Uncle Ted Kaczynski Warned Us Over 30yrs Ago... Was He Right?

 

Was Uncle Ted Right?

First off, a disclaimer. I'm all for the battle of ideas. We are in a battle for the mind, I'm in no way in favor of physical altercations and or "taking the law into my own hands." I've read a majority of Ted's work and agree with most of his philosophy. I will show you in his own words, the things that he foresaw and warned us about. He obviously gets a bad rap, when you kill people for your beliefs that usually happens. What if you take your beliefs very seriously, to the point that it's - a matter of life and death? That is what Ted did, he knew he would get the attention of his collogues, news reporters, and his local representatives. Many documentaries will paint him as a "domestic terrorist" or "insane" - did he know something that we didn't, did he try to kill those who were studying technology that is taking effect all around us today? Yes, what he tried doing was raise enough awareness to start a revolution against the - modern technologic society, which is the bi-product of the - Industrial Revolution. 

"The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries. The industrial-technological system may survive, or it may break down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than later. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system. This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden, or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We can’t predict any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the measures that those who hate the industrial system should take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of society. This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society." par. 1-4

He states it "may or may not make use of violence." He is writing plural as - FC (Freedom Club), he clearly took the violence approach. Did this drastic measure work? Yes, unfortunately and fortunately it succeeded. He stated he would quit the bombings if the - News would publish his "manifesto" they did - and as a bi-product his brother recognized the rhetoric and writing style and eventually reported it to the FBI. The conspiracy surrounding Ted, is - he was once part of a Harvard experiment on psychological control subsidized by the CIA. This is now known as MK Ultra. His brother and most viewers of documentaries will attribute his attacks, as him being - insane, because of the experiments. This doesn't hold true; Ted was out of the program and went to be a professor at the University of Michigan later on in life. I believe he saw the technology at that time as an "evil" process, or an intrusive way of inflicting serious damage on the planet. I believe he "woke up" or was "red-pilled" and finally had enough and truly felt he had to take drastic measures. Here are some of his foresights into the future and you decide if he was right.

"Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented, and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by “leftism” will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology." par. 6-7)

He describes numerous times in his work of the Left and their obvious threat to society. By stating "They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality." Sounds about right doesn't it. Seems he is a far-right sympathizer or even a MAGA supporter. He would go even further by uncovering the psychic trope of the radical left. He makes the point of their hypocrisy for social-justice and race relations. How they abuse altruism to gain power over others.

"Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the over-socialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism... But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss." par. 21-22)

It is a fact that "progressives" are more susceptible to not only to become radicalized but also to be a benefit to the system. Unbeknownst to them, the Left actually help aid the system - which ensures its survival - which in turn encapsulates us more into enslavement. It is the Left, which on the true political spectrum, harbor all authoritarianism and totalitarianism. But, make no mistake he also calls out the Conservatives for their lack of observation on the issue of rapid modern tech progression. 

"The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently, it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values" par. 50)

He sees the abyss that we face and have been facing. This progress will lead to more and more mental issues, lack of purpose, and less freedom. Ted writes that the mental problems of the radical Left are a problem for society as a whole. That low self-esteem, depression, anxiety and defeatism. Looking at our society, these mental issues are more common the more technology our society surrounds itself with. The loss of freedom and individuality is losing ground and becoming saturated with "We are even told by experts how to eat, how to exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth." With the rise in mental problems, it's obvious this gives a reason for the rise of experts impeding in our way of life. This is why we need medication for nearly everything. Teds reasoning was a need for humans (biologically) to have power or control over nature, but not entirely the need of power, just the lack of goals and the complement of said goals. With technology "helping" us with everything, this in turn blocks and restricts us of this term he called the "Power Process." The elements of the power process are - Goal, Effort, and Attainment of goal. 

"Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization. Nonattainment of important goals results in death if the goals are physical necessities, and in frustration if nonattainment of the goals is compatible with survival. Consistent failure to attain goals throughout life results in defeatism, low self-esteem or depression. Thus, in order to avoid serious psychological problems, a human being needs goals whose attainment requires effort, and he must have a reasonable rate of success in attaining his goals... In modern industrial society only, minimal effort is necessary to satisfy one’s physical needs. It is enough to go through a training program to acquire some petty technical skill, then come to work on time and exert the very modest effort needed to hold a job. The only requirements are a moderate amount of intelligence and, most of all, simple OBEDIENCE. If one has those, society takes care of one from cradle to grave. (Yes, there is an underclass that cannot take the physical necessities for granted, but we are speaking here of mainstream society.) Thus, it is not surprising that modern society is full of surrogate activities...  We suggest that modern man’s obsession with longevity, and with maintaining physical vigor and sexual attractiveness to an advanced age, is a symptom of unfulfillment resulting from deprivation with respect to the power process. The “mid-life crisis” also is such a symptom. So is the lack of interest in having children that is fairly common in modern society but almost unheard-of in primitive societies." par. 35-40,74)

I read all the time that - depression and anxiety are on the rise. The media and experts will blame - C19 of course. But statistic show that these mental problems have been increasing steadily since the - Industrial Revolution. Many of our mental problems are a biproduct of this technological system. Humans are not designed to have phones, tv's, computers, and information shoved in their faces and brains 24/7 365. This is in fact a problem one that is termed - infoglut meaning - information overload, think gluttony on information. A very interesting take on mental problems along side of technological progress is the book by Jeff Sconce entitled: The Technical Delusion. Here he writes on this problem of information overload and increased of nervousness(anxiety) due to future shock(rapid advancement of tech) in modern times.

“George Beard’s dissection of “American nervousness” and Sigmund Freud’s “principle of constancy” also spoke to a nervous system struggling to accommodate proliferating sources of stimulation. This theme continued throughout the twentieth century, as well. In 1970, Alvin Toffler described “future shock” as “the shattering stress and disorientation that we On the Spectrums induce in individuals by subjecting them to too much change in too short a time,” a shift measured in large part by new strategies for processing information. One of the definitions of sanity is the ability to tell real from unreal,” Toffler observed. “Soon we’ll need a new definition.” Mark Andrejevic describes this new environment as “infoglut,” arguing that the multiplication of media and information in the digital era produces a troubling paradox in everyday life. “At the very moment when we have the technology to inform ourselves as never before,” he writes, “we are simultaneously and compellingly confronted with the impossibility of ever being fully informed. Even more disturbingly, we are confronted with this impossibility at the very moment when we are told that being informed is more important than ever before to our livelihood, our security, our social lives." pg. 16-17)

Interesting note there, that we are "...confronted with the impossibility of ever being fully informed." We won't ever be, that is the problem. We must be genetically modified. Humans have to embrace the next level of the evolved state, which is - Homo Deus. In fact, this is why the need for - Biotechnology. Humans are not compatible with the future TPTB want to encircle us with. Ted realizing this in his time writes about not only that we aren't compatible but why.

"We attribute the social and psychological problem of modern society to the fact that society requires people to live under conditions radically different from those under which the human race evolved and to behave in ways that conflict with the patterns of behavior that the human race developed while living under the earlier conditions... For primitive societies the natural world (which usually changes only slowly) provided a stable framework and therefore a sense of security. In the modern world it is human society that dominates nature rather than the other way around, and modern society changes very rapidly owing to technological change. Thus there is no stable framework... We argue, is that modern man has the sense (largely justified) that change is IMPOSED on him, whereas the 19th century frontiersman had the sense (also largely justified) that he created change himself, by his own choice. Thus a pioneer settled on a piece of land of his own choosing and made it into a farm through his own effort." par. 46-57

We today have an immense lack of direction and purpose. We try filling it with anything that triggers - Dopamine. Yes, we have become dopamine addicts. Nearly every person on this realm is an addict and we are addicted to dopamine. What do we do to fill this void? We watch tell-a-vision to escape reality, live vicariously in videogames, masturbate to pornography, and live our alternative lives in social media. These objects of our attention have become our elixir of status and self-esteem. Why are, Pov cameras in porn and RPG's/MMO's in video games the most popular fixations of escape? Because it takes you out of this present realm and places you in another more desirable form of existence. Why does it seem that nostalgia and retro anything, have exploded in popularity? Nostalgia seems to be one way that people cope with various negative mental states, or “psychological threats.” If you’re feeling lonely, if you’re feeling like a failure, if you feel like you don’t know if your life has any purpose, or if what you’re doing has any value, you can reach into this reservoir of nostalgic memories and comfort yourself. Nostalgia is a psychological resource that people can dip into to conjure up evidence that they need to assure themselves that they’re valued. All of this will increase the deeper we get into progress. 

"...The system HAS TO regulate human behavior closely in order to function. At work people have to do what they are told to do, otherwise production would be thrown into chaos. Bureaucracies HAVE TO be run according to rigid rules. To allow any substantial personal discretion to lower-level bureaucrats would disrupt the system and lead to charges of unfairness due to differences in the way individual bureaucrats exercised their discretion. It is true that some restrictions on our freedom could be eliminated, but GENERALLY SPEAKING the regulation of our lives by large organizations is necessary for the functioning of industrial-technological society. The result is a sense of powerlessness on the part of the average person. It may be, however, that formal regulations will tend increasingly to be replaced by psychological tools that make us want to do what the system requires of us. (Propaganda [14], educational techniques, “mental health” programs...  There is no conceivable way to remedy this in a technologically advanced society. The system tries to “solve” this problem by using propaganda to make people WANT the decisions that have been made for them, but even if this “solution” were completely successful in making people feel better, it would be demeaning. par. 114,117)

Now ask - Was Ted, right in his drastic actions? He prophetically writes as a modern-day philosophical sage. With an awareness like writers and thinkers of classical and the middle-ages. I propose it is because of his oneness with nature(God) and his deep awareness of self. Ted also wrote on Gene-modifying which other than personal freedoms and governmental surveillances was, as he saw, the biggest affair and issue for modern man.

The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system... But the system, for good, solid, practical reasons, must exert constant pressure on people to mold their behavior to the needs of the system... The only solution will be some sort of eugenics program or extensive genetic engineering of human beings, so that man in the future will no longer be a creation of nature, or of chance, or of God (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions), but a manufactured product... If you think that big government interferes in your life too much NOW, just wait till the government starts regulating the genetic constitution of your children. Such regulation will inevitably follow the introduction of genetic engineering of human beings, because the consequences of unregulated genetic engineering would be disastrous. The usual response to such concerns is to talk about “medical ethics.” But a code of ethics would not serve to protect freedom in the face of medical progress; it would only make matters worse. A code of ethics applicable to genetic engineering would be in effect a means of regulating the genetic constitution of human beings. Somebody (probably the upper-middle class, mostly) would decide that such and such applications of genetic engineering were “ethical” and others were not, so that in effect they would be imposing their own values on the genetic constitution of the population at large. Even if a code of ethics were chosen on a completely democratic basis, the majority would be imposing their own values on any minorities who might have a different idea of what constituted an “ethical” use of genetic engineering. The only code of ethics that would truly protect freedom would be one that prohibited ANY genetic engineering of human beings, and you can be sure that no such code will ever be applied in a technological society. No code that reduced genetic engineering to a minor role could stand up for long, because the temptation presented by the immense power of biotechnology would be irresistible, especially since to the majority of people many of its applications will seem obviously and unequivocally good (eliminating physical and mental diseases, giving people the abilities they need to get along in today’s world). Inevitably, genetic engineering will be used extensively, but only in ways consistent with the needs of the industrial- technological system... Yet, as we explained in paragraphs 59-76, all these technical advances taken together have created a world in which the average man’s fate is no longer in his own hands or in the hands of his neighbors and friends, but in those of politicians, corporation executives and remote, anonymous technicians and bureaucrats whom he as an individual has no power to influence. [21] The same process will continue in the future. Take genetic engineering, for example. Few people will resist the introduction of a genetic technique that eliminates a hereditary disease. It does no apparent harm and prevents much suffering. Yet a large number of genetic improvements taken together will make the human being into an engineered product rather than a free creation of chance (or of God, or whatever, depending on your religious beliefs)... Thus human nature has in the past put certain limits on the development of societies. People could be pushed only so far and no farther. But today this may be changing, because modern technology is developing ways of modifying human beings. Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy, then gives them drugs to take away their unhappiness. Science fiction? It is already happening to some extent in our own society. It is well known that the rate of clinical depression has been greatly increasing in recent decades. We believe that this is due to disruption of the power process, as explained in paragraphs 59-76. But even if we are wrong, the increasing rate of depression is certainly the result of SOME conditions that exist in today’s society. Instead of removing the conditions that make people depressed, modern society gives them antidepressant drugs. In effect, antidepressants are a means of modifying an individual’s internal state in such a way as to enable him to tolerate social conditions that he would otherwise find intolerable. par. 119,122-124,128,144-145) 

Uncle Ted taught us a lot; he was on top of all our current social issues. He supposedly has cancer. Will you be the new torchbearers? Ted made his warnings clear, and he was very, very serious. Maybe the MK Ultra program instead of "programming" him it "de-programmed" him and essentially awoke within him the ultimate truth, or the ultimate form of motivation against the system. The only other person I can think of at this moment remotely close to his seriousness was - Bill Cooper.

"...the industrial system is sick we must destroy it. If we compromise with it and let it recover from its sickness, it will eventually wipe out all of our freedom." par.135)