Ted and the CIA, Part 1 by David Kaczynski

[Sounder]

Thanks for the article on the Murray experiment, crow!

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/is ... chase4.htm

By the time he graduated, all the elements that would ultimately transform him into the Unabomber were in place -- the ideas out of which he would construct a philosophy, the unhappiness, the feelings of complete isolation. Soon after, so, too, would be his commitment to killing. Embracing the value-neutral message of Harvard's positivism -- morality was nonrational -- made him feel free to murder.

Embracing positivism while rejecting its proud results seems bound to scramble the functioning of ones brain. Ted and his fans still need to do more work on their logic skills.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Positivism

Positivism is a family of philosophical views characterized by a highly favorable account of science and what is taken to be the scientific method. As such, the position is somewhat circular because, according to most versions of positivism, there is an identifiable scientific method that is understood to be unitary and positivistic, but all three of those claims—that there is an identifiable and specifiable scientific method, that there is just one such method, and that it is positivistic—are tendentious and now highly disputed.

THE real story of Ted Kaczynski is one of the nature of modern evil -- evil that results from the corrosive powers of intellect itself, and its arrogant tendency to put ideas above common humanity. It stems from our capacity to conceive theories or philosophies that promote violence or murder in order to avert supposed injustices or catastrophes, to acquiesce in historical necessity, or to find the final solution to the world's problems -- and by this process of abstraction to dehumanize our enemies. We become like Raskolnikov, in Crime and Punishment, who declares, "I did not kill a human being, but a principle!"

I imagine that these Harvard hoo-has and their positivism are a major driver for ‘think tanks’ such as the RAND corp. Yeah these WOO free actors sure know how to build a better world, en damn it’s about time that ‘metaphysics’ shit got relegated to the dustbin of history.

http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2 ... veals.html

Speaking on the topic of false flag attacks, Abella notes that the staged Gulf of Tonkin attack and the planned Operation Northwoods false flag were both initially proposed in RAND documents, highlighting the total immorality with which RAND war games its scenarios, many of which are ethically repugnant in that they nonchalantly promote the genocide of entire populations with little regard for the consequences. Abella explains how RAND truly is a shadow government because it serves as a revolving door between the two, and how RAND is the cradle of the military-industrial complex and the birthplace of the technocratic elite that we are now fighting against.

Two sides of the same corroded coin.

[Iamwhomiam]

Thanks to all who commented on David's TU blog.

Sw, glad to hear you've opened a dialogue with David.

Lupercal, thanks for posting the video. I'll view it tomorrow on a pc with a faster connection and comment if necessary. Cptmarginal, I haven't, though thanks for posting it. Perhaps tomorrow I'll watch it, if I can find the time.

hanshan, thanks for the Atlantic interview with Chase, as it adds a bit more of his perspective.

Mr. W.Rex, thank you for the primitivism.com article. It was interesting. The quote is particularly salient.

Crow, as with Jack, I thank you for linking to Chase's Atlantic articles.

No one knows what took place during Murray's sessions except those who experienced them, so with Kaczynski's files sealed forever, we may never learn what took place. I believe he was attempting to find "clients" who would disassociate while undergoing such unexpected stress, but that's merely my own intuition.

Mule, David's blog entry wasn't intended to address his brother's philosophy and so he was not avoiding discussing his brother's ideas. It was specifically about the unethical psychological studies conducted by Murray and his cohorts at Harvard and the potentially negative impact it could have had upon his brother and others similarly involved.

mule wrote:

"David Kaczynski’s article is another example in avoiding the discussion of his brother’s ideas and clearly stated and reasoned motives for his bombing campaign at all costs.
I could see how being at the business end of state violence, if that is what Ted went through during the Harvard experiments, could motivate someone to carry their resistance a step further then someone who hasn’t, but I’d hardly call it mind control."

Ted was 17 years old when he was first experimented upon. Today we know that organically, a male human brain is not fully developed until the age of 28. The ability of an peer ostracized child to cope with the sociological stresses of attending Harvard at so young an age and still without peer support could be devastating in and of itself, to one so young. Some I'm sure would consider such isolation alone to be torture. Let's remember the year, too... 1959.

Besides, why discuss his brother's philosophy at all? His acts were irrational, as any sane person would tell you. What difference to his victims would understanding his philosophy make? Isn't the end result the same?

Now, I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't discuss Ted's treatise. I just don't see the benefit of David doing so in his newspaper blog. Fwiw, I find his so-called manifesto to be a chilling peek at the future, but his tactics were fatally flawed.

Lastly, mule, David is a close friend of mine and I must take issue with your terrible choice of words:

"Besides, if we want to know his motives we can just ask him as he is still alive and answering mail. Well, everyone except his brother since they haven’t been on speaking terms since the whole turning your brother in to the FBI thing."

David went to the FBI and had their assurance that they would not seek the death penalty. They lied. David was seeking to prevent 1) the murder or maiming of another innocent and its associated ensuing anguish and 2) to save his brother's life, as he was the most-sought criminal and had been for 20 years and most probably would not have lived to see a trial, had the FBI gotten to him in Montana, which they would have done without David's assistance sooner or later.

If you knew more, you wouldn't have written that last sentence, quoted above. Ted had ostracized himself from his family years before David learned from his wife that Ted could be the Unibomber. And he is schizophrenic. So please, let's hear no more from you about Ted's "logical mind." Ill or not, Ted murdered 3 people and maimed others physically and psychologically. David did what any caring sibling would do, in my opinion, to protect the innocent while trying to protect his mentally ill brother.

What is sad is that Ted is unable to process or accept that David's intervention to curtail his violent acts was an act of loving kindness meant to protect him. If you knew your brother was a serial murderer, what would you do? Let him continue killing?

"If there is secret state mind control lurking in such a well documented mind for such a long period of time, I think we are in real trouble and the motives of everyone are suspect."

Well documented mind? So tell me, what involvement did he have with Stanford researchers while teaching at Berkeley? What impact did his father's 1990 suicide have upon his mental health? He had been living in isolation for nearly 20 years and had been victimizing people for 12 years by then.

Something, some altered state triggering event could have been identified or initiated during the Harvard experiments and quite like post-hypnotic suggestion could lie fallow until prompted to action many years later, but who can say for sure? I certainly don't know whether Ted was turned into a human robot to do unwittingly the bidding of others.

I think we should focus more on his later experiences at Berkeley to further explore for the precipitating event that prompted his future dastardly actions, if there is one to be found that has anything at all to do with mind control.

But none of us, Jack, Crow, are able to say with certainty that Ted Kaczynski was or was not being somehow controlled when he committed his acts of violence.

Jack Riddler wrote:

"However it worked, the highly cogent manifesto very much says he made his own plan and decisions. As a man damaged by the Murray experiment, but not a man under control."

Crow wrote:

"Oh, Kaczynski was certainly not being mind-controlled when he carried out the bombings. That seems to have been all him."

I do not see how either of you could possibly know the what truth is in this matter, especially if he was and was unaware he was being manipulated.

If Ted Kaczynski was unaware and was being 'controlled,' who's to say his Manifesto wasn't authored by him as an essential piece of his program?

I'll close with David's blog's closing lines:

"It may seem that I am trying to provide my brother with a handy excuse - a deflection of blame – for having killed three people and devastated numerous lives. But that is not my point. I believe that we are both individually responsible for our actions, and collectively responsible for conditions of harm and injustice that exist in our world. My brother was a victim before he victimized others - and in this he is hardly unique. Those who victimized him exercised cruelty with impunity, and quite possibily with the best of intentions. Status and power are hardly guarantees of good judgment or good character. Thus, the lessons we must learn are complex. The search for one quintessential villain is generally a mistake, a displacement of both understanding and responsibility.

What was done to my brother at Harvard should never be allowed to happen again. Our best insurance against inflicting harm on others – as was done to Ted and by Ted – is to avoid objectifying human beings, and to approach others with compassion."

[Joe Hillshoist]

Yeah that article doesn't really have much to say about TKs ideas, but I don't think it plans to.

If it did, it might perhaps say that his ideas may have found a more creative outlet if he wasn't subject to some nasty ... abuse. Maybe even an outlet that did more to be effective in addressing his fears than blowing a few people up.

I think DKs point is that whatever his ideas were originally, how they came to be expressed was probably influenced by what happened to him. Maybe in one session TK said "Right thats it, you're violating my rights and I'm gonna do something about it."

And was told he couldn't cos basically it was him against the Govt. "What you gonna do? You're powerless." (Whether it was true or not.)

I did experiments in Uni, straight out of high school. They paid 4 bucks an hour or part there of but usually required about 20 minutes time. Still 4 bucks tho. I can imagine feeling very much like this:

"he decided that he would do what he always wanted to do, to go to Canada to take off in the woods with a rifle and try to live off the country. 'If it doesn't work and if I can get back to civilization before I starve then I will come back here and kill someone I hate.'"

if I'd ended up in one of those experiments. (Seriously. ITs never going to be the only factor in deciding someone's choices, but it will influence them, I could see myself taking a similar path if some things happened differently.)

As it was I got paid to play video games, or get drunk then play video games.

I'm speculating but I reckon its plausible speculation.

None of this has anything to do with TKs ideas themselves, but it does have everything to do with how you treat people.

[Iamwhomiam]

None of this has anything to do with TKs ideas themselves, but it does have everything to do with how you treat people.

Yes! Thank you, Joe. That is exactly what it is about.

Were you to meet David, you would understand how very compassionate a fellow he is.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Today we know that organically, a male human brain is not fully developed until the age of 28.

Nope. Today we have studies that indicate there is evidence to support that theory. There's about 10,000 other studies indicating other conclusions, too. In another 10 years, we'll all "know" something different based on different studies. I make this point not in the name of semantics but science.

Besides, why discuss his brother's philosophy at all? His acts were irrational, as any sane person would tell you. What difference to his victims would understanding his philosophy make? Isn't the end result the same?

Because it is compelling. Bill Joy agrees:

In the book, you don't discover until you turn the page that the author of this passage is Theodore Kaczynski - the Unabomber. I am no apologist for Kaczynski. His bombs killed three people during a 17-year terror campaign and wounded many others. One of his bombs gravely injured my friend David Gelernter, one of the most brilliant and visionary computer scientists of our time. Like many of my colleagues, I felt that I could easily have been the Unabomber's next target.

Kaczynski's actions were murderous and, in my view, criminally insane. He is clearly a Luddite, but simply saying this does not dismiss his argument; as difficult as it is for me to acknowledge, I saw some merit in the reasoning in this single passage. I felt compelled to confront it.

source: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html

[mule]

I'll admit that the line I wrote about TK's brother turning him in came off badly and was in poor taste. I have no idea how I'd react to that situation and have no wish to pass judgement on him in that regard.

Still, I argue that while TK's bombings were murderous and wrong, they were political and not insane.

[JackRiddler]

iam, thank you for a beautiful post and for giving your uniquely well-informed perspective.

You are right, I should have qualified that statement. I think it highly probable but cannot know for sure, and you raise all the reasons none of us should pretend to be certain.

I watched Das Netz, the German TV documentary from 2002. A meditative and literal wandering over many ideas without definite plot or finality, but well worth watching. The filmmaker Lutz Dammbeck traveled the US interviewing Brockman, Stewart Brand, Robert Taylor, David Gelernter and von Foerster, tracking down stories of how cybernetics, computers and then the Internet started, the similarity of ideas shared by art innovators in the 1960s and the later Internet pioneers (with Brockman as a link), the Leary and Murray activities at Harvard, and Kesey's LSD bus. Murray who had worked with the CIA-associated Macy group on remolding human consciousness for a new post-war age is Leary's department chair at the time Leary starts his LSD work, so Dammbeck's indicating it's all one connected mess, which it probably is. Dammbeck didn't know yet what has been revealed more recently about the Murray experiments on TK (if that's even the whole story), and leaves that in the air by showing empty archives.

Dammbeck gets several of them angry for even asking about Kaczynski. He pretty well shows that they're all nuts in their own way, each with an inexplicable faith in a given utopia. Gelernter no doubt has been traumatized but comes across as fairly schizophrenic or detached, describing on the one hand a model of the whole world in software that will give you answers better than empirical observation and on the other an absolutist moral vision in which relativism is the gateway to depravity. The whole time he's travelling, Dammbeck exchanges letters in German with Kaczynski. TK shows an impressive ability to express himself in the language (in part using a dictionary that Dammbeck sent him). The letters go over the same ground and arguments as the manifesto, and Kaczynski's rejection of all utopian thinking. However, TK introduces the idea that big complex open systems will find their own unknown-but-predictable paths to failure and collapse, rather than a totalitarian perfection, without need of help from him.

The Taylor part impressed me the most negatively -- here's this fellow explaining how he mapped out the original ARPANET plan in back-of-envelope form, and even knowing what it is 40 years later, he makes it sounds both impossibly simplistic and unlikely. Asked about whether he shares Kaczynski's fears of technology out of control, he floors me with, "Oh no. I fear the Al-Kay-Da, or cancer." This guy half-invented the fucking Internet, and he's putting the terror phantom on the same level as cancer in his hierarchy of fears for his own person?! Not only that, it's 2002 and he goes on to assure us that technology will bring cures for cancer long before "electronic battlefields" or whatever Kaczynski fears. Which is encouraging, other than that electronic battlefields have already existed for decades! Von Foerster, in his 90s, comes across as in the best of spirits, though he's upright only thanks to some brace. He describes theory as 10 poets, and the one with the best story wins. What about reality, Dammbeck asks? "Reality, what is reality? Can you show that to me?"

.

Brief detour, wombat. I shall now make two points in the name of semantics, but semantics != unimportant. Brains are never fully developed. They keep developing until you die, albeit at various points apparent limits on growth, total number of neuropathways and observed cognitive power are reached. (There is no way this will ever be shown to be at the same age for everyone, or a no-longer exceedable limit, says my inner Dr. Bayes.) At some other point the development becomes what we consider regressive. Second, Bill Joy and a million other people should finally stop representing the Luddites as anti-technology. They broke the machines that were killing them. Luddism was not a philosophical stance on technology in general (though a philosophy associated with it would have included at the least the idea that technology should serve man and should not be developed if it doesn't). Luddism was a political stance in their own self-defense.

.

[Iamwhomiam]

Wombaticus Rex:

Semantics. I generalized the findings drawn from several studies, some of which you may be familiar with. Were you interested solely in the science you might have begun with "Yes, that's true, but...", instead of "Nope."

Regarding David discussing his brother's philosophy in his newspaper blog:

I think you've missed the point of David's posting. Assuming personal responsibility for one's actions, I believe it is. But, yes it is compelling for us to discuss this here. But for David to do so in a newspaper's blog? Not the forum for such a discussion, imo. I believe doing so would be unwise and could place his family's safety in jeopardy, to say nothing about how awkward a position David would find himself in, perhaps defending the sanity of his brother's manifesto, while at the same time claiming he was and is still mentally ill.

I'm still surprised that he broached the sensitive subject of MK and Murray's 'research' involving his brother in such a public forum.

Joy is a victim by association only and regardless of TK's philosophy or its merit, he points out there is and cannot be any justification for TK's actions, saying "Kaczynski's actions were murderous and, in my view, criminally insane."

(I would advise those who are unfamiliar with Kaczynski's "Manifesto" to read the three excepted paragraphs under the sub-heading "THE NEW LUDDITE CHALLENGE" Mr. W.Rex linked to above. Chilling.)

Thank you, Wombat, for linking to the Joy Wired article. I posted the above referenced Kaczynski quoted section from it to David's blog. Whether he'll approve it, we'll have to wait and see.

Thank you mule. As you can see, someone (Joy) much closer to this tragedy feels much differently about this than you do.

Some I'm sure can rationalize Kaczynski's actions either as the heroic acts of someone with a grasp of the danger of the issues future technology presents, or those of an insane madman. That Ted was at times during his life mentally ill is not in question.

So we are faced with accepting another rather awkward situation: Rational, extreme acts of heroism, but misunderstood by most, committed by a madman or simply, it is all madness, the Manifesto, the murders, the maimings, conceived and committed by someone known to be mentally ill.

Isn't raising the question of one's mental health status one of the easiest ways to undermine one's credibility, especially knowing they had experienced mental illness in their past? Add to this scenario their scary futuristic ramblings and acts of violence and it's really quite easy to convince some that they were insane.

Lastly, at least one question shall always remain unanswered; whether Ted was mentally ill when he committed his acts of violence. However, whether he was or wasn't ill really doesn't matter. People are dead and lives have been deeply affected by mind and his hand.

We'll have to await the future to see if he was as misguided as most of us feel he was, for if he was accurate in his predictions, by the time we realize his murderous acts as heroic deeds, it may be by then too late to do much of anything to alter the future course of things, then occupying our time trying to survive by hiding from the machines.

Terminator could have been written by Ted Kaczynski, for it's theme is very similar to the future depicted in his Manifesto.

[The Hacktivist]

A case and person very close to my heart. I think Ted will admit the studies played no part in what he did. He was happy in the woods, one day he looked out over the canyon and saw them bulldozing roads throughthe forest and that is when he began his campaign against the techno revolution. Had that not happened he would still be living in the woods following around snowshoe rabbits.

He is not the cold blooded killer some make him out to be and David doesnt even know his brother well enough to speak on his behalf or to say whether he is/was mentally ill or not. I do not think he was, I think these were political acts and he believed in what he was doing. It wasnt the best way to go about it but how many of us can say we always make the right decision when pushed up against the wall and are being threatened with the loss of the very things we love and cherish the most, in Ted's case, his serene mountain life was about to be taken from him by force and he did what he felt needed to be done to defend his fortress.

I dont agree with what Ted did but his writing is a peek at the future that someday many people will come to see as truth.

[Wombaticus Rex]

yes it is compelling for us to discuss this here. But for David to do so in a newspaper's blog? Not the forum for such a discussion, imo.

A good point, I did muddle up what you were saying earlier.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Second, Bill Joy and a million other people should finally stop representing the Luddites as anti-technology. They broke the machines that were killing them. Luddism was not a philosophical stance on technology in general (though a philosophy associated with it would have included at the least the idea that technology should serve man and should not be developed if it doesn't). Luddism was a political stance in their own self-defense.

Man reading about the Luddites is a trip...

I started out looking for something to back up the idea that Luddites weren't actually anti technology, but more anti "free trade". Ie they were fighting against some of the very same economic practices that can cause huge problems today. They were in fact part of a general trend of workers who rejected the use of technology in cases where that technology destroyed their livelihoods. Various groups of textile workers - not just luddites, and other groups of workers, including farm workers, reacted to the arrival of technology in their workplaces by destroying it. But not in all cases. Apparantly (according to The Making of the English Working Class, by E. P. Thompson) there were numerous cases where luddites destroyed the equipment of some manufacturers, but not others, depending on their business practices. I haven't found the refs yet, but in the process I've come across a guy called Thomas Spence, who had a society of Spenceans who followed his ideas.

Apparantly Spence was into promoting open source, decentralised insurgency. Well thats probably what we'd call it today.

Anyway here's some lyrics to an old Luddite song...

....

Brave Ludd was to measures of violence unused
'till his sufferings became so severe
that at last to defend his own interest he rose
and for the great fight did prepare

The guilty may fear but no vengence he aims
at the honest man's life or estate
his wrath is entirely confined to wide frames
and to those that would prices abate

Those engines of mischief were sentenced to die
by unanimous vote of the trade
and Ludd who can all opposition defy
was grand executioner made

...

ye may censure great Ludds disrespect for the laws
who ne'er for a moment reflects
that foul imposition alone was the cause
that produced these unhappy effects

let the haughty the humble no longer oppress
then shall Ludd sheath his conquering sword
his grievances instantly met with redress
then peace shall be quickly restored

Let the wise and the great lend their aid and advice
nor e'er their assistance withdraw
till full fashioned work at the old fashioned price
is established by custom and law

Then the trade when this arduous contest is o'er
shall raise in full splendor its head
and colting and cutting and swearing no more
shall deprive all his workers of bread


Chumbawumba covered this song but its also in Thompson's book.

It seems at pains to point out this is an industrial dispute and that its about a fair days work for a fair days pay. And that not all technology is at risk, just a specific use of a specific technology.

So whatever Luddite means today once upon a time it meant militant trade unionist. (Perhaps in 200 years Arthur Scargill will be a folk lore monster who went around the world setting fire to coal deposits to wipe out all life on earth or something.) And the Luddites themselves weren't an isolated phenomenon, just one of the many examples of British working people trying to stand up to money hungry pricks over the last ... 1000 years? They weren't even an isolated example in their own time. They were affiliated with other specific industrial/agricultural workers movements and general humanist ones inspired by the likes of Thomas Paine.

At one time there were more British soldiers fighting Luddites at home than were fighting Napoleon on the Iberian peninsula (according to something i've read in the last 3 hours, I forget what tho.)

No wonder they are portrayed as as a bunch of irrational anti technology nutjobs. They were actually an English workers rights movement that took the Crown army on on their own home soil. And did a reasonable job of it. Not a revolution as such, but basically a union militia.

We can't have them being remembered for that.

[JackRiddler]

Perhaps in 200 years Arthur Scargill will be a folk lore monster who went around the world setting fire to coal deposits to wipe out all life on earth or something.

Oh yeah. Same with the Jacobins and their year in power.

At one time there were more British soldiers fighting Luddites at home than were fighting Napoleon on the Iberian peninsula (according to something i've read in the last 3 hours, I forget what tho.)

No wonder they are portrayed as as a bunch of irrational anti technology nutjobs. They were actually an English workers rights movement that took the Crown army on on their own home soil. And did a reasonable job of it. Not a revolution as such, but basically a union militia.

We can't have them being remembered for that.

I think that's the gist of it.

.

[Iamwhomiam]

Hacktavist, so you knew or know Ted or David? Spent lot of time with one or both, have you? Ted's close to your heart, you say. So how's that's come to be? Perhaps you would be so kind as to elaborate a bit?

You wrote:
"Ted will admit the studies played no part in what he did."

If he was successfully programmed at Harvard or later, while at Berkeley, he would not be aware of it, so how could he know for sure?

Just to keep this as accurate as is possible, it was after a 3 mile hike away from his cabin that Ted discovered a lumber road being cut through the woods and it was that which set him on his own path of destruction and mayhem.

You also wrote:
"He is not the cold blooded killer some make him out to be and David doesnt even know his brother well enough to speak on his behalf."

First, I doubt you know Ted better than his seven-year younger brother does, no matter their present distance. I have never known David to speak for anyone other than himself. For you to stand so distant and place yourself as judge on the brothers relationship is, if you'll pardon me, nothing less than absurd.

I cannot imagine the pain David must live with being so rejected by Ted. That Ted holds a bitter animosity towards David is also revealing of his mental state, imo. I would think that if Ted was rational, that over time he would come to understand the rationale of David's motives, but of course this could not occur until he got past his anger of having had this plans frustrated by his own brother.

I wonder, how do you explain Ted's long estrangement from his family, for years before David revealed his identity to the FBI?

"Cold-blooded"; "Iced water in his veins," and similar expressions relate the feelings of a dead man, meaning he was incapable of emotion, either positive or negative about his actions. In other words, an unfeeling psychopath.

I have no idea if Ted was or is unfeeling towards his victims, but I doubt he would be. What is clear or should be, is that he felt a need to correct society's future direction alone, by himself, through acts of profound violence meant at least to inflict pain and severe injury upon his chosen victim, if his bombs failed to kill them. In this he must have felt some satisfaction with the least of the injuries he caused. If he did not or still does not, or is incapable of experiencing such emotion, he is surely insane.

To me it is apparent that he cared little if at all about his victims pain, or that of their children or any of their family from suffering such a horrific, sudden loss. That he cared about his own well-being while realizing his fantasy was paramount in his mind, imo.

Also, Ted, it seems to me, never took into account the possibility that his flawed actions could accelerate that which he wanted to prevent from occurring. Perhaps one of his victim's children was to become a dancer or an auto mechanic but now will be re-directed towards following their parent's path and become the progenitor of all he fears, after all.

I doubt that Ted, as brilliant as he is, ever considered that he himself, through his actions, could bring about that which he dreaded most. But he should have.

I'm not saying this will be the case, just that it is indeed possible.

Jack, Thanks for your kind words. With my 'too slow for video' dial-up connection I especially appreciate your posting your brief synopsis of Das Netz, as I doubt I'll ever see it. Here's an interesting (for me) interview with Heinz von Foerster from 1995, a gentleman whom I had never before heard of. Also, thanks for the ever-developing brain bit, which I'll agree with you to a point is true. Alzheimer's being the exception I'm aware of. (There are probably other dystrophic brain diseases, too)

[Wombaticus Rex]

Green Anarchy Nr. 8, Spring 2002
Hit Where It Hurts
by Ted Kaczynski

1. The Purpose Of This Article.

The purpose of this article is to point out a very simple principle of human conflict, a principle that opponents of the techno-industrial system seem to be overlooking. The principle is that in any form of conflict, if you want to win, you must hit your adversary where it hurts.

I have to explain that when I talk about "hitting where it hurts" I am not necessarily referring to physical blows or to any other form of physical violence. For example, in oral debate, "hitting where it hurts" would mean making the arguments to which your opponents position is most vulnerable.

In a presidential election, "hitting where it hurts" would mean winning from your opponent the states that have the most electoral votes. Still, in discussing this principle I will use the analogy of physical combat, because it is vivid and clear.

If a man punches you, you can't defend yourself by hitting back at his fist, because you can't hurt the man that way. In order to win the fight, you have to hit him where it hurts. That means you have to go behind the fist and hit the sensitive and vulnerable parts of the man's body.

Suppose a bulldozer belonging to a logging company has been tearing up the woods near your home and you want to stop it. It is the blade of the bulldozer that rips the earth and knocks trees over, but it would be a waste of time to take a sledgehammer to the blade. if you spent a long, hard day working on the blade with the sledge, you might succeed in damaging it enough so that it became useless. But, in comparison with the rest of the bulldozer, the blade is relatively inexpensive and easy to replace. The blade is only the "fist" with which the bulldozer hits the earth. To defeat the machine you must go behind the "fist" and attack the bulldozers vital parts. The engine, for example, can be ruined with very little expenditure of time and effort by means well known to many radicals.

At this point I must make clear that I am not recommending that anyone should damage a bulldozer (unless it is his own property). Nor should anything in this article be interpreted as recommending illegal activity of any kind. I am a prisoner, and if I were to encourage illegal activity this article would not even be allowed to leave the prison. I use the bulldozer analogy only because it it clear and vivid and will be appreciated by radicals.

2. Technology Is The Target.

It is widely recognized that "the basic variable which determines the contemporary historic process is provided by technological development"
(Celso Furtado*). Technology, above all else, is responsible for the current condition of the world and will control its future development. Thus, the "bulldozer" that we have to destroy is modern technology itself. Many radicals are aware of this, and therefore realize that there task is to eliminate the entire techno-industrial system. But unfortunately they have paid little attention to the need to hit the system where it hurts.

Smashing up McDonald's or Starbuck's is pointless. Not that I give a damn about McDonald's or Starbuck's. I don't care whether anyone smashes them up or not. But that is not a revolutionary activity. Even if every fast-food chain in the world were wiped out the techno-industrial system would suffer only minimal harm as a result, since it could easily survive without fast-food chains. When you attack McDonald's or Starbuck's, you are not hitting where it hurts.

Some months ago I received a letter from a young man in Denmark who believed that the techno-industrial system had to be eliminated because, as he put it, "What will happen if we go on this way?" Apparently, however, his form of "revolutionary" activity was raiding fur farms. As a means of weakening the techno-industrial system this activity is utterly useless. Even if animal liberationists succeed in eliminating the fur industry completely they would do no harm at all to the system, because the system can get along perfectly well without furs.

I agree that keeping wild animals in cages is intolerable, and that putting an end to such practices is a noble cause. But there are many other noble causes, such as preventing traffic accidents, providing shelter for the homeless, recycling, or helping old people cross the street. Yet no one if foolish enough to mistake these for revolutionary activities, or to imagine that they do anything to weaken the system.


3. The Timber Industry Is A Side Issue.

To take another example, no one in his right mind believes that anything like real wilderness can survive very long if the techno-industrial system continues to exist. Many environmental radicals agree that this is the case and hope for the collapse of the system. But in practice all they do is attack the timber industry.

I certainly have no objection to their attack on the timber industry. In fact, it's an issue that is close to my heart and I'm delighted by any successes that radicals may have against the timber industry. In addition, for reasons that I need to explain here, I think that opposition to the timber industry should be one component of the efforts to overthrow the system.

But, by itself, attacking the timber industry is not an effective way of working against the system, for even in the unlikely event that radicals succeeded in stopping all logging everywhere in the world, that would not bring down the system. And it would not permanently save wilderness. Sooner or later the political climate would change and logging would resume. Even if logging never resumed, there would be other venues through which wilderness would be destroyed, or if not destroyed then tamed and domesticated. Mining and mineral exploration, acid rain, climate changes, and species extinction destroy wilderness; wilderness is tamed and domesticated through recreation, scientific study, and resource management, including among other things electronic tracking of animals, stocking of streams with hatchery-bred fish, and planting of genetically-engineered trees.

Wilderness can be saved permanently only by eliminating the techno-industrial system, and you cannot eliminate the system by attacking the timber industry. The system would easily survive the death of the timber industry because wood products, though very useful to the system, can if necessary be replaced with other materials.

Consequently, when you attack the timber industry, you are not hitting the system where it hurts. The timber industry is only the "fist" (or one of the fists) with which the system destroys wilderness, and, just as in a fist-fight, you can't win by hitting at the fist. You have to go behind the fist and strike at the most sensitive and vital organs of the system. By legal means, of course, such as peaceful protests.


4. Why The System Is Tough.

The techno-industrial system is exceptionally tough due to its so-called "democratic" structure and its resulting flexibility. Because dictatorial systems tend to be rigid, social tensions and resistance can be built up in them to the point where they damage and weaken the system and may lead to revolution. But in a "democratic" system, when social tension and resistance build up dangerously the system backs off enough, it compromises enough, to bring the tensions down to a safe level.

During the 1960s people first became aware that environmental pollution was a serious problem, the more so because the visible and smellable filth in the air over our major cities was beginning to make people physically uncomfortable. Enough protest arose so that an Environmental Protection Agency was established and other measures were taken to alleviate the problem. Of course, we all know that our pollution problems are a long, long way from being solved. But enough was done so that public complaints subsided and the pressure on the system was reduced for a number of years.

Thus, attacking the system is like hitting a piece of rubber. A blow with a hammer can shatter cast iron, because caste iron is rigid and brittle. But you can pound a piece of rubber without hurting it because it is flexible: It gives way before protest, just enough so that the protest loses its force and momentum. Then the system bounces back.

So, in order to hit the system where it hurts, you need to select issues on which the system will not back off, in which it will fight to the finish. For what you need is not compromise with the system but a life-and-death struggle.


5. It Is Useless To Attack The System In Terms Of Its Own Values.

It is absolutely essential to attack the system not in terms of its own technologically-oriented values, but in terms of values that are inconsistent with the values of the system. As long as you attack the system in terms of its own values, you do not hit the system where it hurts, and you allow the system to deflate protest by giving way, by backing off.

For example, if you attack the timber industry primarily on the basis that forests are needed to preserve water resources and recreational opportunities, then the system can give ground to defuse protest without compromising its own values: Water resources and recreation are fully consistent with the values of the system, and if the system backs off, if it restricts logging in the name of water resources and recreation, then it only makes a tactical retreat and does not suffer a strategic defeat for its code of values.

If you push victimization issues (such as racism, sexism, homophobia, or poverty) you are not challenging the system's values and you are not even forcing the system to back off or compromise. You are directly helping the system. All of the wisest proponents of the system recognize that racism, sexism, homophobia, and poverty are harmful to the system, and this is why
the system itself works to combat these and similar forms of victimization.

"Sweatshops," with their low pay and wretched working conditions, may bring profit to certain corporations, but wise proponents of the system know very well that the system as a whole functions better when workers are treated decently. In making an issue of sweatshops, you are helping the system, not weakening it.

Many radicals fall into the temptation of focusing on non-essential issues like racism, sexism and sweatshops because it is easy. They pick an issue on which the system can afford a compromise and on which they will get support from people like Ralph Nader, Winona La Duke, the labor unions, and all the other pink reformers. Perhaps the system, under pressure, will back off a bit, the activists will see some visible result from their efforts, and they will have the satisfying illusion that they have accomplished something. But in reality they have accomplished nothing at all toward eliminating the techno-industrial system.

The globalization issue is not completely irrelevant to the technology problem. The package of economic and political measures termed "globalization" does promote economic growth and, consequently, technological progress. Still, globalization is an issue of marginal importance and not a well-chosen target
of revolutionaries. The system can afford to give ground on the globalization issue. Without giving up globalization as such, the system can take steps to mitigate the negative environmental and economic consequences of globalization so as to defuse protest. At a pinch, the system could even afford
to give up globalization altogether. Growth and progress would still continue, only at a slightly lower rate. And when you fight globalization you are not attacking the systems fundamental values. Opposition to globalization is motivated in terms of securing decent wages for workers and protecting the environment, both of which are completely consistent with the values of the system. (The system, for its own survival, can't afford to let environmental degradation go too far.) Consequently, in fighting globalization you do not hit the system where it really hurts. Your efforts may promote reform, but they are useless for the purpose of overthrowing the techno-industrial system.


6. Radicals Must Attack The System At The Decisive Points.
To work effectively toward the elimination of the techno-industrial system, revolutionaries must attack the system at points at which it cannot afford to give ground. They must attack the vital organs of the system. Of course, when I use the word "attack," I am not referring to physical attack but only to legal forms
of protest and resistance.

Some examples of vital organs of the system are:

A. The electric-power industry. The system is utterly dependent on its electric-power grid.

B. The communications industry. Without rapid communications, as by telephone, radio, television, e-mail, and so forth, the system could not survive.

C. The computer industry. We all know that without computers the system would promptly collapse.

D. The propaganda industry. The propaganda industry includes the entertainment industry, the educational system, journalism, advertising, public relations, and much of politics and of the mental-health industry. The system can't function unless people are sufficiently docile and conforming and have the attitudes that the system needs them to have. It is the function of the propaganda industry to teach people that kind of thought and behavior.

E. The biotechnology industry. The system is not yet (as far as I know) physically dependent on advanced biotechnology. Nevertheless, the system cannot afford to give way on the biotechnology issue, which is a critically important issue for the system, as I will argue in a moment.

Again: When you attack these vital organs of the system, it is essential not to attack them in terms of the system's own values but in terms of values inconsistent with those of the system. For example, if you attack the electric-power industry on the basis that it pollutes the environment, the system can defuse protest by developing cleaner methods of generating electricity.
If worse came to worse, the system could even switch entirely to wind and solar power. This might do a great deal to reduce environmental damage, but it would not put an end to the techno-industrial system. Nor would it represent a defeat for the system's fundamental values. To accomplish anything against the system you have to attack all electric-power generation as a matter of principle, on the ground that dependence on electricity makes people dependent on the system. This is a ground incompatible with the system's values.


7. Biotechnology May Be The Best Target For Political Attack.

Probably the most promising target for political attack is the biotechnology industry. 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 advanced biotechnology
as they do on electricity. Eliminating biotechnology will not radically change their lives. On the contrary, it would be possible to show people that the continued development of biotechnology will transform their way of life and wipe out age-old human values. Thus, in challenging biotechnology, radicals should be able
to mobilize in their own favor the natural human resistance to change.

And biotechnology 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. But - to repeat once more - it is essential to attack biotechnology not in terms of the system's own values but in terms of values inconsistent with those of the system. For example, if you attack biotechnology, primarily on the basis that it may damage the environment, or that genetically-modified foods may be harmful to health, then the system can and will cushion your attack by giving ground or compromising - for instance, by introducing increased supervision of genetic research and more rigorous testing and regulation of genetically-modified crops. People's anxiety will then subside and protest with wither.


8. All Biotechnology Must Be Attacked As A Matter Of Principle.

So, instead of protesting one or another negative consequence of biotechnology, you have to attack all modern biotechnology on principle, on grounds such as (a) that it is an insult to all living things; (b) that it puts too much power in the hands of the system; (c) that it will radically transform fundamental human values that have existed for thousands of years; and
similar grounds that are inconsistent with the values of the system.

In response to this kind of attack the system will have to stand and fight.
It cannot afford to cushion your attack by backing off to any great extent, because biotechnology is too central to the whole enterprise of technological progress, and because in backing off the system would not be making only a tactical retreat, but would be taking a major strategic defeat to its code of values. Those values would be undermined and the door would be opened to further political attacks that would hack away at the foundations of the system.

Now it's true that the U.S. House of Representatives recently voted to ban cloning of human beings, and at least some congressmen even gave the right kinds of reasons for doing so. The reasons I read about were framed in religious terms, but whatever you may think of the religious terms involved, these reasons were not technologically acceptable reasons. And that is what counts.

Thus, the congressmen's vote on human cloning was a genuine defeat for the system. But it was only a very, very small defeat, because of the narrow scope of the ban - only one tiny part of biotechnology was affected - and because for the near future cloning of human beings would be of little practical use to the system anyway. But the House of Representatives' action does suggest that this may be a point at which the system is vulnerable, and that a broader attack on all of biotechnology might inflict severe damage on the system and its values.


9. Radicals Are Not Yet Attacking Biotech Effectively.

Some radicals do attack the biotechnology, whether politically or physically, but as far as I know they explain their opposition to biotech in terms of the system's own values. That is, their main complaints are the risks of environmental damage and of harm to health.

And they are not hitting the biotech industry where it hurts. To use an analogy of physical combat once again, suppose you had to defend yourself against a giant octopus. You would not be able to fight back effectively by hacking at the tips of its tentacles. You have to strike at its head. From what I've read of their activities, radicals who work against biotechnology still do no more than hack
at the tips of the octopus's tentacles. They try to persuade ordinary farmers, individually, to refrain from planting genetically-engineered seed. But there are many thousands of farms in America, so that persuading farmers individually is an extremely inefficient way to combat genetic engineering. It would be much more effective to persuade research scientists engaged in biotechnological work, or executives of companies like Monsanto, to leave the biotech industry. Good research scientists are people who have special talents and extensive training, so they are difficult to replace. The same is true of top corporate executives. Persuading just a few of these people to get out of biotech would do more damage to the biotechnology industry than persuading a thousand farmers not to plant genetically-engineered seed.

It is open to argument whether I am right in thinking that biotechnology is the best issue on which to attack the system politically. But it is beyond argument that radicals today are wasting much of their energy on issues that have little or no relevance to the survival of the technological system. And even when they do address the right issues, radicals do not hit where it hurts. So instead of trotting off to the next world trade summit to have temper tantrums over globalization, radicals ought to put in some time thinking how to hit the system where it really hurts. By legal means, of course.

(Theodore Kaczynski retains copyright to this article.)

This article originally appeared in Green Anarchy #8 (Spring 2002).
Eugene, OR collective@greenanarchy.org

[Simulist]

That's a very interesting and at times insightful article. For example, Dr. Kaczynski correctly identifies several forms of popular protest of the current system as "pointless"; he then correctly identifies several "decisive points" where the system is most vulnerable, and describes several ways that might be effective in exploiting those vulnerabilities.

So, with all that insight, why then did he choose to go about his own campaign against the system in the clumsy, violent, and utterly ineffectual way that he did?

Or is it that this article was written after his incarceration and therefore after he was forced to face the pointlessness and clear counter-productivity of his earlier violent tactics?