I think his ideas come across more clearly and coherently in his later work than in his manifesto, but that's often the case.

I don't regard him as a philosopher but rather an agitator, not unlike Thomas Paine or (insert your preferred historical figure here). This largely because his writing is not in a spirit of inquiry over where technology might go, rather it is conclusory - industrialism is path-dependent and net negative, with the only open questions being how to undermine it effectively.

His works read like a book-smart guy that thought his intelligence in X field translated into intelligence at large. It didn't, and frankly his actions were so illogical and nonsensical that it's a puzzle why people think he is some sort of misunderstood genius.

He's no different than the many, many cranks writing ill-informed manifestos online.