to change it are cowards.

Michael

Voice of the Public

unread,
Apr 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/13/98
to

Michael Stein wrote:
>
> SULAIR Kiosk <sulk...@sulmail.stanford.edu> wrote:
> : The Kaczynskis and McVeighs and Rudolphs get a lot of bad press.
> : Such dissent

> : needs to be addressed, and where appropriate, met with concessions.
>
> Is it really dangerous as such or is it a reaction to a societal
> system that no longer addresses the needs of individuals? Why do
> most people feel like outsiders in this society? Why do people
> consider the government as an enemy instead of an ally or servant?
> If you accept those premises then it makes perfect sense to react
> in the way that Kaczynski, McVeigh, Rudolph, and many others have
> done. Futhermore, those who suffer under the current system and
> do not attempt to change it are cowards.
>
>

I agree. Probably the mass of society has become too accustomed to
living in a comfortable house with electricity and plumbing. The
sacrifices a system rebel would have to make, like living in the
woods in order to reduce taxable income to zero, are too much for
most to contemplate. Kaczynski was heroic in making such a commit-
ment.

This gigantic government and its "President" have alienated more
people than he dares think. His sorry wife has not helped either.

RossG12345

unread,
Apr 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/13/98
to

Is Rudolph the illiterate Christian Identity New World Order
kind-a-guy? Are you familiar with his writings? (I'm not).
Isn't he just a paranoiac idiot? IMO, folks like him have little
understanding of society and are very ill-informed. But it would
help if someone shared some of Rudolph's writings so we can
more fairly judge. From the little I remember reading about him,
he struck me as a waiting for rapture, bible thumpin' kind-a-guy.
Isn't a kissin' cousin of the Freemen?


No One

unread,
Apr 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/14/98
to

RossG12345 <rossg...@aol.com> wrote:
: Is Rudolph the illiterate Christian Identity New World Order

His level of academic degrees doesn't matter.

What matters is that he is another person who is an outsider because
he is unwilling or unable to conform to mainstream views and passivity.
Instead he acts in favor of what he believes and in so doing lives a
hundred times more honestly than the rest who merely obey.

Who are you to judge another person's writings when the disagreement
between you and he is so fundamental that you can each only call the
other a fool? It seems your biases are already showing by criticizing
his religion and ideologies by equating them with foolishness. No
doubt you believe you are the sole holder of respectable religious and
ideological truths.


Esjeje1

unread,
Apr 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/14/98
to

First of all, the call was for all of the posters here to more fairly judge, by
way of viewing Rudolph's writings. He must have written something - or had
available writings in his defense. We here have all had enough of opposing
ideological truths (usually from the likes of Xerox or ADM or Nazis or some
such - some cross-posted, and some just thrust upon us and everyone else).
Happily, we don't even worry about other's religious backgrounds, except as a
place to learn something that touches your heart or soul, or for variety - you
know, extra holidays, just like normal people do! I don't think the other
groups you post to are any more "fair" to opposing points of view, by any
means.

But that is neither here nor there.

One fact - you might think that we at alt.fan.unabomber are fans of TK because
of his violence when confronted with serious issues. In fact, it seems to me,
that most of the "fans" deplore the violence, but have varying levels of
agreement with the ideas he put forth in his WRITING!!! Hence, the question
about writing, because this seems to be an extremely literate crowd you are
dealing with here.

Another fact - if you are concerned about abortion as killing, because "thou
shalt not kill" is a commandment, then "thou shalt not kill" goes for
grown-ups, too, as well as the unborn. (See above for this group's stance on
violence.) The Pro-Life movement does not tend to approve of variance from this
commandment. They really are mainly quite respectable in their religious and
ideological truths. Nonetheless, abortion was not a religious issue a few
hundred years ago, when it was quite acceptable to religious folk.

It is a moral issue. As a woman, I resent our political organizations deeming
us females so one dimensional, that it has lost its politicalness for me. And
that's why I will never tell what side I'm on, until the day comes when it
means something. I would rather give out my IP address, and suffer the
consequential pings! (Well, alright, that's probably going much too far!) But
I would not equate it with the political issues presented by the manifesto,
which are social, and moral, but with no pretensions of being religious, other
than the call to the religion of "wild nature", which surely has nothing to do
with Eric Rudolph and his activities, and surely has more to do with true
religion, the relationship between humans, God and nature. Notice, that I left
out corporations, politics and established religion.

Think for yourself, but also, be sure to open your eyes, and don't be deceived
by your preconceptions. They can blind you.

RossG12345

unread,
Apr 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/14/98
to

No one writes:

"No doubt you believe you are the sole holder of respectable
religious and ideological truths."

I agree with no one.

p.s. Looney's aren't heroic just because they are willing
to resort to violence and kill or maim innocents. Are
you familiar with the beliefs of the Northpoint organization?
(Did I get the name right?) Wasn't Rudolph associated with that?

RossG12345

unread,
Apr 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/14/98
to

A person's view of Rudolph, of course, will depend importantly
on whether the person deems him responsible for the abortion
clinic bombing, as well as the Olympic Park and gay nightclub
"Army of God" bombings.

I propose that Rudolph was involved in all three.

His reference to the US government as communist shows him to
be ill-informed. His reference to sodomites (and that
bombing) shows him to be homophobic and intolerant
of different lifestyles (and thus not symbolic of America),
and his closing line "Death to the New World Order"
suggests that he is guided by propaganda more than reason.

I believe his beliefs are what is known as "Christian Identity,"
which, as I understand it, entails neo-Nazi millenarian views.
When the new millenium comes, these followers will be the
chosen ones. They are waiting for what they call "rapture"
and the coming apocalypse. Kaczynski's use of names like "Enoch"
(see apocalypse of Enoch) could have been an appeal to this type.

Although I've seen very little written about Rudolph, and don't remember
what I did read, I think he was associated with a compound of this ilk
run by a group called the Northpoint Tactical Organization.

As for Rudolph's writings, I propose he wrote the following:

THE BOMBING'S IN SANDY SPRING'S AND MIDTOWN WERE CARRIED-OUT
BY UNITS OF THE ARMY OF GOD.
THE ABORTION WAS THE TARGET OF THE FIRST DEVICE. THE
MURDER OF 3.5 MILLION CHILDREN EVERY YEAR WILL NOT BE
"TOLERATED." THOSE WHO PARTICIPATE IN ANYWAY [sic] IN THE MURDER
MAY BE TARGETED FOR ATTACK. THE ATTACK THEREFORE SERVES AS
A WARNING. ANYONE IN OR AROUND FACILITIES THAT MURDER CHILDREN
MAY BECOME VICTIMS OF RETRIBUTION.
THE SECOND DEVICE WAS AIMED AT SO-CALLED AGENT OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. I.E. ATF, FBI, MARSHALL'S. WE DECLARE AND WILL WAGE
TOTAL WAR AGAINST THE COMMUNIST REGIME IN NEW YORK AND YOUR
LEGASLATIVE [sic]-BUREAUCRATIC LACKEY'S IN WASHINGTON. IT IS YOU
WHO ARE RESPOSIBLE AND PRESIDE OVER THE MURDER OF CHILDREN
AND ISSUE THE POLICY OF UNGODLY PREVERSION [sic] THATS DESTROYING
OUR PEEPLE. [sic] WE WILL TARGET ALL FACILITIES AND PERSONNELL [sic]
OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
THE ATTACK IN MIDTOWN WAS AIMED AT THE SODOMITE BAR
(THE OTHERSIDE). WE WILL TARGET THERE [sic] ORGANIZATIONS, AND
ALL WHO PUSH THERE AGENDA.

"DEATH TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER"

RossG12345

unread,
Apr 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/14/98
to

If you want to read more of Rudolph's apparent connection to
the Northpoint Teams in North Carolina, led by Nord Davis, Jr.
until his death from cancer, go to:

http://www.greensboro.com/nronline/projects/militias/rudolph.htm

and read some of the background articles about the belief of some
members of North Carolina militias in black helicopters,
computer chips, New World Order, Illuminati/Freemasonry conspiracy
and the like. One of the links has an interview with Nord Davis.

In 1979, the Greensboro News and Record had a similar feature
on a different Christian Identity believer, Roland Wayne Wood.
I've always argued that Kaczynski's bombing of the November 15, 1979
airliner from Chicago to Washington was related to the clash that
Wood and his neo-Nazi brothers had with the leftists in Greensboro two weeks
earlier. There was a memorial scheduled in D.C. that day for the
leftists who had been slain. (And the Nazis and leftists were based
in Chicago).

So the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Esjeje1

unread,
Apr 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/15/98
to

Ross wrote:

>I've always argued that Kaczynski's bombing of the November 15, 1979
>airliner from Chicago to Washington was related to the clash that
>Wood and his neo-Nazi brothers had with the leftists in Greensboro two weeks
>earlier. There was a memorial scheduled in D.C. that day for the
>leftists who had been slain. (And the Nazis and leftists were based
>in Chicago).
>

I think this is just a coincidence. There's always something going on in
Washington! The given motive for this attack seems more likely to me.

There were too many random factors. There are quite a few flights between
Chicago and DC every day. I don't have a schedule from 1979, but I don't doubt
that there was a lot of traffic between those cities, even then. Also, there
was no way to tell which flights the leftists would have taken, whether they
traveled individually or as a group. The airlines have always carefully guarded
their passenger lists. Futhurmore, there was no way to plan which flight the
"package" would be on, unless it was carried by some dupe, which of course
wasn't the case. At the most, the date could have been *aimed for*.

Even if the intent was not to target those leftists, but rather to terrorize
them, the bombing had the same effect on everyone else who heard about it.

And since the leftists didn't know about the bomber's hatred of what he terms
the left (and I still hold that it is not the standard definition), they
wouldn't have felt singled out. This seems quite unsatisfactory, as a motive,
as a factor in a motive, as revenge or anything else.

On the other hand, since Chicago-DC is a heavy business travel route, there
was a more realistic chance of eliminating some business travelers and the
like.

BTW, I too am glad that it didn't work!


RossG12345

unread,
Apr 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/15/98
to

Hi Esjeje!

You're right. I initially became intrigued because the package was addressed
to UNITED, which was the name of the rightist campaign,
which was to be a UNITED campaign between the neo-Nazis and the Klansmen. The
return address, as I vaguely recall, was Weiburg
Tool & Supply. Kaczynski tended to use German-Jewish names, whether
it was intentional or not, that suggested feminine or clumsy or the like.
(He studied German in high school and was in the German club).

This was followed by the book bomb (in May 1980) ICE BROTHERS, the dedication
of which read "Little respected and little whatever then....
They'll never have to wonder if they're men."

It was about the hunt for German U-boats during WW II.

It was from Enoch Fischer, as I recall. Enoch being a biblical reference to
apocalypse. Fischer a suggestive reference to (in German) to Christ.

But I agree with Esjeje that it is all highly speculative and Kaczynski's
highly rational exposition in his manifesto is the best
guide to his views. And we now know he especially hated airplanes.
And in a later letter he mentions that he intended to kill businessmen.

BTW, as I recall the trivia, he travelled to Montana to buy Red Dot gunpowder
to build that bomb. His family understood that he had gone to Canada. He
apparently used David's car to mail it from a small grocery store (in Elgin, I
think). I have no idea why he felt he had to travel to Montana to buy a
barometer and gunpowder.

Scott Corey & Mary Foley

unread,
Apr 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/15/98
to

RossG12345 wrote:
>
> Hi Esjeje!
>
> You're right. I initially became intrigued because the package was addressed
> to UNITED, which was the name of the rightist campaign,
> which was to be a UNITED campaign between the neo-Nazis and the Klansmen. The
> return address, as I vaguely recall, was Weiburg
> Tool & Supply. Kaczynski tended to use German-Jewish names, whether
> it was intentional or not, that suggested feminine or clumsy or the like.
> (He studied German in high school and was in the German club).
>
> This was followed by the book bomb (in May 1980) ICE BROTHERS, the dedication
> of which read "Little respected and little whatever then....
> They'll never have to wonder if they're men."
>
> It was about the hunt for German U-boats during WW II.
>
> It was from Enoch Fischer, as I recall. Enoch being a biblical reference to
> apocalypse. Fischer a suggestive reference to (in German) to Christ.
>

Interesting item on the use of the name "Enoch" came to my attention
recently. The primary influence on the view of technology espoused in
"Industrial Society and Its Future" comes from Jacques Ellul. That
author often wrote books in pairs, creating a "dialectical"
confrontation between his sociological views and his theology. The book
titled "The Meaning of the City" is the theological work Ellul paired
with "The Technological Society," which DK described as TK's "bible."
It is all Biblical exegesis, but a few points of interest emerge.
Ellul feels that the city is symbolic of effort to create things and
exercise power apart from God. That is, it stands for man's technical
ability and hunger for power. The first builder of a city is Cain,
after he is cursed by God for murdering Able. Both the city and Cain's
first son are named "Enoch."
According to Ellul, Enoch means "initiation" or "dedication," from
"chanakh: to dedicate, inaugurate, initiate." It is used in contrast to
the word "Reshith in Genesis 1:1, thereby distinguishing between what
God did in creating the paradise of Eden and what Cain did in creating
the city. Ellul believes this is the onset of "homo faber" or humans as
makers of things. As such, Ellul is offering the story of "The City" in
the Bible, as a contrasting version of the onset of "making" in the
legend of Prometheus. In this view, the city is cursed from the
beginning.
So this is the long turgid way of saying that (if Ross is right about
the word fischer being a Christ reference in German) Enoch Fischer could
virtually be read as "the messiah of the cursed city."
I have a friend who may be willing to confirm how plausible this may
be.
As always, it is clear that TK could not have followed Ellul in
everything. For Ellul, the symbol of wood or tree in the midst of the
city is simultaneosly the "Tree of Life" from Eden and the cross of
Christ. It represents ultimate salvation of the city, after its pride
is dashed.

Scott

RossG12345

unread,
Apr 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/15/98
to

Scott,
I think given Ellul's influence, you've hit on the origin of TK's allusion to
Enoch. And it all fits. In the book Enoch, if I remember correctly, I think
it is thought that the believer would be brought up into heaven for being so
dedicated (where he would walk with God). After the apocalypse of Henoch
(Enoch). (I've always interpreted Enoch to mean "dedicated" or "believer". )
"You write, Ellul feels that the city [named Enoch] is symbolic of effort to

create things and exercise power apart from God. That is, it stands for man's
technical ability and hunger for power. "
David emphasized how much Ted was influenced by Ellul. As early as 1971, I
think, when they traveled to Canada.
And I was interested in your suggestion concerning the tree of life.
You say:
"For Ellul, the symbol of wood or tree in the midst of the
city is simultaneosly the "Tree of Life" from Eden and the cross of
Christ. It represents ultimate salvation of the city, after its pride
is dashed."
I've always argued that TK spraypainted the symbol of the
Tree of Life (the Yggdrasil) shortly before the June 1993 bombing.
(It looks like an inverted peace symbol). I understand the Tree of Life
to symbolize regeneration or rebirth. (As in what TK would hope
happened after all industrial society were destroyed).
Given that his 1971 essay shows his beliefs were formed very
early on, I would not doubt that he chose his symbolism with some
care.
Note that the first bomb was from "Crist" to Smith (toolmaker).
Is there a Cliff notes version of "Meaning of the City"?

Esjeje1

unread,
Apr 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/17/98
to

Ross,

I think this explanation for the Tree of Life works very well. It makes much
more sense for TK to use symbolism that meant something to him (the Ellul
connection) than to borrow the symbolism of a group of potential supporters
whom I don't want to name, because I think they might be gone for a little
while (phwew!)

By the way, I just saw a rather interesting photo at the unabombertrial site -
Ted getting out of an airplane! I didn't realize that they flew him to
Sacramento. Wonder how he liked his first airplane trip!


Scott Corey & Mary Foley

unread,
Apr 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/17/98
to

Ross,

I doubt if there is a "Cliff's notes" version of "The Meaning of the
City" but most of the relevant symbolism is at the very beginning and
very end of the book. I can give you citations to reviews of the book,
or send you an article that analyses it.
My learned friend (he knows Hebrew, German, and studies religious
history) responded to my query. To summarize:

1) He says that Weiberg is a common Jewish name, but for it to be
derived from "weib" for "wife" we have to assume the second "b" has been
dropped. He notes (with tongue in cheek) that we may stretch "Weibberg"
to mean "City of Women" and see the bombing as an attack on the Fellini
film. Of course, when I hear "city of women" I think of Berkeley
because of the power of the feminist constituency in that town.
2) If "wei" is a Yiddish cognate for "weh" it reads, "city of pain."
He suggests someone who knows Yiddish might be able to clarify.
3) The Apocalpse of Enoch uses "apocalypse" in its original meaning,
having nothing to do with an end of the world. "Apo" is "away" and
kalyptein" is "to cover, conceal." The meaning is to uncover or
reveal. However, that book was written by an Enoch who is in the line
of Seth, not the son of Cain.
More recently, you wrote:

Note that the first bomb was from "Crist" to Smith (toolmaker).

I have to wonder about TK casting himself in Christian or messianic
terms. Not impossible, but I still have to think that he parted company
with Ellul on the question of religion. Ellul, for instance, argued
that, to the extent one is Christian, one must also be pacifist. He
also believed freedom is not natural to humans, but a gift from God
through the crucifiction.

Scott

RossG12345

unread,
Apr 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/17/98
to

Scott,
Would you agree that TK likely is atheist?

Scott Corey & Mary Foley

unread,
Apr 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/17/98
to

RossG12345 wrote:
>
> Scott,
> Would you agree that TK likely is atheist?

Quite possibly, but some sort of pan-deism, of the God-is-in-all-nature
variety. Hard to say if he takes the pre-Roman Europe and pre-Christian
Scandanavia imagery seriously. As a fan of L. Spargue de Camp, it is
even possible that he likes the idea of higher physics being related to
magic.
I do not even feel totally safe questioning the Christian
possibilities. Just because he did not follow Ellul in all things does
not mean he didn't make up his own mind and call it a Christian belief
(no matter what anyone else would say).

On another matter, I am hearing rumors that the sentencing will be
moved to an earlier date.

Scott

Umm Kulthum

unread,
Apr 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/17/98
to

No One wrote:
>
> RossG12345 <rossg...@aol.com> wrote:
> : Is Rudolph the illiterate Christian Identity New World Order
> : kind-a-guy? Are you familiar with his writings? (I'm not).
> : Isn't he just a paranoiac idiot? IMO, folks like him have little
> : understanding of society and are very ill-informed. But it would
> : help if someone shared some of Rudolph's writings so we can
> : more fairly judge. From the little I remember reading about him,
> : he struck me as a waiting for rapture, bible thumpin' kind-a-guy.
> : Isn't a kissin' cousin of the Freemen?
>
> His level of academic degrees doesn't matter.
>
> What matters is that he is another person who is an outsider because
> he is unwilling or unable to conform to mainstream views and passivity.
> Instead he acts in favor of what he believes and in so doing lives a
> hundred times more honestly than the rest who merely obey.

what BS. ER simply "obeys" that tired, patriarchal,
down-home, southern hillbilly, cousin-fuckin',
bible-addled, pornographic, worthless "christianity".

The answer to problems like ER?

Nuke the south...

RossG12345

unread,
Apr 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/17/98
to

Did Kaczynski once refer to a squirrel around his cabin
as Grandfather Squirrel? (according to David, he didn't
hunt the squirrels around his cabin). (I used to call the
squirrel in my backyard Uncle Leo, so I guess we can't
infer much.)

I think that, in letters to Danny Wood, Kaczynski seemed to
suggest that the order of universe can be explained by
mathematics (though I don't think he would find magic
in physics).


Shadow

unread,
Apr 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/18/98
to

> > Scott,
> > Would you agree that TK likely is atheist?
>
> Quite possibly, but some sort of pan-deism, of the God-is-in-all-nature
> variety.

Most definitely not an atheist, but a pantheist. It's in everything he
does & writes. As in "the first thing is, don't pave a road". It's the
spiritual underpinning for the anger that he feels against progress &
civilization. It's there in his despair for the future, as in "the
effects of technology are irreversible". On what? on humans and on
NATURE.

Hey, I agree with the guy. Anyone who is a pantheist, a pagan, or a
Gaian if you will... would feel as Ted does to varying degrees. Although
most people of this persuasion profess nonviolence... still the
anger/despair are the same.


Hard to say if he takes the pre-Roman Europe and pre-Christian
> Scandanavia imagery seriously.

That's less likely, and can't be inferred from the Manifesto. Perhaps he
read books by those who did... but so what? I read the TURNER DIARIES,
does that mean I agree with them? ABSOLUTELY NOT>>>>>>>>>

As a fan of L. Spargue de Camp, it is
> even possible that he likes the idea of higher physics being related to
> magic.
> I do not even feel totally safe questioning the Christian
> possibilities. Just because he did not follow Ellul in all things does
> not mean he didn't make up his own mind and call it a Christian belief
> (no matter what anyone else would say).

I don't consider Ted an atheist; look at how many times he mentions God
in the manifesto, even if he attaches a disclaimer "God, or _____,
depending on your beliefs" (I forget what word he uses.)

> On another matter, I am hearing rumors that the sentencing will be
> moved to an earlier date.
>
> Scott

Scott, I hope you'll be able to attend, and if you do, PLEASE post your
impressions to this group. It looks like the news media has already
forgotten about Ted. (the Sacbee site hasn't informed us of this
sentencing change.)
Thanks!

Shadow

RossG12345

unread,
Apr 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/19/98
to

Shadow writes "Anyone who is a pantheist, a pagan, or a Gaian..."

Am I right that Kaczynski thinks Gaian beliefs are silly?

What's the difference between a pantheist and a pagan?

Does Kaczynski have pagan beliefs?

Kaczynski views morality as brainwashing, doesn't he?

Scott Corey & Mary Foley

unread,
Apr 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/20/98
to

RossG12345 wrote:
>
> Shadow writes "Anyone who is a pantheist, a pagan, or a Gaian..."
>
> Am I right that Kaczynski thinks Gaian beliefs are silly?

In "Industrial Society and Its Future" the author wonders if Gaians
truly believe in what they profess.

>
> What's the difference between a pantheist and a pagan?

Without looking it up I'd say pagans generally believe in multiple
deities. I think pantheist is properly the same, but might also imply
what I think of as pandeist, which is that God is singular, but prevades
all things (or all living things). Of course, "pagan" is now trendy, so
strict use is probably not common.


>
> Does Kaczynski have pagan beliefs?

Unknown.


>
> Kaczynski views morality as brainwashing, doesn't he?

Yes, but that does not rule out belief in the supernatural or
spiritual. It may be hard for modern Westerners to accept, but morality
is not always such a big part of spirituality as we assume. While that
does not appeal to me, it seems to be so.

Scott

RossG12345

unread,
Apr 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/20/98
to

Scott writes:

"Yes, but that does not rule out belief in the supernatural or
spiritual"

On the question of whether TK is spiritual, doesn't the
longstanding debate between David and Ted suggest that
he is not?

Ted K. believes that if it cannot be proved, then one should
not believe in it. Scott, what was the phrase David K. used
to describe TK's philosophical approach?

Was it Verifiability Criterion? (I don't recall). David
discussed their recurring debate in an FBI interview.

It's that debate that causes me to suggest that TK
is atheist (though tolerant of religious views) and
neither pagan nor pantheist, however defined.

Shadow

unread,
Apr 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/20/98
to

AT LAST, a new & interesting topic!

>
> Shadow writes "Anyone who is a pantheist, a pagan, or a Gaian..."
>
> Am I right that Kaczynski thinks Gaian beliefs are silly?

I don't think so. He is merely confusing "Gaian" beliefs with "trendy"
Neo-Pagan persuasions. Perhaps he is confusing "earth spirituality"
people with shallow "Wiccans" who decide it's cool to be a Witch & wear
a Pentagram. (I don't mean to suggest that ALL Wiccans are like this.)

> Does Kaczynski have pagan beliefs?

He certainly has SOME reverence for Nature, or else why would he address
"Grandfather Squirrel"? This also suggests that he has been in contact
with others who profess Native American Spirituality or use its
platitudes. Or else he has read about the subject.

> Kaczynski views morality as brainwashing, doesn't he?

Perhaps, but "morality" is such an imprecise term. It covers everything
from monogamy to murder. Perhaps Ted is just referring to "western" or
"middle class" morality. I don't know how he justifies the killing.
There are many, of course, who could justify it in their own morality as
something for "a higher good". Including Large Numbers of Christians
thru history.

Scott Corey & Mary Foley

unread,
Apr 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/21/98
to

DK tells us that TK has a severely rationalist approach and holds to
the methodological criterion of "verifiability." TK is said to have
been much enamored of Kant as an undergraduate, which would encourage
rationalism (and, incidentally, an understanding of Kant's idea of
"autonomy."

What this generally leads to is "scientism," a quasi-religious faith in
science. I do not think that fits. Paradoxically, TK still seems to
have a great deal of trust in science. His lawyers made it clear that
he only undertook the neuro-psych exam because it was an "objective"
test, and therefore different from Freudian or other forms of insight
analysis.

In a way, this makes sense. If you are really convinced that science
is so powerful and true, you might very well come to fear it. The
question is "Fear on behalf of what?" If humans are just a bunch of
atoms and electrical charges, why not rearrange them so that everybody
is happy with whatever they have and whatever they do?

Science cannot offer an answer to that. I do not assume that
"Industrial Society and Its Future" provides a full account of TK's
personal answer. He seems to have a significant reverance for nature,
but how would he characterized that? I do not know, so I do not assume
atheism.

Scott

John Merrall

unread,
Apr 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/22/98
to

SULAIR Kiosk (sulk...@sulmail.stanford.edu) wrote:
: The Kaczynskis and McVeighs and Rudolphs get a lot of bad press.
: I'm not excusing what they did, but I think they serve a useful
: social role: their activity demonstrates that there is
: a dangerous undercurrent of dissent in American society, much
: of it directed at the policies of our "President".

Where did Kaczynski say anything about your "President"? How could he ever
bother with something so trivial?

Quit lumping him in with your Patriot heroes.

--
-=-=-=-=-=-= http://www.hwcn.org/~ac096/Profile.html =-=-=-
* "the modern State is but a committee for managing the *
* common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." *
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

SULAIR Kiosk

unread,
Apr 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/26/98
to

John Merrall wrote:
>
>
>
> Where did Kaczynski say anything about your "President"? How could he ever
> bother with something so trivial?
>
> Quit lumping him in with your Patriot heroes.
>


Like those other brave men, he was willing to strike out against
social wrongs. For that he deserves our admiration.

John Merrall

unread,
Apr 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/27/98
to

To be brave requires intelligence. Your Turner Diaries buddies are just
foolhardy.

John Merrall

unread,
Apr 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/27/98
to

Shadow (shad...@erols.com) wrote:

: > Kaczynski views morality as brainwashing, doesn't he?

: Perhaps, but "morality" is such an imprecise term. It covers everything
: from monogamy to murder. Perhaps Ted is just referring to "western" or
: "middle class" morality. I don't know how he justifies the killing.

How do Americans, generally, justify their own killing?

This stuff about finding it hard to understand how Ted can justify killing
is silly. Every single person able to read this message is responsible for
killing, they just don't think about it that much. Ted just happened to
mail bombs to people; maybe the problem is that he seems to accept
responsibility for killing, which is something most people would find
abhorrent.

: There are many, of course, who could justify it in their own morality as


: something for "a higher good". Including Large Numbers of Christians
: thru history.

Most people, rather, justify killing in their own morality by denying
responsibility for it, insisting that it doesn't concern them, and so
forth.

Piotr Glownia

unread,
Jun 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/13/98
to

In article <353269...@stanford.edu>,
Voice of the Public <non...@stanford.edu> wrote:
-Michael Stein wrote:
->
-> SULAIR Kiosk <sulk...@sulmail.stanford.edu> wrote:
-> : The Kaczynskis and McVeighs and Rudolphs get a lot of bad press.
-> : Such dissent
-> : needs to be addressed, and where appropriate, met with concessions.
->
-> Is it really dangerous as such or is it a reaction to a societal
-> system that no longer addresses the needs of individuals? Why do
-> most people feel like outsiders in this society? Why do people
-> consider the government as an enemy instead of an ally or servant?
-> If you accept those premises then it makes perfect sense to react
-> in the way that Kaczynski, McVeigh, Rudolph, and many others have
-> done. Futhermore, those who suffer under the current system and
-> do not attempt to change it are cowards.
->
->
-
-I agree. Probably the mass of society has become too accustomed to
-living in a comfortable house with electricity and plumbing. The
-sacrifices a system rebel would have to make, like living in the
-woods in order to reduce taxable income to zero, are too much for
-most to contemplate. Kaczynski was heroic in making such a commit-
-ment.

It is possible that Kaczynski simply learned this old Polish partizant
warfare tradition from his parents. It's not heroic and you can get easily
sick in winter. Sometimes local peasants don't colaborate, or colaborate with
enemy and you've got to shoot your own... damned life. One thing is just
astonishing. He didn't deploy ancient Polish, partizant tactic of burned
ground. I think it was so because of the democratic political system of USA.

-This gigantic government and its "President" have alienated more
-people than he dares think. His sorry wife has not helped either.

Some alies appreciate that anyway. Earth must go under, you know, or
we'll never leave this God damned planet.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages