Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 6 Num. 09

("Quid coniuratio est?")


My thanks to a CN reader for sending me the complete text of the Unabomber Manifesto. I have archived same at ftp pub/users/bigred under the file name unabomber.manifesto. It is available via anonymous ftp.

Let me start by saying I don't approve of the bomber's use of bombs and that no one should infer that I endorse his methods. Yet from what I have read of it so far, the manifesto has obviously been written by a serious and thoughtful person(s) and is therefore worth reading.

The first thing that comes to mind is that if the U.S. mass media were not so censorious as to what they will print, then maybe the unabomber would not have sought the outlet of bombing innocent people as a way to get his points across. If manuscripts such as the manifesto were not being routinely rejected by a smug media elite, then maybe the unabomber would never have bombed anyone in the first place. Look what kind of hell he/she had to raise, just to get published!

I find it interesting that The Nation magazine, in their September 25, 1995 issue, did some damage control on the manifesto prior to its release to the general public. In "Is There Method In His Madness?", author Kirkpatrick Sale states: "I have read the full text of the Unabomber treatise -- the F.B.I. sent along two young female agents with copies of it for me to peruse -- and I would recommend that either one of the papers publish it and trust the man will keep his word about ending the mad, unconscionable bombings." Here is my own reading of Mr. Sale's above statement:

(a) "...the F.B.I. sent along two young female agents with copies of it for me to peruse..." In other words, dear reader, do not infer that this document was leaked to The Nation ahead of time for some purpose -- like damage control. Oh no. Why, you see, The Nation is such a scarey magazine that the F.B.I. even had to keep Mr. Sale's under scrutiny lest he make unauthorized copies and smuggle them to his daring (yawn) leftist buddies. That is why Mr. Sale is careful to mention that the F.B.I. was watching him -- lest we perceive the whole thing as an intentional leak and Mr. Sale and The Nation as just another hue of the omnipresent propaganda apparatus.

(b) Why does the "radical" magazine, The Nation, get to read the manifesto in advance? I thought they were "against the system" or "fighting the evil oppressor" or something like that. Why does the status quo hand deliver a copy to them (but under the guard of F.B.I., they make pains to casually mention), of all people, in advance of publication? Aren't they "the enemy" or something like that?

(c) This document was leaked ahead of time to The Nation so that they could serve as a shock absorber. The Unabomber Manifesto is highly critical of what is masquerading as "The Left" these days. Myself having been present during the 1960s, I can assure you that the "left" of those days and the "left" of today are not the same thing. The "left" of today, reeking of CIA infiltration, serves the system. The September 25 Nation article is nothing but a buffer that is meant to protect the out-of-touch, foggy-thinking, and/or bought-and-paid-for "left" from being disturbed by anything real. Attention "Left": Nation Has Already Read This Manifesto For You -- No Need For You To Read It Yourself.

(I've had it with The Nation. Yes, Alexander Cockburn writes good stuff, but I can just read Nation at the library and thereby save myself some bucks.)

I can't speak for everyone, but where I live, the Washington Post is not on sale. It may be different elsewhere -- but then again, maybe not. Is your area like mine? Can you buy the New York Times but not the Washington Post where you live? Kind of makes me wonder, why was the manifesto published in the Post instead of the Times? Maybe that was more damage control, no? Maybe the Times would have reached more people with the unedited text than the Post will have. Why would it matter to the powers that be how many people wind up reading the Unabomber Manifesto? I mean, it's all nonsense, right? Right??

The manifesto (what I have read so far) makes mincemeat out of what is masquerading as "the left" these days. "One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism," says Unabomber Joe. Oh-oh! Good thing the "leftists" have been prepped by Nation! That might have upset them! Thanks for "helping", Nation!

Unabomber Joe agrees that the "leftism" of today is not what it once was. He thinks that it is actually unclear just what exactly is a "leftist" these days. He defines "leftists" as "...mainly socialists, collectivists, 'politically correct' types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like." He sees "leftism" as "a psychological type", "a collection of related types". He attributes modern "leftism" to feelings of inferiority by its adherents.

So, for example, "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." Why do "leftists" hate them? According to Unabomber Joe, it is because these things, by comparison, tend to make the "leftist" feel inadequate.

The "leftist" feelings of inadequacy make them favor collectivism, says the bomber, because they feel that they would lose in a fair, individualistic competition with others. Collectivism is their insurance that they won't have to compete and subsequently be shown as "inferior" to others. I see that as a keen observation, but would add that "leftists" need not fear their "inferiority": the truly "superior" individual will not fail to look after those less gifted than herself.

"Mega-dittos" to Unabomber Joe when he says, "Those who are most sensitive about 'politically incorrect' terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any 'oppressed' group but come from privileged strata of society." Just a personal observation here, but it seems like a certain group of state-certified "elite" have presumed to be the unelected representatives of a portion of the masses and to presume to speak for them. We all know that, by and large, our own "representatives" do not really represent us. So in a sub-stratum of this we find, again, "representatives" who do not represent; "representatives" who, what is more, have the effrontery to have appointed themselves by virtue of the fact that the State has credentialized them and they therefore feel self-important enough to speak for one and all -- all without even the usual pretense of having been voted into "office".

The bomber misses one thing in his analysis of the "leftist" psychology. The reasons that "leftists" wear their heart on their sleeve is that they "care" more than you do and what is more they make sure you know it. It is a type of social preening that "leftists" do where they jabber, jabber, jabber about East Timor but anything really scarey -- like gee, was Vince Foster murdered and is the U.S. government really like that, murdering its own citizens and then lying about it? -- anything that is possibly going to be consequential and wrest power from the bunch of gangsters and thugs running our lives -- "Well really now," the modern "leftist" will say with a smug little smile and a neat little moustache, "I mean really." And then he will titter away with his other "leftist" buddies and they'll share a prolonged tinny laugh together.

I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."

For information on how to receive the new Conspiracy Nation Newsletter, send an e-mail message to
If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail address, send a message in the form "subscribe conspire My Name" to -- To cancel, send a message in the form "unsubscribe conspire" to
Want to know more about Whitewater, Oklahoma City bombing, etc? (1) telnet (2) logon as "visitor" (3) go citcom
Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt. Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et pauperem. -- Liber Proverbiorum XXXI: 8-9
O what fine thought we had because we thought | That the worst rogues and rascals had died out. | Illinois, -- W.B. Yeats, "Nineteen Hundred And Nineteen" | I'm your boy.