/lit/ - Literature

It seems many people read Kaczynski expecting some masterful argument against industrial society because of his background in mathematics and notoriety as a genius.
I was surprised to find an essentially normative polemical diatribe against le bad technology with no prescriptive element included (besides his call to jihad).

I really don't understand what the point is of all his writing; what he actually wants or intends for his work to accomplish.
He hinges all his anti-tech revolutionary writings on the premise that industrial society is bad.
He sort of explicates it with respect to the extreme and accelerating nature of domination by industrial technology -- which is a novel and important development, reversing Marx's dialectical materialism -- but does not really make heads or tails with respect to how it happened, why it happened, and why it is bad.
Unlike Marx, for example, he doesn't lay out an argument or system that can be attacked or expanded upon; it all lacks substance.
That's why no one has built upon his work, there is no foundation to build on.

At the end of the day, he expects the reader to accept his hypothesis and agree to commit acts of terrorism against industrial society (like he did) without even going so far as to define what technology is or how to tell what is industrial technology and what isn't.
I guess he'd argue that it doesn't matter and that society as it stands is irredeemable, it's just go to go, doesn't matter how it go there.
But, again, I am not convinced by his arguments that I should care, sacrifice my life and my childrens' lives, to fight this holy war.
He was also a gigantic faggot that barely even tried to do what he was asking of the rest of us.
He didn't even try very hard to kill anyone important.
Unironically, ISIS propaganda is more convincing and effective.

He never even explains what is supposed to happen or why it is more desirable than what we've got.
In his recent book, he only is able to say that it doesn't matter what happens after because it cannot be predicted. (The "how to" part of the anti-tech revolution was censored for obvious reasons; he's incarcerated for trying to do just those things.)
He then goes on to say that the revolution cannot even be expected to have its desired effect.
Disregarding that this is a very antiquated view of "revolution", if he really believes it, why is he even trying to convince anyone to do anything?
If society is hopelessly tied to the development (or regression) of technology, and that this is "bad", what reason is there to believe it will be better once we've gotten rid of it all?