It's the same logic as "an insane person can never have a valid complaint about the asylum", a problem which mentally ill people deal on a regular basis with when trying to affect change in their treatment.

Not saying the Unabomber actually has anything worth reading, I've never read the manifesto, but dismissing it wholesale (and angrily) before doing so is rather illogical.

Based on his actions and reading his manifesto it reads like fruit cake trying to explain why 5g is bad and the only backing their argument has is, "I read a thing on facebook".

As DyslexicAthiest pointed out his beliefies are not reasoned he read some one elses reasoning and then adoped the belief "technlogy bad".

Roads are one of the oldest technologies originally built so we could get armies places faster, arguably a bad thing but those same roads can be use for ambulances that save peoples lives. Its obvious that how people use technology is good or bad and the technology is an inanimate object incapable of ethics, the unaboamber never considers this simply because it is irrelevant to his belief system.

He started to act on his beliefs when a road brought people to his world. He could have blown up roads, bridges, power plants etc but he choose to blow up people.

The unibombers problem was never technology it was people, like a facist he blamed every one else for his problems and technology was his judaism, the solution blow up the problem.

People have accused me of miss-representing him but these people have not read his manifesto the arguments against technology are surface level like some one arguing against 5g because they seen something on facebook, the real meat of his argument reads like mein kampf because thats his belief.

Also I obviously mean fruit cake as in insane not as in gay, I have no idea if he was gay and I really don't care it has no relevance to my argument or his beliefs or actions. I dunno why some one would think his sexuality was relevant but others have commented so wanted to be clear.

- Edit -

lucideer made my argument way better than me. (I had no assumptions when reading it and related to a lot of the right wing worldview)

> the manifesto is an enormous disappointment. It's filled with base broad assumptions, ignorant and unresearched assertions on "leftism" and in particular his treatise on "oversocialization" is so transparently a defensive lashing out at the elements of society that have not been personally accepting of him.

It's an English idiom used to describe someone mentally deranged.