X-Message-Number: 4307
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 95 10:56:23
From: Derek Ryan <>
Subject: (Fwd) UNABOMB Text (fwd)
Forwarded message:
To:
Date: 26-Apr-95 16:58:13 -0800
From: (Eric Watt Forste){}
Subject: UNABOMB Text (fwd)
Reply-to: {}
>To:
>Reply-to:
My eye was particularly caught by the following excerpt: "The people who
are pushing all this growth and progress garbage deserve to be severely
punished. But our goal is less to punish them than to propagate ideas."
Anyway, if this guy has never heard of extropians, we can count ourselves
lucky. If he ever does hear of extropians, we'd better be very careful with
packages from unknown origins.
>From: Marciano Pitargue <>>Subject: UNABOMB Text (fwd)
>Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 13:23:55 -0701 (PDT)
>From: Chris Hall <>
>To:
>
>04/26:TEXT OF UNABOMB CASE LETTER RECEIVED BY N.Y. TIMES
>
>The document is presented verbatim, with original spelling, emphasis and
>punctuation. Three passages have been deleted at the request of the FBI.
>
>(Passage deleted at the request of the FBI)
>
>This is a message from the terrorist group FC.
>
>We blew up Thomas Mosser last December because he was a Burston-Marsteller
>executive. Among other misdeeds, Burston-Marsteller helped Exxon clean up its
>public image after the Exxon Valdez incident. But we attacked
>Burston-Marsteller less for its specific misdeeds than on general principles.
>Burston-Marsteller is about the biggest organization in the public relations
>field. This means that its business is the development of techniques for
>manipulating people's attitudes. It was for this more than for its actions in
>specific cases that we sent a bomb to an executive of this company.
>
>Some news reports have made the misleading statement that we have been
>attacking universities or scholars. We have nothing against universities or
>scholars as such. All the university people whom we have attacked have been
>specialists in technical fields. (We consider certain areas of applied
>psychology, such as behavior modification, to be technical fields.) We would
>not want anyone to think that we have any desire to hurt professors who study
>archaeology, history, literature or harmless stuff like that. The people we
>are out to get are the scientists and engineers, especially in critical
>fields like computers and genetics. As for the bomb planted in the Business
>School at the U. of Utah, that was a botched operation. We won't say how or
>why it was botched because we don't want to give the FBI any clues. No one
>was hurt by that bomb.
>
>In our previous letter to you we called ourselves anarchists. Since
>"anarchist" is a vague word that has been applied to a variety of attitudes,
>further explanation is needed. We call ourselves anarchists because we would
>like, ideally, to break down all society into very small, completely
>autonomous units. Regrettably, we don't see any clear road to this goal, so
>we leave it to the indefinite future. Our more immediate goal, which we think
>may be attainable at some time during the next several decades, is the
>destruction of the worldwide industrial system. Through our bombings we hope
>to promote social instability in industrial society, propagate
>anti-industrial ideas and give encouragement to those who hate the industrial
>system.
>
>The FBI has tried to portray these bombings as the work of an isolated nut.
>We won't waste our time arguing about whether we are nuts, but we certainly
>are not isolated. For security reasons we won't reveal the number of members
>of our group, but anyone who will read the anarchist and radical
>environmentalist journals will see that opposition to the
>industrial-technological system is widespread and growing.
>
>Why do we announce our goals only now, through we made our first bomb some
>seventeen years ago? Our early bombs were too ineffectual to attract much
>public attention or give encouragement to those who hate the system. We found
>by experience that gunpowder bombs, if small enough to be carried
>inconspicuously, were too feeble to do much damage, so we took a couple of
>years off to do some experimenting. We learned how to make pipe bombs that
>were powerful enough, and we used these in a couple of successful bombings as
>well as in some unsuccessful ones.
>
>(Passage deleted at the request of the FBI)
>
>Since we no longer have to confine the explosive in a pipe, we are now free
>of limitations on the size and shape of our bombs. We are pretty sure we know
>how to increase the power of our explosives and reduce the number of
>batteries needed to set them off. And, as we've just indicated, we think we
>now have more effective fragmentation material. So we expect to be able to
>pack deadly bombs into ever smaller, lighter and more harmless looking
>packages. On the other hand, we believe we will be able to make bombs much
>bigger than any we've made before. With a briefcase-full or a suitcase-full
>of explosives we should be able to blow out the walls of substantial
>buildings.
>
>Clearly we are in a position to do a great deal of damage. And it doesn't
>appear that the FBI is going to catch us any time soon. The FBI is a joke.
>
>The people who are pushing all this growth and progress garbage deserve to be
>severely punished. But our goal is less to punish them than to propagate
>ideas. Anyhow we are getting tired of making bombs. It's no fun having to
>spend all your evenings and weekends preparing dangerous mixures, filing
>trigger mechanisms out of scraps of metal or searching the sierras for a
>place isolated enough to test a bomb. So we offer a bargain.
>
>We have a long article, between 29,000 and 37,000 words, that we want to have
>published. If you can get it published according to our requirements we will
>permanently desist from terrorist activities. It must be published in the New
>York Times, Time or Newsweek, or in some other widely read, nationally
>distributed periodical. Because of its length we suppose it will have to be
>serialized. Alternatively, it can be published as a small book, but the book
>must be well publicized and made available at a moderate price in bookstores
>nationwide and in at least some places abroad. Whoever agrees to publish the
>material will have exclusive rights to reproduce it for a period of six
>months and will be welcome to any profits they may make from it. After six
>months from the first appearance of the article or book it must become public
>property, so that anyone can reproduce or publish it. (If material is
>serialized, first instalment becomes public property six months after
>appearance of first instalment, second instalment, etc.) We must have the
>right to publish in the New York Times, Time or Newsweek, each year for three
>years after the appearance of our article or book, three thousand words
>expanding or clarifying our material or rebutting criticisms of it.
>
>The article will not explicitly advocate violence. There will be an
>unavoidable implication that we favor violence to the extent that it may be
>necessary, since we advocate eliminating industrial society and we ourselves
>have been using violence to that end. But the article will not advocate
>violence explicitly, nor will it propose the overthrow of the United States
>Government, nor will it contain obscenity or anything else that you would be
>likely to regard as unacceptable for publication.
>
>How do you know that we will keep our promise to desist from terrorism if our
>conditions are met? It will be to our advantage to keep our promise. We want
>to win acceptance for certain ideas. If we break our promise people will lose
>respect for us and so will be less likely to accept the ideas.
>
>Our offer to desist from terrorism is subject to three qualifications. First:
>Our promise to desist will not take effect until all parts of our article or
>book have appeared in print. Second: If the authorities should succeed in
>tracking us down and an attempt is made to arrest any of us, or even to
>question us in connection with the bombings, we reserve the right to use
>violence. Third: We distinguish between terrorism and sabotage. By terrorism
>we mean actions motivated by a desire to influence the development of a
>society and intended to cause injury or death to human beings. By sabotage we
>mean similarly motivated actions intended to destroy property without
>injuring human beings. The promise we offer is to desist from terrorism. We
>reserve the right to engage in sabotage.
>
>It may be just as well that failure of our early bombs discouraged us from
>making any public statements at that time. We were very young then and our
>thinking was crude. Over the years we have given as much attention to the
>development of our ideas as to the development of bombs, and we now have
>something serious to say. And we feel that just now the time is ripe for the
>presentation of anti-industrial ideas.
>
>Please see to it that the answer to our offer is well publicized in the media
>so that we won't miss it. Be sure to tell us where and how our material will
>be published and how long it will take to appear in print once we have sent
>in the manuscript. If the answer is satisfactory, we will finish typing the
>manuscript and send it to you. If the answer is unsatisfactory, we will start
>building our next bomb.
>
>We encourage you to print this letter.
>
>FC
>
>(Passage deleted at the request of the FBI) = = = Those of you with
>protectees in High Technology and the Sciences ( and those that protect
>them like me :-( ) should take extra precautions with ANY unknown package,
>toy, tool, even LITTER
>
__________________________________________________________________________
Eric Watt Forste vivid studios
http://www.vivid.com/ CD-ROM & Online Innovators
__________________________________________________________________________
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4307