Ted and the CIA, Part 1 by David Kaczynski

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Ted and the CIA, Part 1 by David Kaczynski

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Mon Dec 27, 2010 5:48 pm

I've been digging around to try to find more info on the origin of the article. The timing is absolutely key to unpacking it, I agree.

I have only found this response article which was published in the subsequent issue of Green Anarchy:
http://greenanarchy.info/etc/hit_where_it_hurts_but.htm

Either way, I find it increasingly hard to believe Ted was in any way mentally ill. Killing people doesn't make you crazy, I think that's some pretty weaksauce logic. Neither does family estrangement. Put differently, he is exactly as schizophrenic as other killers like Curtis LeMay or William S. Burroughs.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Ted and the CIA, Part 1 by David Kaczynski

Postby Iamwhomiam » Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:17 pm

Wombaticus,

Ted is mentally ill and has been for many years. Whether he was episodic when plotting and bombing will always remain unknown and unknowable. I don't think anyone here has suggested that killing made him crazy. I also don't believe anyone here has suggested that his self-estrangement caused him to become crazy.

Since his internment he has been receiving medicine to help control his schizophrenia.

Believe what you will, it's your mind... at least for a few more years.
Last edited by Iamwhomiam on Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Ted and the CIA, Part 1 by David Kaczynski

Postby compared2what? » Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:58 pm

Wombaticus Rex wrote:I've been digging around to try to find more info on the origin of the article. The timing is absolutely key to unpacking it, I agree.

I have only found this response article which was published in the subsequent issue of Green Anarchy:
http://greenanarchy.info/etc/hit_where_it_hurts_but.htm

Either way, I find it increasingly hard to believe Ted was in any way mentally ill. Killing people doesn't make you crazy, I think that's some pretty weaksauce logic. Neither does family estrangement.


Neither does schizophrenia, necessarily. Assuming that by "mentally ill" and "crazy," you mean "globally functionally incapacitated for all cognitive and emotional purposes apart from incoherent and/or delusional blithering."

Schizophrenia is (very probably, to the best of anyone's understanding, which is limited) a neurobiological/neuroanatomical condition of uncertain etiology, typified by a number of characteristic symptoms. Including something more or less like psychosis at least sometimes, generally speaking. But that's "including" not "limited to." And also "something more or less like psychosis" not "complete and all-encompassing sensory distortion severe enough to put rational thought, accurate perception, and appropriate psycho-motor response to stimuli entirely out of the picture."

Some schizophrenics lead perfectly conventionally high-functioning lives, as a matter of fact. Although Ted Kaczynski didn't. Or at least not after 1971. Whether he was schizophrenic or not. So that's a moot point,

But schizophrenia and the writing of coherent anarchist-primitivist theoretical tracts are not mutually exclusive by definition, by any means. And that's not. A moot point.

Put differently, he is exactly as schizophrenic as other killers like Curtis LeMay or William S. Burroughs.


I'm obviously not in a position to diagnose any of those three men with anything, let alone all of them. So I'm not even going to try.

But fwiw, speaking from a position of moderate familiarity with the basic facts and circumstances of their lives, what's known about the evolution of Ted Kaczinski's behavior and temperament over time is 100 percent compatible with the typical course of schizophrenia in men over time. Especially wrt (apparent) social cognitive deficits, asociality, and social isolation. Whereas neither LeMay nor Burroughs led lives that were at all particularly distinguished by any of the major primary symptoms of schizophrenia, as far as I know.

And finally:

While there are violent killers who are also schizophrenic, schizophrenia in itself is so infrequently a predictor of criminal violence -- or, for that matter, any very remarkable kind of violence -- that for most practical conversational or reference purposes, you can pretty safely assume that there's no correlation between the two at all.

Destigmatization. I'm for it.
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Ted and the CIA, Part 1 by David Kaczynski

Postby The Hacktivist » Mon Dec 27, 2010 9:08 pm

Hey Wombat, looks like you, much like myself, have taken a keen interest in Teddy's work, writings and ideas. Have you had the opportunity to read any of his fictional short stories? He is a wonderful writer:

Here is one of my favorite of his, called Ship of Fools...

Ship of Fools
By Ted "Unabomber" Kaczynski






Once upon a time, the captain and the mates of a ship grew so vain of their seamanship, so full of hubris and so impressed with themselves, that they went mad. They turned the ship north and sailed until they met with icebergs and dangerous floes, and they kept sailing north into more and more perilous waters, solely in order to give themselves opportunities to perform ever-more-brilliant feats of seamanship.

As the ship reached higher and higher latitudes, the passengers and crew became increasingly uncomfortable. They began quarreling among themselves and complaining of the conditions under which they lived.

"Shiver me timbers," said an able seaman, "if this ain't the worst voyage I've ever been on. The deck is slick with ice; when I'm on lookout the wind cuts through me jacket like a knife; every time I reef the foresail I blamed-near freeze me fingers; and all I get for it is a miserable five shillings a month!"

"You think you have it bad!" said a lady passenger. "I can't sleep at night for the cold. Ladies on this ship don't get as many blankets as the men. It isn't fair!"

A Mexican sailor chimed in: "¡Chingado! I'm only getting half the wages of the Anglo seamen. We need plenty of food to keep us warm in this climate, and I'm not getting my share; the Anglos get more. And the worst of it is that the mates always give me orders in English instead of Spanish."

"I have more reason to complain than anybody," said an American Indian sailor. "If the palefaces hadn't robbed me of my ancestral lands, I wouldn't even be on this ship, here among the icebergs and arctic winds. I would just be paddling a canoe on a nice, placid lake. I deserve compensation. At the very least, the captain should let me run a crap game so that I can make some money."

The bosun spoke up: "Yesterday the first mate called me a 'fruit' just because I suck cocks. I have a right to suck cocks without being called names for it!"

It's not only humans who are mistreated on this ship," interjected an animal-lover among the passengers, her voice quivering with indignation. "Why, last week I saw the second mate kick the ship's dog twice!"

One of the passengers was a college professor. Wringing his hands he exclaimed,

"All this is just awful! It's immoral! It's racism, sexism, speciesism, homophobia, and exploitation of the working class! It's discrimination! We must have social justice: Equal wages for the Mexican sailor, higher wages for all sailors, compensation for the Indian, equal blankets for the ladies, a guaranteed right to suck cocks, and no more kicking the dog!"

"Yes, yes!" shouted the passengers. "Aye-aye!" shouted the crew. "It's discrimination! We have to demand our rights!"

The cabin boy cleared his throat.

"Ahem. You all have good reasons to complain. But it seems to me that what we really have to do is get this ship turned around and headed back south, because if we keep going north we're sure to be wrecked sooner or later, and then your wages, your blankets, and your right to suck cocks won't do you any good, because we'll all drown."

But no one paid any attention to him, because he was only the cabin boy.

The captain and the mates, from their station on the poop deck, had been watching and listening. Now they smiled and winked at one another, and at a gesture from the captain the third mate came down from the poop deck, sauntered over to where the passengers and crew were gathered, and shouldered his way in amongst them. He put a very serious expression on his face and spoke thusly:

"We officers have to admit that some really inexcusable things have been happening on this ship. We hadn't realized how bad the situation was until we heard your complaints. We are men of good will and want to do right by you. But - well - the captain is rather conservative and set in his ways, and may have to be prodded a bit before he'll make any substantial changes. My personal opinion is that if you protest vigorously - but always peacefully and without violating any of the ship's rules - you would shake the captain out of his inertia and force him to address the problems of which you so justly complain."

Having said this, the third mate headed back toward the poop deck. As he went, the passengers and crew called after him, "Moderate! Reformer! Goody-liberal! Captain's stooge!" But they nevertheless did as he said. They gathered in a body before the poop deck, shouted insults at the officers, and demanded their rights: "I want higher wages and better working conditions," cried the able seaman. "Equal blankets for women," cried the lady passenger. "I want to receive my orders in Spanish," cried the Mexican sailor. "I want the right to run a crap game," cried the Indian sailor. "I don't want to be called a fruit," cried the bosun. "No more kicking the dog," cried the animal lover. "Revolution now," cried the professor.

The captain and the mates huddled together and conferred for several minutes, winking, nodding and smiling at one another all the while. Then the captain stepped to the front of the poop deck and, with a great show of benevolence, announced that the able seaman's wages would be raised to six shillings a month; the Mexican sailor's wages would be raised to two-thirds the wages of an Anglo seaman, and the order to reef the foresail would be given in Spanish; lady passengers would receive one more blanket; the Indian sailor would be allowed to run a crap game on Saturday nights; the bosun wouldn't be called a fruit as long as he kept his cocksucking strictly private; and the dog wouldn't be kicked unless he did something really naughty, such as stealing food from the galley.

The passengers and crew celebrated these concessions as a great victory, but the next morning, they were again feeling dissatisfied.

"Six shillings a month is a pittance, and I still freeze me fingers when I reef the foresail," grumbled the able seaman. "I'm still not getting the same wages as the Anglos, or enough food for this climate," said the Mexican sailor. "We women still don't have enough blankets to keep us warm," said the lady passenger. The other crewmen and passengers voiced similar complaints, and the professor egged them on.

When they were done, the cabin boy spoke up - louder this time so that the others could not easily ignore him:

"It's really terrible that the dog gets kicked for stealing a bit of bread from the galley, and that women don't have equal blankets, and that the able seaman gets his fingers frozen; and I don't see why the bosun shouldn't suck cocks if he wants to. But look how thick the icebergs are now, and how the wind blows harder and harder! We've got to turn this ship back toward the south, because if we keep going north we'll be wrecked and drowned."

"Oh yes," said the bosun, "It's just so awful that we keep heading north. But why should I have to keep cocksucking in the closet? Why should I be called a fruit? Ain't I as good as everyone else?"

"Sailing north is terrible," said the lady passenger. "But don't you see? That's exactly why women need more blankets to keep them warm. I demand equal blankets for women now!"

"It's quite true," said the professor, "that sailing to the north imposes great hardships on all of us. But changing course toward the south would be unrealistic. You can't turn back the clock. We must find a mature way of dealing with the situation."

"Look," said the cabin boy, "If we let those four madmen up on the poop deck have their way, we'll all be drowned. If we ever get the ship out of danger, then we can worry about working conditions, blankets for women, and the right to suck cocks. But first we've got to get this vessel turned around. If a few of us get together, make a plan, and show some courage, we can save ourselves. It wouldn't take many of us - six or eight would do. We could charge the poop, chuck those lunatics overboard, and turn the ship to the south."

The professor elevated his nose and said sternly, "I don't believe in violence. It's immoral."

"It's unethical ever to use violence," said the bosun.

"I'm terrified of violence," said the lady passenger.

The captain and the mates had been watching and listening all the while. At a signal from the captain, the third mate stepped down to the main deck. He went about among the passengers and crew, telling them that there were still many problems on the ship.

"We have made much progress," he said, "But much remains to be done. Working conditions for the able seaman are still hard, the Mexican still isn't getting the same wages as the Anglos, the women still don't have quite as many blankets as the men, the Indian's Saturday-night crap game is a paltry compensation for his lost lands, it's unfair to the bosun that he has to keep his cocksucking in the closet, and the dog still gets kicked at times.

"I think the captain needs to be prodded again. It would help if you all would put on another protest - as long as it remains nonviolent."

As the third mate walked back toward the stern, the passengers and the crew shouted insults after him, but they nevertheless did what he said and gathered in front of the poop deck for another protest. They ranted and raved and brandished their fists, and they even threw a rotten egg at the captain (which he skillfully dodged).

After hearing their complaints, the captain and the mates huddled for a conference, during which they winked and grinned broadly at one another. Then the captain stepped to the front of the poop deck and announced that the able seaman would be given gloves to keep his fingers warm, the Mexican sailor would receive wages equal to three-fourths the wages of an Anglo seaman, the women would receive yet another blanket, the Indian sailor could run a crap game on Saturday and Sunday nights, the bosun would be allowed to suck cocks publicly after dark, and no one could kick the dog without special permission from the captain.

The passengers and crew were ecstatic over this great revolutionary victory, but by the next morning they were again feeling dissatisfied and began grumbling about the same old hardships.

The cabin boy this time was getting angry.

"You damn fools!" he shouted. "Don't you see what the captain and the mates are doing? They're keeping you occupied with your trivial grievances about blankets and wages and the dog being kicked so that you won't think about what is really wrong with this ship --- that it's getting farther and farther to the north and we're all going to be drowned. If just a few of you would come to your senses, get together, and charge the poop deck, we could turn this ship around and save ourselves. But all you do is whine about petty little issues like working conditions and crap games and the right to suck cocks."

The passengers and the crew were incensed.

"Petty!!" cried the Mexican, "Do you think it's reasonable that I get only three-fourths the wages of an Anglo sailor? Is that petty?

"How can you call my grievance trivial? shouted the bosun. "Don't you know how humiliating it is to be called a fruit?"

"Kicking the dog is not a 'petty little issue!'" screamed the animal-lover. "It's heartless, cruel, and brutal!"

"Alright then," answered the cabin boy. "These issues are not petty and trivial. Kicking the dog is cruel and brutal and it is humiliating to be called a fruit. But in comparison to our real problem - in comparison to the fact that the ship is still heading north - your grievances are petty and trivial, because if we don't get this ship turned around soon, we're all going to drown.

"Fascist!" said the professor.

"Counterrevolutionary!" said the lady passenger. And all of the passengers and crew chimed in one after another, calling the cabin boy a fascist and a counterrevolutionary. They pushed him away and went back to grumbling about wages, and about blankets for women, and about the right to suck cocks, and about how the dog was treated. The ship kept sailing north, and after a while it was crushed between two icebergs and everyone drowned.
The Hacktivist
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:53 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Ted and the CIA, Part 1 by David Kaczynski

Postby The Hacktivist » Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:01 pm

Iamwhomiam wrote: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)


I know the entire family personally but I dont care to elaborate on here as to how that came to be. I have spoken to Ted since his arrest, at length, about the very issues I addressed above, I wont quote him here as he has asked me not to do so in any public discussion about him.


I will quote this much, however, since it goes right to the heart of this discussion and it has already been made public:

 "I'm confident that I'm sane, personally. I don't get delusions and so on and so forth...I mean, I had very serious problems with social adjustment in adolescence, and a lot of people would call this a sickness. But it would have to be distinguished between an organic illness, like schizophrenia or something like that."

T. Kaczynski



Also David didnt do him any favors:


"I Don't Want To Live Long. I Would Rather Get The Death Penalty Than Spend The Rest Of My Life In Prison"

T. Kaczynski



Also, FWIW, I have never spoken to him wrt his estrangement from his family, I just know that he felt and feels much more comfortable alone than with others and always has and everyone, including his family, always made him feel as if he were mentally ill for feeling that way, and I am sure (just a guess here) after a while, one becomes tired of that and will, at some point, put distance between himself and those who believe and say such things to and about him and understandably so, IMO.




EDITED TO ADD: I just wanted to add that while I do know the family personally my relationship with them is not one of friendship, it was strictly professional on my part, I was doing a job at the time I met them and spoke with them, in otherwords.
Last edited by The Hacktivist on Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Hacktivist
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:53 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Ted and the CIA, Part 1 by David Kaczynski

Postby Simulist » Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:38 pm

The Hacktivist wrote:
Iamwhomiam wrote: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)


I know the entire family personally but I dont care to elaborate on here as to how that came to be. I have spoken to Ted since his arrest, at length, about the very issues I addressed above, I wont quote him here as he has asked me not to do so in any public discussion about him.


I will quote this much, however, since it goes right to the heart of this discussion and it has already been made public:

 "I'm confident that I'm sane, personally. I don't get delusions and so on and so forth...I mean, I had very serious problems with social adjustment in adolescence, and a lot of people would call this a sickness. But it would have to be distinguished between an organic illness, like schizophrenia or something like that."

T. Kaczynski



Also David didnt do him any favors:


"I Don't Want To Live Long. I Would Rather Get The Death Penalty Than Spend The Rest Of My Life In Prison"

T. Kaczynski



Also, FWIW, I have never spoken to him wrt his estrangement from his family, I just know that he felt and feels much more comfortable alone than with others and always has and everyone, including his family, always made him feel as if he were mentally ill for feeling that way, and I am sure (just a guess here) after a while, one becomes tired of that and will, at some point, put distance between himself and those who believe and say such things to and about him and understandably so, IMO.

Ah. So much stuff to accept on faith alone. It's almost like being in church! — at the ladies' bake sale.

Care for a cupcake?
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Ted and the CIA, Part 1 by David Kaczynski

Postby compared2what? » Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:40 pm

The Hacktivist wrote:

I will quote this much, however, since it goes right to the heart of this discussion and it has already been made public:

 "I'm confident that I'm sane, personally. I don't get delusions and so on and so forth...I mean, I had very serious problems with social adjustment in adolescence, and a lot of people would call this a sickness. But it would have to be distinguished between an organic illness, like schizophrenia or something like that."

T. Kaczynski



Ego-dystonic vs. ego-syntonic. Look it up.

Also, while Mr. Kaczynski absolutely has every fucking right to speak about his state of mind as if he were an authority on it, irrespective of whether his beliefs and remarks on the matter are comprehensive, impartial and accurate, wanna know something? You don't. Or at least not absent some qualification much more extensive than knowing his family and having talked to him assuming that:

* you weren't regularly in touch with him during the several decades he spent in nearly complete solitude before his arrest;

* that you haven't been regularly hanging out with him in the cell where he's been in solitary confinement at Florence Supermax since the day after he was sentenced; and

* that you're not a world-renowned forensic psychologist or similarly uniquely distinguished in some way that would elevate your opinion on the state of his mental health from "casually uninformed opinion based on scant consideration and little data" to "authoritative."

Nothing personal. But when you're talking about a very poorly understood, much stigmatized, very common condition the difficulties of living with which are multiply compounded by widespread social ignorance regarding what constitutes that condition, you can't really be too vigilant when it comes to making sure that you know what you're talking about. Which in this case, you couldn't possibly.

And I mean, you wouldn't want inadvertently to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution, would you?

Rhetorical question, btw. Because I'm sure that you wouldn't. Which is why I'm equally sure you won't mind my just having encouraged you to stay strong and responsible.

So keep on keeping on.
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Ted and the CIA, Part 1 by David Kaczynski

Postby The Hacktivist » Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:45 pm

Stimulist writes:

Ah. So much stuff to accept on faith alone. It's almost like being in church! — at the ladies' bake sale.

Care for a cupcake?



You dont have to accept anything, just scroll on by and stop wasting thread space with with useless comments like this (and mine in response).
Last edited by The Hacktivist on Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Hacktivist
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:53 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Ted and the CIA, Part 1 by David Kaczynski

Postby compared2what? » Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:48 pm

Gosh. I myself wouldn't be so harsh. But I can see what you mean about thread space. You do realize that you didn't have to block quote the whole thing, right?

Anyway. Maybe I should repeat myself. I wouldn't want what I said to get lost. Here you go:

The Hacktivist wrote:

I will quote this much, however, since it goes right to the heart of this discussion and it has already been made public:

 "I'm confident that I'm sane, personally. I don't get delusions and so on and so forth...I mean, I had very serious problems with social adjustment in adolescence, and a lot of people would call this a sickness. But it would have to be distinguished between an organic illness, like schizophrenia or something like that."

T. Kaczynski



Ego-dystonic vs. ego-syntonic. Look it up.

Also, while Mr. Kaczynski absolutely has every fucking right to speak about his state of mind as if he were an authority on it, irrespective of whether his beliefs and remarks on the matter are comprehensive, impartial and accurate, wanna know something? You don't. Or at least not absent some qualification much more extensive than knowing his family and having talked to him assuming that:

* you weren't regularly in touch with him during the several decades he spent in nearly complete solitude before his arrest;

* that you haven't been regularly hanging out with him in the cell where he's been in solitary confinement at Florence Supermax since the day after he was sentenced; and

* that you're not a world-renowned forensic psychologist or similarly uniquely distinguished in some way that would elevate your opinion on the state of his mental health from "casually uninformed opinion based on scant consideration and little data" to "authoritative."

Nothing personal. But when you're talking about a very poorly understood, much stigmatized, very common condition the difficulties of living with which are multiply compounded by widespread social ignorance regarding what constitutes that condition, you can't really be too vigilant when it comes to making sure that you know what you're talking about. Which in this case, you couldn't possibly.

And I mean, you wouldn't want inadvertently to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution, would you?

Rhetorical question, btw. Because I'm sure that you wouldn't. Which is why I'm equally sure you won't mind my just having encouraged you to stay strong and responsible.

So keep on keeping on.
Last edited by compared2what? on Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Ted and the CIA, Part 1 by David Kaczynski

Postby The Hacktivist » Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:50 pm

compared2what? wrote:
The Hacktivist wrote:

I will quote this much, however, since it goes right to the heart of this discussion and it has already been made public:

 "I'm confident that I'm sane, personally. I don't get delusions and so on and so forth...I mean, I had very serious problems with social adjustment in adolescence, and a lot of people would call this a sickness. But it would have to be distinguished between an organic illness, like schizophrenia or something like that."

T. Kaczynski



Ego-dystonic vs. ego-syntonic. Look it up.

Also, while Mr. Kaczynski absolutely has every fucking right to speak about his state of mind as if he were an authority on it, irrespective of whether his beliefs and remarks on the matter are comprehensive, impartial and accurate, wanna know something? You don't. Or at least not absent some qualification much more extensive than knowing his family and having talked to him assuming that:

* you weren't regularly in touch with him during the several decades he spent in nearly complete solitude before his arrest;

* that you haven't been regularly hanging out with him in the cell where he's been in solitary confinement at Florence Supermax since the day after he was sentenced; and

* that you're not a world-renowned forensic psychologist or similarly uniquely distinguished in some way that would elevate your opinion on the state of his mental health from "casually uninformed opinion based on scant consideration and little data" to "authoritative."

Nothing personal. But when you're talking about a very poorly understood, much stigmatized, very common condition the difficulties of living with which are multiply compounded by widespread social ignorance regarding what constitutes that condition, you can't really be too vigilant when it comes to making sure that you know what you're talking about. Which in this case, you couldn't possibly.

And I mean, you wouldn't want inadvertently to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution, would you?

Rhetorical question, btw. Because I'm sure that you wouldn't. Which is why I'm equally sure you won't mind my just having encouraged you to stay strong and responsible.

So keep on keeping on.

I dont claim to speak with authority wrt his mental illness or lack thereof, I simply quoted what he said about the matter and what my opinion on the matter is, which is, I dont believe he was mentally ill, although having been in solitary confinement all these years he may very well be at this point in time. That is an opinion, much like Wombat has, neither of us believe Ted was mentally ill and Ted agrees with us, as evidenced by his own words, which I provided and have heard from him directly in letters he has written to me regarding the issue.

Again I just want to point out that I am not chummy with Ted or his family but I have met them, in a professional setting (I work for a news publication), and spoke with them all at length and continue such with Ted.
Last edited by The Hacktivist on Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Hacktivist
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:53 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Ted and the CIA, Part 1 by David Kaczynski

Postby The Hacktivist » Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:50 pm

Gosh. I myself wouldn't be so harsh. But I can see what you mean about thread space. You do realize that you didn't have to block quote the whole thing, right?


True, I will fix that.
The Hacktivist
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:53 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Ted and the CIA, Part 1 by David Kaczynski

Postby Simulist » Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:54 pm

The Hacktivist wrote:You dont have to accept anything, just scroll on by and stop wasting thread space with with useless comments like this (and mine in response).

The truly useless comments were the personal testimony and nearly always-accompanying grandiose claims you continue to ply concerning yourself, which is never (ever) provable, nor even particularly credible.
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Ted and the CIA, Part 1 by David Kaczynski

Postby The Hacktivist » Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:57 pm

Simulist wrote:
The Hacktivist wrote:You dont have to accept anything, just scroll on by and stop wasting thread space with with useless comments like this (and mine in response).

The truly useless comments were the personal testimony and nearly always-accompanying grandiose claims you continue to ply concerning yourself, which is never (ever) provable, nor even particularly credible.

And I dont care, I make them because its what I feel I want to add to this discussion not what you or anyone else thinks I should.

Move along if you dont care for what I post, you are the one derailing the discussion. Do you have a reason for doing so? Is this your job, is it what you do?

I have made two comments on this board since I have been here, one that I did some legwork and background checking wrt Mr Assange and found him to be what he says he is, and two, I have spoken to Ted and his family in my professional capacity working for a news publication and was told by Ted himself that he doesnt feel he is mentally ill and that mental illness played no part in what he did, he did whathe did, according to him, because he felt a statement needed to be made and that the ship needed to be righted, because, in his mind, and probably rightfully so, we were/are, on a collision course towards destruction.

Teddy is the cabin boy in his story Ship of Fools. Posted above.

Hardly grandiose. You could do either of those things yourself if you so desired (and had the tools and skill). I havent claimed an audience with the fucking Pope for fucks sake, calm down.
The Hacktivist
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:53 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Ted and the CIA, Part 1 by David Kaczynski

Postby compared2what? » Mon Dec 27, 2010 11:10 pm

TH wrote:I dont claim to speak with authority wrt his mental illness or lack thereof, I simply quoted what he said about the matter and what my opinion on the matter is, which is, I dont believe he was mentally ill, although having been in solitary confinement all these years he may very well be at this point in time. That is an opinion, much like Wombat has, neither of us believe Ted was mentally ill and Ted agrees with us, as evidenced by his own words, which I provided and have heard from him directly in letters he has written to me regarding the issue.


Or, put differently, you simply quoted what he said about the matter as if that or anything else that he might have written to you about it constituted a valid basis for having an informed opinion regarding it. Which it doesn't. You can't diagnose someone with schizophrenia on that basis. And nor can you exclude that diagnosis. Because it wouldn't necessarily even be reliably or validly detectable, if present, let alone confirmable.

Try thinking about it this way:

Given that it would be a massively unethical and negligent act -- not to mention malpractice -- for the most highly qualified, impeccably caring and statistically-successful-as-ranked-by-patients professional caregiver to schizophrenics on earth to diagnose someone one way or the other on those grounds, is there anything about your total lack of authority to address the matter that somehow makes the exact same thing responsible when you do it?

Because if there's not, hey, here's an idea:

Don't do it. It's irresponsible. Causes problems and pain for people who have more than their share already. That sort of thing.
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Ted and the CIA, Part 1 by David Kaczynski

Postby Iamwhomiam » Mon Dec 27, 2010 11:11 pm

Thank you Hacktavist, I appreciate your response and respect your privacy, as you do Ted's, so I won't pry.

But I think your including David in with those who made him 'uncomfortable' and mentally ill is not accurate.

David always has greatly admired his older brother and does love him. As I said before, it is sad that Ted can't get past his anger to see David's rationale.

During your visit with Ted, did you happen to ask him if felt any remorse for any of his actions? or for the distress he's caused his mother?

You say David didn't do him any favors, which I disagree with, but I wonder... what would you have done if you had been in David's position? I believe I would have done the same to protect innocent lives.

Lastly, considering Ted acted alone, and knowing the 'Technology' issue is a world wide phenomena, don't you think it a bit of madness on his part for him to have believed that he could re-order the world alone? I mean, for a mathematician of his brilliance, one would think that he first would have had calculated the odds for his success before launching his grand scheme, and would have determined his goal was unachievable.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 186 guests