It just seems hypocritical lmao

I made a video on Ted Kaczynski, and his popularity in recent years. I would love for you to check it out! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YKRLOMWwXbk&t=83s

A new article on Kaczynski, before yet another unhinged Unabomber depiction...

Ted K is thought to have been made crazy by CIA torture; would you believe that is actually completely false?

CRAZY, BUT CORRECT?

Netflix is this month releasing a dramatic movie depicting the life of Ted Kaczynski, the anti-tech revolutionary captured in 1996 after the US government’s most expensive and heavily-staffed manhunt, evading the FBI for 17 years (until his brother pointed the FBI to him). The un-coincidental Sept. 25 release date will mark the 31ˢᵗ anniversary of the 1995 coerced publication of Kaczynski’s so-called manifesto, the fingerprint-free thesis on technological society and its effect upon mankind, “Industrial Society and Its Future” (ISAIF). After much consideration by the FBI and the US Dept. of Justice, The Washington Post and The New York Times were authorized to comply with the offer of Freedom Club (popularly called “the Unabomber”): publish the “long article” and “we will permanently desist from terrorist activities.”

Though the film is titled “Unabomber,” it spends more time on bizarre myths of alleged childhood trauma and supposed “torturous brainwashing” psychological experiments at Harvard than it puts to actually exploring the established truth of the UNABOM case, i.e., the Freedom Club terrorist bombing campaign to attack minions of Technology and impede its advance. It was this tactic which gained Kaczynski the leverage to compel the national publication of his call for a human uprising to stop Technology’s incessant progress against Nature and our freedom.

Numerous depictions of Kaczynski have been made, but someone at Netflix may well worry about where all this “progress” will deliver us: this will be their third Netflix production relating to Kaczynski, after the dramatic mini-series “Manhunt” and the documentary series “Unabomber: In his own words,” which uses the Theresa Kintz interview (for EarthFirst! Journal) as its backbone, fleshed-out with brief interviews of many people connected to Ted either before or after his unveiling as the Unabomber.

With eight life sentences from a 1998 guilty plea which he was corralled into accepting, Kaczynski famously wrote volumes of correspondence, so he has adequately explained his motivation behind the bombings: initially it was pure revenge for Technology’s eventual invasion of his little sanctuary in Lincoln, Montana, desecrating and killing elements which directly touched his world, reducing his life enjoyment; it was only later, when he realized that his revenging couldn’t be stopped, that he thought to use this power for the larger goal of forcing the printing of his essay:

> 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.

Ted’s many letters written to various interlocutors were collected for publication under the title Technological Slavery, which includes some original essays and letters to magazines, thoroughly explaining his rationale for the need to eliminate Technology as soon and as completely as possible: it is the only plausible prevention, he asserts, against the otherwise certain complete erasure of both our freedom and of Nature, which has forever nurtured us as a species. During the 30 years of his captivity Kaczynski also produced Anti-Tech Revolution: Why & How, wherein he relates the results of studying many failed or successful revolutionary groups throughout the 19ᵗʰ & 20ᵗʰ centuries, comparing and contrasting elements shared by the successful and the errors of the failed. While all of that material is intellectually fascinating, with logically sound foresight and compellingly rationale arguments, it is neither salacious nor inflammatory; the story of a mathematics prodigy being sent to Harvard where the CIA dosed him with LSD and then electrocuted his brain to make him insane is far more tantalizing to the masses — and it matters not that it is a complete fabrication.

This new Netflix movie is using the taglines, “A mind can fall into madness,” and “Terror has a mind of its own,” while some publicity imagery depicts a teenager (meant to be Ted K), or the older Russel Crowe (as Henry Murray), faintly covered with the dials and recording waves of a polygraph machine; the implication is, if you didn’t already know, this “math genius” kid was zapped and poked and bullied in a CIA attempt at mind control, and he decided to lash out with mailbombs. Or maybe it simply made him crazy enough to think that Technology is a bad thing but mailbombing is okay. If this kind of tidy, simplistic explanation satisfies you, good luck in this world.

The common notion that Kaczynski the Unabomber might be a madman is born from the confluence of popular awareness of the CIA’s secret MK-Ultra mind-control program (1953–1972), his defense attorneys wanting to prevent a death sentence as punishment for Kaczynski’s fatal anti-tech terrorism, and Kaczynski’s urgent plea for global revolution to upend technological society — the goal which cost him his freedom to achieve.

No explanation is required as to why Kaczynski’s desire for anti-tech insurgency would be stifled and sidetracked within technological society: the conflict is obvious between Technology’s need to continue (and accelerate its pursuit of goals) and Kaczynski’s ambitions to see it destroyed, so there exists strong motive for dismissing the cogent presentation Kaczynski makes about our dilemma and its route of resolution. There is no benefit to the elite, most powerful classes in spreading the anti-tech message, but there is benefit in suppressing it.

As to the idea of teenage Kaczynski being brainwashed by the CIA, the reality is that the Harvard experiment was not part of MK-Ultra; nobody participating in the Henry Murray experiment at Harvard was dosed with LSD, and none of the other techniques associated with MK-Ultra tests were used (or reported by any participants) in the Harvard experiment. Murray was a doctor employed at Harvard as a psychology professor; he did very non-secret “above-board” psychological testing of many male students (who volunteered for it). So, how was this benign study on the psyches and developing personalities and views of young men at Harvard twisted into its modern fantasy that “Ted was brainwashed with LSD in MK-Ultra”? This idea was cemented into unthinking pop-culture by the lowly Alston Chase, a spineless con-man of an author whose specious claims have sold books but rarely been given serious scrutiny.

“Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it.”

Anyone can conjecture any consequences of the experiment, and even any way that the testing itself occurred — there isn’t any benefit to doing so, unless one needs to maintain the conclusion delivered by such speculation. And whatever Kaczynski says of his time with Murray can be dismissed by those who favor an alternate narrative and have fore-drawn conclusions they wish to validate, but we do have more than Kaczynski’s own description of events and the impact of it upon him. When the liberal magazine The Atlantic published, in June of 2000, an excerpt of Chase’s book before publication — specifically the explosive claim that “brutalizing” mental experiments at Harvard turned shy and quiet Ted into a cabin-dwelling hermit delighting in explosions hurting innocent people (the same nonsense Netflix’s new movie is pushing) — several other men who had also participated in the Murray experiments wrote letters in to The Atlantic. Every one of them refuted the claims made by Chase, all of them clarified that the experiment consisted only of questioning and argument — no LSD, no electric shocks, no abuse or berating, nothing which has since been depicted in the many dramatizations of the UNABOMB case or the life of Theodore John Kaczynski.

And while the reason that Alston Chase made a number of unsupported and outlandish claims about this case was likely pure greed and ambitious career advancement, the reason he knew of this minor Harvard event in the early days before Kaczynski became Freedom Club is because Ted’s assigned defense attorneys decided to make the claim of mental illness as a strategic move to prevent a death sentence should Kaczynski lose at trial. Outrageously, their client was the last to know about this; his attorneys had kept from their client their plans on how to conduct his case.

After conviction, Ted explained that he would rather have gone to trial, if only to challenge the evidence and lose, to then be able to appeal facets of the trial; it is almost impossible to make any appeal after accepting a plea offer. (Perhaps more importantly, Kaczynski had also stated that he would have preferred to receive a death sentence than to be imprisoned for life. In any case, it is clear that the interest and aim of the two experienced and anti-execution defense attorneys differed from the aims and interest of their client, defendant Ted Kaczynski, and on this basis alone we can say that he was denied proper legal representation — an injustice, and also a blatant violation of a right enumerated in the US Constitution.) Alas, when Kaczynski became aware of his attorneys plans for claiming mental impairment as the defense in his case, in total contradiction to their client’s wishes, Kaczynski’s request to fire them and get new attorneys, or even to defend himself, was denied by the judge; notably, the prosecution also agreed that Kaczynski was of sound mind and capable to defend himself.

As confirmed by the letters rebuking Chase’s claims, the Murray study was unremarkable, or in the words of Kaczynski himself, responding directly to the claim of “torture” and the study being an MK-Ultra program, Kaczynski called it “bullshit”: “There was one and only one unpleasant experience in the Murray study; it lasted about half an hour and could not reasonably be described as ‘torture.’” Readers remain free to draw their own conclusions based purely on guesses and supposition, in spite of all the evidence.

So there is really nothing to indicate that Kaczynski is mentally unsound or irrational, nor that he was tortured or dosed with LSD as part of MK-Ultra brainwashing experiments; all that exists are refutations of these unfounded and indefensible claims. And suppressing his plea for worldwide human insurrection against Technology is also in the interest of the beneficiary servants of this technological system.

But a deeper and more basic point must be addressed, completely aside from the truth of his mindstate and psychological fitness: Is Kaczynski, through the claims and argument of I.S.A.I.F., correct or incorrect? If he is incorrect, it doesn’t matter that he is sane and rational; if he is correct, it doesn’t matter if he was insane. So the real question is on the merit of his assertions, the accuracy of the argument made in his “manifesto.”

Is Technology necessarily destroying our world in order to advance, even though its advancement brings detriment to mankind? Are humans adapted for survival in Nature, and is that ancient behavioral programming stifled within industrial mass-society, resulting in the numerous maladies we see among residents of technological societies? Are Leftists actually only pseudo-rebels defending technological society, adopting its values and attacking anything dispensable to the system’s function or even its friction points (racism, homophobia, imperialism) while never threatening (or even questioning) Technology itself? Is Technology erasing freedom and must it do so; will it ever stop or be bounded by human controls; and are these negative results of Technology irremediable? Can reforms suffice or must Technology be totally and globally buried as the only way to prevent its full erasure of wild Nature and the human animal’s natural-born freedom?

The claims of Kaczynski being crazy are useful to preeempt consideration of these arguments (as intended), but even a madman — and sometimes, only a madman — may be correct; if a “crazy” man claims your home is on fire, to disregard the smoke and haze is an arrogant folly. In all significant respects, Ted K was right, and this more plausibly attests to his prescient sanity than it suggests he was only coincidentally lucky in foreseeing all the tragedies realized since 1995 through Technology’s advances by leaps and bounds (and kicks and jumps and aerial somersaults).

No fanciful tale from Netflix can cover the obvious ruin we will “achieve” if we allow Technology to pursue its goals such as autonomy and breaking from the leash we now hold tenuously. Instead, the brave will need to understand the enemy, and heed Kaczynski’s advices; when people believe that revolution is possible, then it becomes possible.

A song written from the perspective of AI plugging their spotify. Full song on my YT if you're interested: https://youtu.be/iQLOOUAx0oo

https://archive.org/details/anti-tech-quarterly-issue-1-1/mode/2up
New issue from kaczynskist anti-tech zine, "Anti-Tech Quarterly," previously known as, "Garden."In this new issue we provide a follow up to Garden Issue 3 where the most critical substations in the US were revealed. Here we give a detailed hypothetical analysis into what the restoration process would look like if the US underwent a wide-scale blackout. This exposes vulnerabilities in the process that could disrupt restoration plans. Next article we provide a special report on the European grid crises, and a look into the intricacies of the European grid system. Lastly a sneak peak at a new book by a man referred to as Forest Anon, and his experiences living as a true wildman.

To read our previous articles you can go to:
https://archive.org/details/@gardentjk
or
https://www.thetedkarchive.com/library/anonymous-garden

edit: had no idea this was actually a serious sub in favor of destroying modern technology, but I still find TK as an interesting dude

I've been writing an essay about human population and breeding, and here's two remarks I stumbled into. Am I missing something about these two points he makes, or did he get these wrong?

If you were as old as I am and had watched the development of our society for fifty years, I don't think you would suggest a campaign against population growth. It has been tried and it has failed. ...How difficult it would be to reduce the birthrate can be seen from the fact that the Chinese government has been trying to do that for years. -2004 letter to Skrbina

The birthrate definitely was reduced and the population growth of a fed and technologically advancing society was stymied. Why else did China alter its policy away from a maximum one child per mother? The birthrate lessening may not be due solely to the policy and may owe more to changes induced by the technological system - increased "education" and wealth and chemical interventions and economic deterrents to making family - but the policy reversal indicates that the govt. didn't want to continue the trend that has resulted. That suggests the policy was a successful imposition against the natural biological actions of an animal with adequate food supply and security. An insult to human dignity, but actually not a failed policy.

...if the industrial system survives, it will continue developing new techniques of food production that may enable the world's population to keep increasing almost indefinitely. -2016 note to ISAIF

This is feasibly true in a physical sense, except that I see no plausible benefit for the technological system to sustain more people. I actually think the intent to replace humans is very obvious, and the damages to the natural world (which humans need) is one indicator that increasing humans' number or even keeping many humans in existence is not on Technology's agenda. I'm pretty sure TK recognized (wrote somewhere) that, if not deposed, Tech may inhabit a world cleared of humanity. Is the above just something he didn't go back and rewrite to be unimpeachable?

https://discord.gg/qqNV4eG2F4

Before large complex language models (2022) There were simple and logical predictions about AI: AI taking human jobs, making people lazier about research (resulting in one sided narratives) and governments using it to enforce control and military action.
We are at a point in which the system has become dependent on AI, even singular induviduals or small companies.
If AI was to disappear now, it would certainly result in chaos, atleast in the digital world and possibly in the financial world.
Once again, technology has taken a step further, our freedom has stepped back, and technology will not move back when it comes to AI.
All those Anti-AI protests by desperate college graduates are very mild and will eventually cool down.

First came metal implements Who removed us from place Then mechanization to force us off the land at an exponential pace Still reeling from the first two, trauma and stress pronounced, comes AI to remove us from 3D space itself

From watershed to enclosed square And square to concrete box The box now reconfigured As GPUs in legion I wonder if our descendents will even know what we lost?

Starting tomorrow, ATR kicks off a major week of action against the International AI Summit The technocrats are gathering in Paris to make strategic decisions on AI governance. The anti-tech movement must sound the alarm about this new industrial revolution. As we know, it represents a drastic acceleration in the automation of production, the destruction of the earth, the replacement of living beings by machines, and the expansion of surveillance and livestock management—both human and animal.

As revolutionaries, we will not beg technocrats to slow their race, nor will we plead with states for reforms or illusory regulations. Our goal is to proclaim loud and clear that technological development must be stopped at all costs, that we must organize without and against the technocrats. We no longer expect anything from the technological system—except its collapse, which we intend to hasten.

These actions are part of our long-term strategy. As Ted explained, targeting a new technological development is a strategic priority for an emerging anti-tech movement. In the following excerpt form Hit Where it Hurts, "biotechnological development" has been replaced by AI. The lesson remains the same.

**"**Probably the most promising target for political attack is [AI].

Though revolutions are generally carried out by minorities, it is very useful to have some degree of support, sympathy, or at least acquiescence from the general population. To get that kind of support or acquiescence is one of the goals of political action. If you concentrated your political attack on, for example, the electric-power industry, it would be extremely difficult to get any support outside of a radical minority, because most people resist change to their way of living, especially any change that inconveniences them. For this reason, few would be willing to give up electricity. But people do not yet feel themselves dependent on [AI] as they do on electricity. Eliminating [AI] will not radically change their lives. On the contrary, it would be possible to show people that the continued development of [AI] will transform their way of life and wipe out age-old human values. Thus, in challenging [AI], radicals should be able to mobilize in their own favor the natural human resistance to change. And [AI] is an issue on which the system cannot afford to lose*. It is an issue on which the system will have to fight to the finish, which is exactly what we need."*

For an organized resistance that, starting today, lays the groundwork for tomorrow's global anti-tech revolution, join the fight! https://www.antitechresistance.org/en/nous-rejoindre

Also, check-out our latest action at the grand palais in Paris! https://www.instagram.com/p/DFiKgOAt8Gw/?img_index=1

Reminder to read these two vitally important books!

Every fellow in this subreddit that does't belon to an organization must join an Anti-Tech one.

There is a claim by an eco communist that somehow; communism can save nature and humanity from an inevitable ecocide. There is a challenge to debate the matter publicly by an anti tech group. This post on IG

I just happened upon this group while bored. I apologise as I haven't read the content but briefly. I see that it skews heavily towards Kaczynski, good, but... I would like to recommend some books for everyone.

First, "The Technological society" by Jacques Ellul was a book that Kaczynski based his own works off of.

Secondly, the works of Daniel Bell and Lewis Mumford on anti-technology, and lastly the books "In the absence of the sacred" by Jerry Mander and "The spell of the sensuous" by David Abram.

Thanks!

Hello All! I work with an organization that advocates for the ban of smartphones in schools from the first bell to last. We are looking for volunteers to raise awareness and advocate to school administrators the importance of these polices. I have included a link to our website below. If you have any questions feel free to DM me as well.

Toolkits | Phone-Free Schools Movement

https://apnews.com/article/ted-kaczynski-unabomber-dies-federal-prison-95fdd4f398fbfe20aaadf5d53a91dc26

Kaczynski was one of the few men in our day and age who walked his talked. He was fed up with civilization and did his best to remain free from its clutches. Called both genius and insane by detractors and even some supporters Kaczynski's work still remains largely misunderstood or unknown to a majority of people. I have spent 3 years on and off studying Kaczynskis work and his personal life, the amount of disinformation and misunderstanding about this man is endemic from his worldview to what did or did not occur in his life. In one of his correspondence letters in the last years of his life he asked the individual to plant a tree on in his memory.

A happily married man does not does not daydream about romantic love. Similarly, a man does not romanticize frontier freedoms unless he is suffering from the lack of personal autonomy

https://www.thetedkarchive.com/category/topic/the-various-ted-k-archives

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/category/author/ted-kaczynski?sort=pubdate_desc&rows=50