Bombing Civilization

 

 

This is “the most bizarre case in the United States this century,” and it is also a case that will inevitably have a profound impact on the history of human thought.

Kaczynski, a mathematics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, deeply felt the negative impacts of modern industrial technology on human society and vehemently opposed modern civilization. After much brilliant thought, he wrote a manifesto of over 60,000 words—“Industrial Society and Its Future”—expressing his resistance to modern civilization. The manifesto claimed: ① Technological progress will allow a minority to control all aspects of the world, while the majority will lose their freedom; ② The degree of freedom is determined by technology and has nothing to do with ideology. The higher the technology, the less freedom; ③ Human evolution cannot keep up with technological evolution and is incompatible with theory. To publish this manifesto, Kaczynski carried out 16 bombings over 18 years, killing 3 people and injuring 23. This undoubtedly lends the article a legendary quality. Indeed, regardless of the cruelty of Kaczynski’s methods of terror, his reflections on the negative impacts of technological civilization on modern society are profound. Moreover, Kaczynski’s article was highly inflammatory; after its publication, it immediately attracted tens of thousands of supporters, with some even forming groups to run for the US presidency on behalf of its author. Its momentum and far-reaching influence are truly undeniable. Therefore, some commentators have compared Kaczynski to Adolf Hitler, and his manifesto, “Industrial Society and Its Future,” can be described as “Mein Kampf for the 21^st century, a death sentence for modern civilization, modern society, and even the future of humanity.”

Fortunately, the case was finally solved this April. Kaczynski himself was imprisoned. Humanity has once again averted a catastrophe—a contest between savagery and civilization, primitiveness and modernity, madness and reason. Those with discernment will see that the outcome of this contest is not so obvious.

Even if we kill Kaczynski, can we really say, “We’ve won”?

This book is divided into three parts:

1. A comprehensive account of the Kaczynski case;

2. A full translation of the “Industrial Society and Its Future” manifesto;

3. A review of “Industrial Society and Its Future”.

I hope that everyone who cares about the progress of civilization, cultural guidance, and the future of humanity will take a look at this book!

Preface

Not a vulgar story

Liu Huaizhao

This book about American mail bomb killers was almost written amidst a series of explosions: first the bombing of TWA Flight 800, then the explosion at Centennial Park in Atlanta.

Police have yet to determine the perpetrator’s clear motive, as if the criminal simply wanted to “live for a moment and die.” “The bomb’s structure isn’t complex,” police stated sheepishly: it’s the kind of homemade bomb that’s becoming increasingly commonplace. However, for people living in a peaceful, civilized society, the implications of any bomb are quite complex. People seem to have lost the capacity for astonishment. A bomb can still kill, but it no longer shocks—which in itself is quite perplexing.

People are becoming increasingly desensitized, even losing their enthusiasm for moral condemnation, which shows that people are increasingly powerless to change their current situation: they feel fear and anger at the actions of bomb killers, while at the same time vaguely hearing a frustrated cry from the evil outpouring of bombs; in industrial society, this cry is finding an indescribable resonance in the hearts of more and more people.

America’s “bomb culture”

In New Jersey, several children faxed their school demanding $13 million in ransom, threatening to bomb the school. In Albuquerque, New Mexico, police found a grenade in a newspaper box; the next day, they found an 8-inch ducted bomb under a bridge there. All of these events occurred in the same week of a certain month in 1995. They were insignificant compared to the Oklahoma City bombing that year, and paled in comparison to the mail bomb killers described in this book, but they reflected the growing bomb crisis in the United States. In that society at the pinnacle of industrial civilization, there seemed to be more people dissatisfied with their lives, feeling oppressed and without a way out than ever before. According to information collected by the FBI’s Bombing Data Center, there were more than 1,880 bombings of varying sizes across the United States in 1993, an increase of 442 from 10 years earlier. In 1993, nearly 300 Americans were killed or injured in bombings, not including the six people killed and 1,042 injured in the World Trade Center bombing that same year. According to statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, more than half of these bombings were intentional acts of cultural destructiveness, with less than 1% being acts of self-defense.

The targets of bombs are becoming increasingly “unfocused,” and the motives for explosions are becoming increasingly “metaphysical.” The phenomenon of bombings, primarily driven by deliberate destructive cultural behavior, has formed a kind of “bomb culture” in the United States. If we want to delve into the origins of this “bomb culture,” we must begin with the mail bomber and start our narrative with Kaczynski’s recent arrest.

“The most bizarre case in America this century”

When Kaczynski was arrested this April, members of the FBI’s “Unabomber Task Force” high-fived each other in celebration. After 18 years of being haunted by mail bombs, they said they could finally breathe a sigh of relief, finally walk the streets with peace of mind, finally no longer worrying about bombs popping up out of nowhere—they were confident they had caught the real unabomber (a nickname given to unidentified mail bomb killers). But the result was that bombings continued. In fact, whether Kaczynski was the real bomb killer (there’s almost no reason not to believe he was) is no longer important; what matters is that the cultural atmosphere created by this pioneer of American “bomb culture” over the past 18 years has lingered.

The “bomb killer” case led to the longest, most expensive, and most complex investigation in American history, involving numerous agencies. After Kaczynski’s arrest, the case was widely recognized by American criminologists as “the most bizarre case in American history this century.” On a superficial level, the bomb killer’s 18-year-long, mysterious criminal career can easily be understood as a vulgar story of a supervillain outmaneuvering the police. His character development over more than a decade, the suspenseful twists and turns, and especially his legendary act of blackmailing the media into publishing a manifesto for him, inevitably lead people to interpret his story as a mysterious, thrilling, and exciting Hollywood movie, thus overlooking the profound historical messages it carries. In fact, whether it’s the bomb killer or Kaczynski, these bombs embody a deep-seated resistance to industrial civilization; each explosion is filled with disdain and mockery of industrial technology. What’s particularly intriguing is that the FBI, armed with advanced technology, failed miserably in dealing with this homemade bomb maker: Kaczynski was apprehended not because of his sophisticated interrogation techniques, but largely due to his family’s tip-off. Moreover, Kaczynski ultimately presented an embarrassing situation for the techno-nerds he so vengeful: his forest cabin had no connection to industrial technology, not even electricity, leaving the police officers searching for evidence unprepared and forced to resort to the “primitive” method of recording and describing their investigation with pen and paper.

It’s not a vulgar story

The bombing and Kaczynski’s life are not a vulgar story; on a deeper level, they echo the existential dilemmas and moral struggles in Dostoevsky’s *Crime and Punishment*. Unfortunately, the book cannot delve too deeply into this aspect because, to date, media examinations of the “bombing killer’s” or Kaczynski’s private life have been limited and highly unreliable. Although people are trying to piece together Kaczynski’s character, no one truly understands him. All observations are superficial; for example, some describe his messy dorm room at Harvard, but no one ever actually stepped inside. Kaczynski never allowed anyone into his life, except for a woman he met when he was 36, but she rejected him, so there were never any women in his life. The story is full of suspense and hints, but I reject them. Therefore, what is presented here is not a novel, but a faithful account of what actually happened; you can trust any figures and other verifiable details in the book.

Leaving aside the part about the bomber using violence, his analysis of industrial society and its future direction in his manifesto reflects, to some extent, the real dilemma humanity is facing in the post-industrial era: the destruction of nature by industrial technology and the dehumanization it causes. He further elaborates on a similar view that humanity’s future fate does not depend on the choice of political system (democracy or dictatorship), but rather on the grasp of the trends in industrial technological development.

His ideas found considerable traction in American non-mainstream culture, emboldening situationists who resisted the utopianism of industrial technology, thus increasing psychological turmoil in American society. The United States was no longer seen by Americans as “the best place in any possible world, the best of all existing nations,” because, simply put, technology could not solve the fundamental problems of human survival.

In April of this year, after Kaczynski’s arrest, a visit from Huang Aihe sparked my interest in exploring the case over the past 18 years. Wang Xiaodong provided me with a wealth of information and materials and was responsible for translating the full text of the bomber’s manifesto. Here I must also mention Mr. Xu Bing, who made this book possible for you.

Finally, I dedicate my naive words from this book to the Yi River, just as it should be in the past and in the future.

August 14, 1996

Yuquan Road, Beijing

FBI Arrest Warrant

An explosive killer

A million-dollar reward

A series of unsolved bombing murders

Since May 1978, a series of bombings and murders occurred across the United States, with the specific reasons and motives remaining unknown. To date, no individual or organization has been identified as the perpetrator. Bombings occurred in eight states, from Connecticut to California. This series of events resulted in three deaths and 23 injuries. The series of attacks was interrupted between 1987 and 1993, resuming in June 1993. That month, a prominent geneticist living in Tiblon, California, and a Yale University computer scientist in New Haven, Connecticut, each received a package containing a bomb and were injured when they opened it. Eighteen months later, an advertising strategist was killed in his home in North Caldwell, New Jersey, by a similar bomb. Then, on April 24, 1995, a lumber industry representative was killed in a bombing in San Clemento, California. These bombings are believed to have been carried out by one person (or one group).

The “Bomb Killer Task Force” is appealing to the public for assistance. We are offering a $1 million reward for any information leading to the identification or capture of the perpetrator. Please contact the “Bomb Killer Task Force” at: email address Unabom@fbi.gov or by calling the hotline 1-(800)701–2662

(Re-released by the Explosive Killer Task Force, June 30, 1995)

Chapter One: The Explosive Killer

Eighteen years have passed, and the story is far from over. People don’t know when they’ll truly begin to reflect, or perhaps they’ll never understand the full meaning of it all. But one thing seems certain: the story began in tragedy, and it will end in tragedy.

Beyond the tragedy, the FBI has already tasted another, more subtle and complex flavor: shame. This is another certainty. This is the longest (and still going strong), most expensive (already costing $70 million), and most manpower-intensive case in American history (the task force consisted of professionals from the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service), and the opponent was a lone wolf. For 18 years, from the East Coast to the West Coast, this mysterious killer has been elusive, causing bombings without leaving any trace.

Looking back at the beginning of the incident, the FBI made a fatal mistake from the start: because they couldn’t figure out the motive for the crime, they trivialized their adversary. They underestimated their opponent’s capabilities.

On May 25, 1978, in Elvenston, Illinois, a mail package was found in the parking lot of the Northwestern University Engineering Department. The package was addressed to an engineering professor at the Rensselaer Institute for Integrative Technology in Troy, New York, and appeared to have not yet been delivered to the post office. A kind person returned the package to a professor at the Northwestern University Institute of Industrial Technology, following the address on the package. (Such a good Samaritan is unlikely to have been seen again in the United States. In retrospect, a large part of American naiveté was lost that day. An era of widespread fear had begun.) The professor, naturally, handed the suspicious package, which did not belong to him, to the campus police. On May 26, 1978, the package exploded during inspection, injuring a police officer.

A year later, a disguised bomb was found at the university’s Institute of Industrial Technology, injuring a graduate student. Months later, a similar package exploded during air transport, causing American Airlines Flight 444, flying from Chicago to Washington, to make an emergency landing.

The three bombings were clearly the work of the same person. The successive explosions caused considerable panic, but fortunately, no major casualties were reported. The bombs were all homemade and not very lethal.

But Chris Ronne was the first to sense that the newcomer was not to be underestimated.

At the time, Ronnie had just started working at the FBI’s Crime Lab and happened to be examining the wreckage of Flight 444. He noticed the bomb’s unique design; its reaction device was actually an altimeter. Ronnie was amazed by its ingenuity. It was clearly an original creation; as an expert, Ronnie had never encountered a bomb like it before. The bomb’s structure wasn’t complex; almost all the parts were handmade, including the wooden levers and knobs, using very ordinary materials—things even Neanderthals in the Paleolithic era could make—yet all of them were perfectly functional. Ronnie immediately realized that the bomb maker was an untrained but highly creative self-taught genius, and if he persisted in this pursuit, he could create even more handy contraptions.

Because the flight originated in Chicago, the FBI ordered the Chicago Police Department to investigate. According to police reports, two similar bombs were also found on the campus of a Chicago university. Ronne then conducted further research. He discovered that the bombs were made entirely from scraps of wood, match heads, shavings, and discarded household utensils, thus giving the unknown criminal the nickname “the garbage bomber.”

Seven months later, another bomb appeared. It was sealed together with a copy of Sloan Wilson’s novel *Ice Brothers* and sent to the home of Percy Wood, president of United Airlines. Wood was injured in the explosion.

Such bombings continued to occur in the years that followed, concentrating in California after the 1980s. Police found no clues, but they did discern a pattern: the bombings were concentrated in high-tech areas such as university campuses, airlines, and computer facilities. The FBI finally realized that something was amiss.

Unabomber

Like AIDS, UNABOMBER entered the American lexicon in the 1980s. This new word, an acronym for “University,” “Airline,” and “Bomber,” was a more resounding and respectable new name for the “garbage bomber.” People didn’t know who he was, but he existed. Like AIDS, the origins of this bombing killer appearing on universities and airlines were unknown, and the terror brought by this sudden disaster was immense. “Sadly,” one victim said, “he could affect so many of our lives so much, yet he never let us know what had offended him.”

The victim was Diogenes Angelax, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. On the Friday before July 4, 1982 (Independence Day), Angelax casually walked into a campus café for breakfast. He noticed a cylindrical box on the floor beneath him, strangely wrapped with electrical wire. As he lifted the box to examine it curiously, a detonator connected to a small gasoline tank detonated, blowing off three of his fingers.

This wasn’t Angelacus’s only encounter with the bomb killer. Nearly three years later, on May 15, 1985, Angelacus was in his office in the engineering building when he suddenly heard an explosion. He rushed out of his room and saw thick smoke billowing from a student laboratory at the end of the corridor. John Hauser, a pilot pursuing a master’s degree in electrical engineering, had detonated a bomb strapped to a plastic box containing document cards while picking it up. The bomb blew off his hand, and the word “Academy” on his Air Force Academy commemorative ring was clearly embedded in the wall. The bomb also permanently destroyed Hauser’s self-planned future. A week after the incident, he received the long-awaited invitation to participate in astronaut training. For Hauser, space travel was a ladder he had been climbing since childhood, and his hand was blown off just as he was about to reach for the sky. A year later, Hauser was still undergoing psychological treatment.

“There was absolutely no hope of catching him.”

In 1985, the bomber’s activities reached a climax, with bombings bearing a distinct Unabomber personal style occurring in Washington, California, and Michigan. On December 11, 1985, Hugh Sgulaton picked up something at the back door of his computer rental store, and a loud explosion signaled the start of the bomber’s killing spree.

The federal building in San Francisco was brightly lit all night during those days. A task force of more than 80 people, comprised of members from the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, launched a massive investigation. The task force also obtained a large parallel processing computer from the Pentagon to search for the bomber in school rosters, driver’s licenses, and library records across the country, but to no avail.

The task force was bogged down in a sea of digital information, while the bomb killer’s methods became increasingly sophisticated, as if he were deliberately playing hide-and-seek with them. He carefully removed the labels from the batteries and used the most ordinary stamps printed many years ago when mailing them. He used common chemicals readily available everywhere as the explosive components, while leaving no fingerprints. All indications suggested that, in the initial period, he seemed to be deliberately creating a terrorist incident without intending to kill. For example, he intentionally overfilled the fuel tank of the bomb, leaving insufficient gas space for the gasoline to fully detonate. He also painstakingly handcrafted parts, even though these parts could have been purchased from ordinary electrical and hardware stores and would have been more sensitive and less likely to leave personal traces for the task force to investigate.

Furthermore, he seemed to have a certain fondness for trees. Not only did the bomb’s packaging and structural components utilize wood as much as possible (including wooden nails and screws, with some key parts made of high-quality mahogany), but the copy of “Ice Brothers” he sent to Percy Wood (“Wood” being a transliteration of the word “wood”) also featured leaf patterns. But what does this alone prove? “At least he wasn’t a professional carpenter,” analyzed Don Davis, a member of the task force. Davis, the top expert at the San Francisco Postal Inspection Agency, noticed that the bomber’s woodworking was exquisite yet clumsy: “The saw marks were irregular, and the edges were always being reworked. It looked like he spent a lot of time sanding and polishing to make the things he sold look presentable.”

This was clearly a brilliant but eccentric man, bordering on the obsessive. One can imagine how, in the dead of night, he tirelessly and meticulously crafted these dangerous and tedious contraptions, teetering on the edge of hell, dancing with death. “He was not only careful, but he also enjoyed it immensely,” said Chris Rooney, an FBI bomb expert. “He numbered each component, then assembled and disassembled them repeatedly.”

After the bomb killer task force was established, a flood of clues and information poured in. A doctor solemnly identified a Hong Kong triad as the mastermind behind the bombing, and numerous neurotic phone calls came in daily, claiming to have spotted the bomb killer in various locations. The task force members were completely baffled. “The key problem was that we could never determine the perpetrator’s motive, which left us in complete darkness.” Many members of the task force thus returned home empty-handed after several years. Even Rooney said at one point, “I never expected us to catch him.”

In February 1987, the bomber finally left his mark for the first time during the Salt Lake City bombing. On February 20^th, a woman noticed a suspicious man outside her home carefully placing his backpack in a parking space, looking around, and then walking away. A while later, the tall man, wearing a hooded tracksuit, returned, quietly picked up the backpack, and left. Less than an hour later, an explosion occurred at a nearby computer store. Federal investigators flooded Salt Lake City, setting up checkpoints at bus stops and intersections, but again, they came up empty-handed. The only progress this time was that they were able to sketch a facial outline of the bomber based on the woman’s description—the image that would later become known to all Americans: the bomber in a hooded tracksuit, sunglasses, and with a full beard.

With the appearance of this outline, the bomb killer’s criminal activities understandably ceased. In the following years, the bomb killer vanished without a trace. The stench of blood gradually dissipated, and people’s lives were quickly filled with other things, including this mysterious figure.

The killer, along with the anger and pain he stirred up, was gradually forgotten. But the fear remained, like a cicada’s molt; it was still there when the event was over.

Surface

Like any period in human history, our era is simultaneously characterized by both progress and decline, and (as any prophet would surely tell you) the seeds of its end were sown from the very beginning. The presence or absence of the bomb killer is, in effect, unlikely to alter this outcome.

The bomb killer seemed to fade into obscurity, with people preferring to assume he met his demise while handling the bomb. The mystery surrounding the event, which had perplexed people for so long, now seemed less important—why not understand it this way: human behavior inherently possesses a side that is irrational, unpredictable, and inexplicable?

The new industrial technology wave, led by high-tech development, is rising higher and higher, and has become almost the only thing worth mentioning in this century. Human intelligence is extending into machines, but at the same time, it is emptying its imagination of life itself. In the remote tropical jungles of the African continent, a group of Americans committed suicide.[1]

Within a few years, over 80 members of the emerging Davidic sect perished in a man-made fire in Waco, Texas. This was in 1993. Earlier that year, on a cold, snowy afternoon, New York City witnessed what was described as “the deadliest terrorist attack in American history” (a record that was quickly rewritten two years later): the 110-story World Trade Center was destroyed by terrorists. The deafening explosion was just the tip of the iceberg, but it was merely the catalyst for 2,200 bombings across the United States that year. Amidst the ruins of the World Trade Center, a mournful cry rang out: “What else will happen?”

What happened next hit the FBI where it hurt: the bomb killer had returned. In June, two bomber mail packages exploded in San Clemento, California, injuring a renowned geneticist and a Yale University computer science professor. Two weeks later, Attorney General Janet Reynolds ordered the “Bomb Killer Task Force,” which had practically disintegrated, to reorganize and immediately begin an effective investigation to solve the case as quickly as possible. The task force, which had dwindled to just over 30 members, quickly expanded to more than 100 agents, and the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and the Postal Service revised their plans. The task force headquarters and branch offices were established in San Francisco and San Clemento, where the recent bombing occurred.

This time, in addition to the facial contour sketch of the bomb killer, the task force also attempted to outline the killer’s psychological profile.

John Douglas, a leading figure in the FBI’s Investigative Support Division, took over the task. He had attempted this before when the bomber first emerged in 1978. He meticulously documented and analyzed every possible clue—the locations where the bomber frequented, his targets, the structure of the bombs, and so on—hoping to uncover the bomber’s unique characteristics to aid in solving the case. Ronne’s analysis of the bomb’s structure provided a wealth of information. He stated that the bomb maker’s meticulous, handcrafted process indicated a narcissistic and egocentric personality. “If he simply wanted to make bombs, he wouldn’t have gone to such lengths. The key is that this person had an uncontrollable urge to use his ingenuity to manipulate the outside world.” In 1979 and 1985, the FBI released two psychological profiles, both concluding that the bomber was in his thirties or forties, a blue-collar worker with little education.

Based on this deduction, investigators have focused their attention for several years on blue-collar workers in airport and aircraft manufacturing industries. Additionally, investigators believe the killer may have originated in Northern California, not only because it is the region with the highest number of explosive mail packages sent, but also because the killer appears to be quite familiar with the area’s geography.

In 1993, William Tafua, a behavioral scientist at the FBI’s San Francisco Special Agency, was about to retire. Before retiring, Tafua wanted to do one more thing. He drafted a 63-page questionnaire to investigate and analyze the victims of the bomb killer, and examined the details of each bombing over the past 10 years. Finally, he came to a conclusion that the task force found very surprising: the bomb killer was not in his thirties or forties, but in his early fifties, and not only that, but he also had a high level of education in the natural sciences, such as engineering. Tafua further concluded that the bomb killer was a latate[2].

He is a man who hates industrial technology and is a recluse who lives a secluded life. His reasoning is that no one with social work has so much leisure and interest in engaging in such time-consuming, complicated manual and primitive operations.

In September 1993, Tafua wrote down his analysis in a one-page memo and submitted it to the FBI’s Behavioral Science Division. John Douglas, who was doing the same thing, forwarded the memo to the task force headquarters in San Francisco.

“They dismissed it at the time because it was so far beyond their imagination,” Tafuya, now retired, still feels a pang of resentment when he thinks about it.

Dealing with such a complex and thorny case that had dragged on for over a decade, the FBI task force was no longer sure which profiling diagram they should bet on. “Over a decade,” one task force member said, “we know everything we can, more than those who do psychological profiling.” No one doubted the bomber’s talent. For nearly 20 years, the bomber’s improvised explosive devices had become increasingly sophisticated; the task force could even clearly trace his journey from self-taught to becoming a true bomb expert.

It’s like playing hide-and-seek with an opponent who isn’t really your opponent. Eventually, the bomb killer gets tired of the game and desperately wants to reveal the answer in some way.

“FC”

Gallente[3] :

Those highly educated people aren’t as smart as they think. If you had a brain, you’d realize that many people around the world despise the actions of high-tech idiots like you; and if you used your brain, you wouldn’t be stupid enough to open a package from an unknown source.

At the end of your book *MirrorWorlds*, you claim that the development you describe is an inevitable trend, asserting that anyone with a college degree can master computer skills and successfully navigate a computer-controlled world. You want to legitimize your research with this claim. Clearly, those without a college education are not among your considerations. Furthermore, you should understand that computer skills do nothing to prevent the invasion of privacy, nor to prevent its infiltration into areas such as genetic engineering (in which computers have invested heavily) and the environmental degradation caused by excessive economic growth (in which computers have played a significant role).

As for your so-called “inevitable trend,” if the development you describe is truly an inevitable trend, it’s not as inevitable as birth, aging, sickness, and death, or the cycle of seasons. Their inevitability is only due to the actions of you high-tech bastards. Without computer scientists, there would be no progress in computer science. If you’re content to pursue your research simply because it’s inevitable, would you allow pickpockets to run rampant just because pickpocketing is inevitable?

However, we do not believe that development and growth are inevitable. We will have more to say later.

FC

On April 24, 1995, a shoebox-sized package arrived at the California Forestry Society. The secretary struggled to open it but couldn’t, so she carried it to President Gilbert Marry’s office. Marry was an extremely easygoing man; he never refused to do such small, unspoken chores for his secretary, and wouldn’t forget to make a sarcastic remark. As the secretary placed the package on Marry’s desk, the phone rang in the next room. She ran out to answer it, which led to her death. The package exploded in Marry’s hands. The bomb was so powerful that those who arrived saw blood but not Marry. They struggled to piece his body back together. The two doors to Marry’s office flew off, and everyone in the building felt a powerful, earthquake-like shock; the explosion carried for two blocks. Residents of the nearby neighborhood fled into the streets as if fleeing a disaster. This disoriented panic is understandable, because just five days earlier, the federal government building in Oklahoma was bombed by terrorists, killing 164 people instantly.

Unlike the Oklahoma City bombing, the explosive package at the California Forestry Society building had a specific target and a distinctly personal style. For nearly 20 years, the FBI had seen his shadow, even sensed his presence, but still couldn’t catch him.

But this time was somewhat different. “In the past, we couldn’t be sure if he intended to kill or just injure someone to teach them a lesson. Now his murderous intent is completely open,” said a member of the task force. Meanwhile, the FBI faintly heard the bomber begin to speak. First, Dr. Gallente, who was injured in the 1993 bombing, received a letter from the bomber signed “FC.” Then, in several subsequent bombings, the bomber left the “FC” mark where his adversaries could see it.

Following the bombing of Ma Rui, a letter was sent to The New York Times.

(The following is a letter, dated April 26, 1995, from the New York Times, authorized by the FBI as the “bomb killer,” claiming responsibility for a series of bombings over the past decade. The letter was signed “Terrorist Organization FC,” and three paragraphs were deleted at the request of the FBI.)

(This paragraph was deleted at the request of the FBI)

This is a message from the “terrorist organization FC”.

We bombed Thomas Mercer last December .[4]

Because he was an executive at Berson-Mastell. One of Berson-Mastell’s many crimes was helping Exxon clear its public image after the Waldez incident[5]. But our attack on Berson-Mastell is less about this specific crime and more about our dissatisfaction with its overall principles. Berson-Mastell is probably the largest organization in the public relations field, which means that its business is developing industrial technologies to manipulate people’s minds. This is more compelling than any other specific reason for us to make an example of it.

Some news reports have falsely claimed that we are attacking universities or highly educated individuals, which is incorrect. The university personnel we targeted were experts in industrial and technological fields (we also include certain areas of applied psychology, such as behavior modification, within the technical field). We do not want people to mistakenly believe that we would harm scholars in harmless disciplines such as archaeology, history, and literature. Our targets were scientists and engineers, particularly in computer science and genetics. As for the bomb we placed in the University of Utah’s business school, it was an accident. We do not intend to explain why it was an accident, as we do not want to leave any clues for the federal investigation. Besides, the bomb did not harm anyone.

In our past letters to you, we called ourselves anarchists. “Anarchism” is a vague and overused term that needs clarification. We called ourselves anarchists because we wanted to dismantle society into tiny, fully autonomous units. Unfortunately, we see no clear path to this ideal, so we leave it to an uncertain future. Our immediate goal is to destroy the global industrial system over the next few decades. Through bombings, we aim to accelerate the destabilization of industrial society, promote resistance to industrialization, and inspire those who hate the industrial system.

The FBI has consistently tried to portray these bombings as the work of paranoid psychopaths. We don’t want to waste our breath trying to distinguish between them, but it’s safe to say we are not alone. For security reasons, we will not disclose the number of people in our organization, but anyone who has read those anarchist and radical environmentalist publications will realize that resistance to the industrialized technological system has taken root.

Why are we only now articulating our mission, instead of 17 years ago when we first launched our operation? Because our early bombs were too ineffective. We discovered in practice that bombs that were too small and inconspicuous often had little destructive power, failing to attract the attention of the public and governments, and failing to provoke deep reflection. So we paused for several years, focusing on extensive experimentation. Now, after repeated failures and trial and error, we have achieved sufficient lethality.

(This paragraph was requested to be deleted by the FBI)

Because our explosives are no longer limited to tubes, we have more options for bomb size and shape. We know how to create more low-energy, high-efficiency explosives; as we’ve stated, we’ve mastered highly efficient explosive materials. We can pack deadly bombs into smaller, lighter, and more inconspicuous packages, and we believe we can also create unusually large bombs. With a bomb the size of a suitcase, we can bring down the walls of a sturdy building.

Clearly, we’re always ready to cause more destruction, and the FBI doesn’t seem to expect to catch us anytime soon. The FBI is a joke.

Those who fuel the industrial waste industry are unforgivable, but our aim is less to punish them and more to spread our ideas. However, we are increasingly weary of making bombs: spending nights poring over metal scraps, constructing dangerous devices ready to explode, and searching for sufficiently open and secure locations for detonation experiments, even sacrificing weekends—it’s not enjoyable. Therefore, we want to make a deal.

We have a lengthy article of 29,000 to 37,000 words that has been privately published. If you publish it according to our requirements, we will permanently renounce terrorism. It must be published in *The New York Times*, *Time*, *Newsweek*, or other widely read and distributed publications. Due to its length, we anticipate it will need to be serialized. Alternatively, it may be published as a book. If so, it must be widely printed at a lower price and sold at least in some overseas locations. Anyone who wishes may reprint or republish this article within six months of its publication and be entitled to the associated profits. After six months, the article must become public property so that anyone may reprint or publish it. We also have the right to publish a 3,000-word follow-up discussion or debate article annually in *The New York Times*, *Time*, or *Newsweek* for the next three years following the publication of our article in newspapers/books.

Our articles will not openly promote violence, but they will inevitably have a certain inflammatory tone because we advocate the dismantling of industrial society and ultimately used violence. However, the articles will not explicitly advocate violence, nor will they advocate the overthrow of the US government, and they will not contain any obscene, pornographic, or otherwise inappropriate content.

How can we be sure that we will keep our promises once our demands are accepted? It depends on how well we win people’s hearts by fulfilling our promises; if we break our promises, we will lose public respect and no one will accept our ideas.

Our commitment to cease terrorist activities is subject to three conditions. First, our commitment only takes effect after the full text of this article is published or a book is released. Second, if authorities subsequently search for us or pursue us regarding bombings, we reserve the right to resort to violence again. Third, we distinguish between terrorism and acts of self-defense. Our definition of terrorism is the intentional harm or death of others driven by a desire to influence social processes. Our definition of sabotage is the intentional destruction of property without harming others, driven by similar motives. We commit to renounce terrorist activities, but we reserve the right to engage in acts of sabotage.

The failures of our early explosive activities more or less dissuaded us from making any public declarations at the time. We were too young and reckless then. Over the years, while improving our explosive technology, we have also devoted considerable energy to ideological development, thus forming a serious set of principles. We feel that now is the time to publicly declare our resistance against industrial society.

Please understand that your response to us is to properly publish our declaration in the media so that we can keep our word. Remember to inform us where and how our text will be published, and how long it will take to complete. If the response is satisfactory, we will send you the manuscript. If the response is unsatisfactory, we will continue our terrorist bombings.

We encourage you to publish this letter.

FC

(This paragraph was requested to be deleted by the FBI)

The bomb killer’s letters resembled a striptease, ultimately destined to reveal his true self. “Clearly, he was speaking out, seeking communication, and venturing out of his secluded life,” criminologist Ken Thompson analyzed.

The bomber’s letter conveyed a fairly clear message: to stop the industrial revolution in modern society. “Through explosions,” the letter stated, “we will destroy the industrial system worldwide over the next few decades... accelerate the destabilization of industrial society, promote resistance against industrialization, and inspire those who hate the industrial system.”

The letter identifies itself as the “FC terrorist organization,” and refuses to disclose its size “for security reasons.” However, the task force’s analysis suggests that the “FC organization” is entirely fictitious, a smokescreen concocted by a lone, madman. One theory suggests that “FC” is an abbreviation for “Fucking Computers.” Another analysis proposes that the bomber’s sudden resurgence and public statement were triggered by the recent Oklahoma City bombing. Enraged by the unprecedented and devastating attack, he felt compelled to reclaim his nearly 20-year reign as a terrorist leader, hence his declaration of “who I am” in the letter. Time magazine, as if reading the mind of the bomber, wrote: “The Oklahoma City bombing had drawn all the attention away from him, and of course he was furious. He wanted to stand up and say that all the others were just small fry, that he was the real deal, and that he was the one who had kept the FBI busy for nearly 20 years. Sure enough, he dropped his most lethal bomb. He really went mad.”

People have clearly once again trivialized bomb killers.

To log in or not to log in

The bomber’s demand for the unconditional publication of his articles not only caused an immediate uproar among the American public but also placed the U.S. Department of Justice and the news media in an unprecedentedly embarrassing situation. The Department of Justice convened a special meeting to discuss countermeasures. Some criminologists believe that yielding to such coercion would set a bad precedent, not only failing to deter the terrorist from committing further attacks but also encouraging more terrorists to follow suit. Furthermore, publishing his writings symbolizes the incompetence of the Department of Justice and the failure of the FBI, resulting in an irreparable loss of face and further damaging the Department’s credibility.

“Putting face aside for now,” said Jim Freeman, the FBI’s special agency representative in charge of the case, as the debate raged on. “What I see is that the bomber’s self-description in his manifesto provides us with some very important clues about him. If it’s published, he’s essentially exposing himself, and perhaps someone with information will come to us.”

“But no one can guarantee that things will go according to our wishes,” Victoria Thurnchen, a veteran of the Department of Justice, countered.

The press was in an uproar. Both major newspapers named by the bomber expressed extreme reluctance: “Neither of our newspapers will publish this article for newsworthy reasons,” Donald E. Graham, publisher of *The Washington Post*, immediately responded in his paper. Arthur O. Schulzberg, publisher of *The New York Times*, also said, “Given the bomber’s bloody record, it’s difficult to accept his narrative.” He added, “If you publish an article and he stops killing, that’s a good deal; but if you publish an article and he still kills, how are you going to handle the situation?” Statistics show that 42% of the American press and publishers opposed publishing the bomber’s writings, believing it would “sacrifice journalistic principles” and make the media a target for blackmail in the future.

In late June, while the Department of Justice and the press were still hesitating between publishing the letter and not publishing it, another letter arrived at the San Francisco Chronicle. This time, it was direct, sinister, and terrifying: “Warning: The terrorist organization FC, also known by the FBI as the Unabomer, plans to carry out a bombing on a plane departing from Los Angeles International Airport within six days.”

To confirm that the message truly came from the bomber himself and was not fabricated by someone else, the text message was marked with the 9-digit cipher code that the bomber used when he wrote to The New York Times.

But the very next day, the bomber changed his mind. He wrote to The New York Times, stating, “(I wrote that letter) because the public is so forgetful, so I wanted to play a prank to remind them. But no, we are not planning to plant bombs on the plane.” He declared that the purpose of his article was to condemn the deprivation of humanity’s original free way of life by industrial society and a small elite group supported by the government. He particularly emphasized freedom, specifically the freedom that begins with “F”.

Freedom, not the “F” in “Fuck” (a vulgar insult) as the FBI understood it to be. In the letter, he also mentioned the Oklahoma City bombing: “We strongly condemn this indiscriminate killing of innocent people in a fit of rage.” At the end of the letter, he earnestly expressed his “regret” that the FBI was “surprisingly incompetent.”

The FBI, too busy to defend its “incompetence” or analyze whether it was truly a prank, frantically deployed emergency security measures at Los Angeles International Airport and other major airports. For six days, all passengers were informed that security checks would take more than two hours longer than usual, requiring them to show identification every few steps, and their carry-on luggage would be thoroughly searched. The postal service refused to accept any airmail weighing more than 340 grams for those six days. The atmosphere at the airport was suffocatingly tense, but those traveling daily for work were clearly powerless to resist, entrusting their lives to fate. During this time, a lawyer boarding in San Francisco, wearing sunglasses, was suspected of being a bomber by the crew. A search revealed a semiconductor device he was carrying, immediately causing panic. Passengers were alerted and rushed to the front of the cabin, scattering as soon as the plane came to a stop, only to find it was a false alarm.

The bomber then issued an ultimatum, giving The Washington Post and The New York Times three months to respond:

To log in or not to log in.

The two newspapers were caught in a moral dilemma. If they published the article, they risked tarnishing their nearly century-old tradition of journalistic independence and integrity, and would be tantamount to colluding with terrorist forces. If they didn’t publish it, they feared that if another bombing occurred, public opinion would condemn the newspapers for failing to help, making them accomplices to the bombers. Everett Dennis of Columbia University’s Center for Mass Media Studies at the Free Forum said, “How can we build a relationship of trust with someone who completely disregards human life?”

Then a little farce unfolded. Bob Gusien, editor of Penthouse magazine, known for its erotic photos and gossip, stepped in, offering to shoulder the moral responsibility of saving lives and public safety. He offered to give the bomber space to publish his long article verbatim, without reservation or alteration, and even a month-long column. Penthouse was a Playboy-style entertainment magazine, but its reputation and sales were far inferior. “I had no hesitation about this,” Gusien said, adding that he would also assure the bomber of his expected circulation, “to publish exactly as he wants.”

The sensationalism of Penthouse magazine not only immediately drew boos from the public, but the bomber himself also scoffed at it: “Given that Penthouse magazine is not of high enough taste,” he wrote humorously to Gu Xin: “I can agree to this good intention, but I have one more condition: although I will still keep my original promise to give up violence, after the article is published in Penthouse, I will blow it up one more time (only once) before I stop.”

Meanwhile, the FBI’s 150-person task force was determined to make a final push. In Washington and New York, experts focused on analyzing the bomber’s manuscripts and letters, hoping to find even the slightest clue in fingerprints or printed text. “He must have been an extremely cautious person, very, very discreet,” Louis Bertram said desperately. “He certainly didn’t drink, and if he drove, he would never break the rules, not even leave a ticket.” John Douglas, a specialist in psychological profiling, added that the bomber must have been abused as a child, hence his deep-seated hatred for others. He might have been extremely unsuccessful in his career, or had unpleasant experiences in the computer industry, thus transferring his anger to successful people in that field. The task force reissued the arrest warrant, with a $1 million reward, and the bomber’s profile appeared everywhere on the internet.

Declaration of Resistance to Industrial Society

The Washington Post and The New York Times published the “Bomb Killer” manifesto.

—They hoped this would end the tragedy of the explosion (CNN News, September 19, 1995)

(The following is a joint statement with the publishers of The Washington Post and The New York Times, announcing the decision to publish the manuscripts alleged by the FBI to be the terrorist bomber.)

For three months, The Washington Post and The New York Times have been jointly threatened by a man known as a “bomb killer” who demands that we publish a manuscript of about 35,000 words. If we do not comply, the author has threatened to mail a bomb to an unspecified location to “premeditatedly kill” someone.

For months, the two newspapers have been in close consultation regarding whether to publish their articles under duress, and have also consulted legal authorities. Both the Attorney General and the FBI Director, out of concern for public safety, have advised us to publish, and we have agreed to do so.

Therefore, the manuscript of “The Bomb Killer” was published unaltered in today’s (September 19, 1995) edition of The Washington Post. The decision to publish it was made jointly by the two newspapers, with the costs shared between them. The Washington Post was chosen because it had the capacity to publish a single print run within its daily newspaper.

Donald E. Graham

(The Washington Post)

Arthur Schutzberg

(The New York Times)

On Tuesday, readers of The Washington Post discovered an unusual insert: an eight-page, 35,000-word manifesto against industrial society, authored by “Bomb Killer.” The Washington Post and The New York Times, under pressure, complied with the anonymous author’s demands for publication, after he threatened to mail another bomb to “kill intentionally” if his manifesto was not published in full.

Attorney General Janet Reynolds and FBI Director Louis Freeh supported the two newspapers publishing the article “out of concern for public safety.”

At the urging of the Justice Department, The Washington Post and The New York Times provided Tuesday with special editions for the so-called “bomb killer,” allowing him to publish his views on the future of industrial society. In exchange, the anonymous author promised to stop bombing.

The Department of Justice hopes that the bomber will keep his promise not to kill again after the full article is published, and that doing so will provide clues to solve the case.

New York Times publisher Arthur Schutzberg admitted that his newspaper was compromising with the bomber by doing so, but said it was a last resort.

The lengthy 35,000-word declaration was published on the last day of the deadline given by the bomber. It was a bombshell in itself, causing a profound shock in American society. Its nearly 20-year gestation period, and the implications of its emergence, inevitably remind us of the first mushroom cloud that rose over the Los Alamos desert in New Mexico half a century earlier—its intense light blotting out the sun, accompanied by thunderous roars, heralding the arrival of humanity’s spectacular yet terrifying atomic age. “Within a hundred years, mankind will know what it is,” the Frenchman Goncourt once predicted: “A person who possesses this knowledge can extinguish the sun as easily as blowing out a lamp, and can make it brighter or dimmer at will… At that time, the kind old man with the white beard, God, will descend to earth with his large bunch of keys and say to mankind: ‘Gentlemen, the time for the curtain to fall has come.’”

On September 19, 1995, the bomb killer’s manifesto, “Industrial Society and Its Future,” was published in The Washington Post.

Just like when they first saw this mushroom cloud, “some people cried, a few rejoiced, and the vast majority stood silently without saying a word” (Oppenheimer). The bomb killer’s declaration and the reasons for its appearance made people have different thoughts. It gloomily opened the door to another era, bearing the mark of the post-industrial era, in which people began to declare war on history and themselves.

In his manifesto, the bomber cursed modern society in its high-tech environment. He argued that the Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a human catastrophe, greatly extending lifespan while simultaneously causing social unrest, a sense of emptiness and bewilderment, shrouding humanity in spiritual anguish, and inflicting immense damage on nature. He believed the continued development of science and technology would exacerbate this situation, potentially leading to even greater social chaos and psychological stress. The industrial technology system, he argued, has distanced human behavior from natural patterns, permanently reducing humanity and many other life forms to engineered products and cogs in a social machine, stripping people of dignity and autonomy. After listing the various ills of modern industrial civilization, he advocated a revolution against the industrial system, a revolution rooted in hatred of industrial technology. He claimed this would not be a political revolution, nor would its aim be to overthrow the government, but rather to destroy the economic and industrial technological foundations of current society, returning to a primitive state of life. He also launched a fierce analysis and attack on liberals, conservatives, and left-wing intellectuals. He predicted that the world’s development, whether through biological or psychological methods, would ultimately “correct humanity.” The declaration was like a piercing cry from a deformed heart squeezed by the industrial gears of the high-tech era, hoarse but clearly discernible: it invited and called on humanity to return to the original state before industrial society.

“The whole strategy behind issuing this manifesto is,” a senior FBI official said sullenly, “to get that lone wolf out there. He has no accomplices, no partners, not even anyone to whistleblower... so this is the only move—to get him to speak for himself. That way we can see the shining star in a galaxy of thousands of suspects (and there really are that many bomb killer suspects stored in the task force’s computers).”

The Bomb Killer’s Feast

From the East Coast to the West Coast, a mysterious bomb killer, appearing and disappearing without a trace, has caused a series of tragedies, leaving the FBI baffled and exhausted for 18 years. Currently, the FBI is investigating suspect Kaczynski and has finally found clues about his crimes.

1. May 25, 1978, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois: A suspicious bomb package was returned to the university, injuring a campus police officer when he opened it.

2. On May 9, 1979, a mailbag was placed at the university’s Institute of Industrial Technology, and graduate student John Harris was injured in the bombing.

3. November 15, 1979, A mail package exploded in the checked baggage on an American Airlines flight from Chicago to Washington, forcing the plane to make an emergency landing. Twelve passengers experienced breathing difficulties and were taken to the hospital.

4. June 10, 1980, Frost River, Illinois: United Airlines president Percy Wood was injured in a mail bomb at his home.

5. October 8, 1981, University of Utah, Salt Lake City: A suspicious package placed on campus was picked up and handed over by a campus worker, and later detonated by police.

6. May 5, 1982, Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee: A wooden box package exploded, injuring a professor’s secretary, Janet Smith.

7. July 2, 1982, Diogenes Angelax, a professor of electrical engineering and computer science at the University of California, Berkeley, was injured by a bomb placed in a coffee shop.

8. On May 15, 1985, John Hausser was injured in a laboratory by a bomb that was placed in a plastic box.

9. June 13, 1985, Auburn, Washington: A bomb package was delivered to Boeing and was safely detonated.

10. November 15, 1985, University of Chicago Ann Arbor, Michigan: Two people were injured by a mail package addressed to the school’s psychology professor, James O’Knell.

11. December 11, 1985, San Clemento, California, Hugh Scratton, the owner of a computer store, was killed by a bomb hidden in a paper bag.

12. February 20, 1987, Salt Lake City, Utah: A computer store owner was injured by a bomb hidden in a paper bag.

13. June 22, 1993, Tiblon, California: A bomb package was delivered to the home of Charles Epstein, a geneticist at the University of California, San Francisco, and Epstein was injured.

14. June 24, 1993, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut: Computer Science Professor David Gallente was injured in a bombing.

15. December 10, 1994, North Caldwell, New Jersey: Advertising executive Thomas Moser was killed in his home by a mail bomb.

16. April 24, 1995, Clemento, California: Gilbert Marry, a political activist in the lumber industry, was killed in his office in a bombing.

17. June 28, 1995, Los Angeles International Airport: Flights delayed due to bomb threat.

Note:

Chapter Two: Kaczynski

“I went into the woods for other purposes.” — Henry David Thoreau

Younger brother

David Kaczynski’s anxiety grew heavier each day since June. He had a terrible...intuition. Yes, he hoped it would eventually prove to be just an illusion. The thought flashed through his mind almost instantly, then he struggled to shake it off. Berkeley, Salt Lake City, Chicago… Ted had lived in all these places; it could certainly be a coincidence. Anti-industrialism, anarchism, conformity…aren’t these ubiquitous in American fringe culture? Didn’t he identify with them to some extent? And what made him connect Ted—his own brother—with a killer wanted by the police for nearly 20 years?

But where did this vague intuition come from? Was it from a shared bloodline? In any case, once it surfaced, it stubbornly occupied him, waiting to be overturned or confirmed. No, it could only be overturned, David told himself.

During those days, he would sometimes suddenly drop the newspaper in his hand and run up to the attic in a panic to rummage through the letters in the wooden box.

These were all letters Ted had written to him, some of the paper clearly yellowed and even moldy. This was the only contact between the brothers for 20 years. “Ted, what have you been doing all these years?” Rereading these letters, some long, some short but all neatly handwritten, David realized he actually knew nothing about them. Two years earlier, when Ted wrote asking for money, David had replied, once again urging his brother to change his mind. “I know you, like Thoreau, have spent your life seeking to feel fully at ease in nature,” David recalled writing in the letter. “Pushing life into a corner, reducing it to a minimum, can all help in rediscovering oneself, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But, Ted, have you noticed other aspects of Thoreau’s thought? The boundaries between the individual and society are ultimately indistinct; don’t we still have obligations to fulfill?... Ted, at least I think, if you had a like-minded partner like I have Linda, you might have a deeper understanding of life.” He mailed the letter along with a money order, not forgetting to mark the envelope with a red line. Ted once complained that his letters to his mother were often “wordy” and “unnecessary,” so much so that he sometimes couldn’t be bothered to open them. “Dealing with all those mundane interpersonal relationships has already given me symptoms of arrhythmia,” Ted complained. He asked his mother and brother to mark “urgent” and “important” letters with red lines from now on, “otherwise I might overlook them because I value my time.” David wouldn’t have drawn a red line unless a money order was enclosed in the letter.

Soon after, Ted replied, informing David that the draft had been received, and casually remarked that he didn’t take David’s advice seriously: “Well, you can’t eat the cake and hold onto it at the same time—you can’t have your cake and eat it too.” David smiled wryly at this. Ted was indeed a stubborn and strong-willed person; even his language was deliberately unconventional. For example, this proverb, the common expression being, “You can’t hold onto the cake and eat it at the same time,” Ted insisted on saying the opposite.

Despite a seven-year age difference, Ted and David share many similarities. Those who know them consistently describe them as intelligent, introverted, and quiet. Both graduated from Ivy League schools, but neither used their prestigious university degrees as leverage for advancement; both retreated to remote corners of America, attempting to eliminate all barriers between themselves and nature. In the fall of 1990, Linda found him deep in the mountains of South Texas (that day she stayed in his cabin. She went out to look at the stars at dusk, just as the new moon rose, and the wilderness stretched southward into the vast sky in the hazy night. As they walked out of the hills and through a patch of sage, a rooster crowed loudly in the distance, and Linda said, “It’s so beautiful!” Her eyes sparkled with a warm, okra-like light, and David kissed them, knowing that from then on he wouldn’t care where he lived). They married and moved to New York State. Linda taught, and he became a social worker. Although she occasionally corresponded with Ted, they never met again.

In early October, police arrested a 37-year-old bombing suspect in Chicago. David breathed a sigh of relief, as if he had been exonerated of some connection to the incident. By then, the bombing suspect’s manifesto, “Industrial Society and Its Future,” had been published for several days and had become the central topic of the news media. However, for some reason, David only took out the September 19^th supplement of The Washington Post, which Linda had already annotated extensively, to read today.

Between the lines, David once again sensed Ted’s thoughts, even the tone of his voice. He was annoyed and wanted to put Ted aside for now—the suspect had been caught. “He’s not Ted,” David muttered to himself.

Paragraph 185 of the declaration caught David’s eye: “As for the negative effects that would result from the destruction of industrialized society—well, you can’t eat the cake and hold onto it at the same time—there are gains and losses.” David’s mind went blank; he tried to think of something, but his thoughts were paralyzed.

Anyone with a modicum of imagination could try to empathize with David’s predicament. First, to what extent should family ties give way to social responsibility? The choice between the two is not as straightforward as an outsider might imagine. Like other baby boomers, David was cynical at heart. Yet even in his misanthropic moments, he adhered to certain taboos, making him appear contradictory: intense in thought yet conservative in action. —Calling him “conservative” might not be entirely accurate, after all, while his peers used Neil Young’s country songs to alleviate their yearning for a simpler life, he and his brother actually went to the mountains, surrendering themselves entirely to nature and living without electricity or running water. In the remote Christmas Mountains of South Texas, his cabin was 32 miles from the nearest trail. Before building the cabin, he temporarily lived in a ditch he dug, covered with waterproof tarpaulin. During this period, he had this anecdote: On a hike, he found a handmade stone knife that an Indian had left in the forest. Later, he heard that doing so would disturb the Indian mountain god, so he trekked more than 40 miles to put the knife back in the same mountain. The taboo of betrayal between brothers is obviously even more difficult to overcome.

Secondly, what if I were to cause trouble for Ted’s peaceful life because of my own misconceptions and suspicions? I would not be able to bear the sudden increase in the estrangement between brothers and would live forever in heavy guilt.

David had long harbored a strange sense of guilt towards his brother, a guilt he himself found somewhat ridiculous. But looking at his repeated indulgences of his brother, including sending him money—something that seemed unbelievable to anyone—he knew he couldn’t shake off this guilt. It stemmed from the first and only falling out between the brothers 18 years ago. David later believed that what happened that summer of 1978 determined the course of his brother’s life. Even so, David knew they still deeply loved each other, only this love had become bittersweet and much more complex.

In early autumn, David wrote Ted a short letter, expressing his hope to meet him as soon as possible. “I’ll come to the Montana Mountains to find you, or you can come to New York. Linda has been wanting to meet you; I always mention you, but she doesn’t know what you look like—to be honest, Ted, I’m almost forgetting myself.” He believed that once he saw Ted’s eyes, he would understand everything and be able to truly put his mind at ease. This was essential for him, and he marked it with a red line.

There was no reply. This intensified David’s anxiety.

“This is still too terrible.”

One day in late October 1995, Susan Swanson, who worked at an investigative agency in Chicago, unexpectedly received a phone call from David Kaczynski, the husband of her friend Linda.

David said he needed her help to figure something out, but first he needed her to promise not to pry and never to reveal the source of the information to anyone. His tone was heavy, as if something was pressing down on him. He was testing the waters, carefully choosing his words, and Susan sensed that he was ready to regret what he said at any moment.

Susan readily agreed to David’s terms. Then she received several pages of transcribed, printed letters, which, after being read carefully several times, weighed heavily on her heart. In December, she contacted Collint Vanzand, who had worked for the FBI for 25 years. Vanzand had served as the mediator in the 1993 Cult of David case and was a criminal behavior expert. “Of course, I’d be happy to help analyze it,” he told Susan over the phone. A printed copy of the letters was then sent to Vanzand’s law firm in Fredericksburg.

There were two letters in total. The header and signature were omitted, but the dates were indicated. One was four pages long and was written 10 years ago, while the other was a short one-page letter and was written less than a year ago.

Without explicitly stating the inquirer’s intentions, the contents of the letters bore a striking resemblance to the bomber’s manifesto. Van Zand called Susan, hoping she could answer some questions: Where did she obtain these letters? Who sent them, and to whom? His probing was met with a polite but firm refusal. Van Zand then enlisted the help of a psychologist and a linguist for analysis, both of whom concluded that the letters and the bomber’s manifesto could indeed have been written by the same person.

In early 1996, Van Zand concluded that there was a 60% probability that the letters were from the bomber. At the same time, he realized that he and Susan Swanson bore a heavy responsibility. He reminded Susan that the bomber’s manifesto had been published, and once information about him leaked out, he would have a reason to return to his old ways at any time: “Susan, if your client has reservations about meeting with the FBI, I need to know. Because if your client doesn’t go to the FBI, then I will.” He then contacted his old colleagues in the FBI’s Behavioral Science Division, informing them to contact him immediately if they did not receive any major breakthroughs in the bomber case in the near future. On January 19, after further analysis and examination by several experts, Van Zand increased the probability of the letters being linked to the bomber from 60% to 80%.

On the same day in Chicago, Susan Swanson’s boss, Raymond Kelly, offered to meet with the person in question.

Under pressure from Van Zand, David hired a lawyer to handle the matter. This lawyer was Anthony Pesegri, Susan Swanson’s classmate from law school. Pesegri demanded to analyze the letters personally, but David refused to meet with him, preferring that he contact him through Susan.

In late January, Pisegri called an old acquaintance who worked at the FBI. This investigator wasn’t part of the bomb killer case, but that was exactly what Pisegri wanted: he didn’t want to involve anyone; he wanted to do things his own way. He showed the acquaintance the letters, but didn’t reveal their origin, and then began negotiating: if he brought the person in and identified the suspect, would the FBI agree to a “non-intrusive” investigation? Pisegri knew that David was extremely reluctant for the FBI’s intrusion to disrupt his brother’s life—especially since he still held a sliver of hope that his brother would be proven innocent.

The federal investigators who had seen the copies of these letters understood the implications of this lead, and they were determined not to lose it. Almost as a exception, the FBI granted David’s request.

In early February, David flew to Washington to meet with FBI representatives in Pisegri’s office. “Okay,” Pisegri said, “it’s either a historic moment or a false alarm, but David will feel better either way.” He then mentioned Ted Kaczynski’s name.

“This is still too terrible,” David said, his face pale. “I have to go back to Chicago to see my mother.”

Mother

He was a child only a mother could love and cherish so deeply. For 20 years, he hadn’t returned, like a monk who had renounced the world. During this time, Wanda visited him in Montana, but he only met her briefly in the capital, Helena; she knew nothing of his life in the mountains. Like David, her only connection with Ted was through letters. She loved her son, and that’s why she let him go.

Wanda meticulously kept all of Ted’s belongings from childhood, even his room was still arranged exactly as it was when he left, as if quietly waiting for his return. Ted would occasionally write letters, some from Michigan, some from California or Salt Lake City, but most from Montana. Wanda unfolded, smoothed out, and arranged them chronologically, so she could pick them up and read them at any time—though it was difficult to find any warmth in the dense handwriting.

There was no way around it; Ted was different from other children from a young age. He was sensitive yet taciturn, intelligent yet withdrawn, his exterior always shrouded in a layer of indifference, as if he didn’t need to draw anything from the outside world. If you were to look through his photo album from childhood to adulthood, you would see something consistent in his eyes—an unfathomable etherealness. Looking into those eyes, an event from Ted’s childhood always troubled Wanda. When he was nine months old, Ted contracted severe urticaria, and the doctors isolated him for treatment, preventing Wanda from approaching him for several weeks.

A few weeks later, when Wanda came to pick him up from the hospital for the first time, he heard her call, but didn’t turn around to look at her. She cupped his little face in her hands, and what she saw in his clear blue eyes was this unfamiliar, ethereal look. He was very quiet, showing none of the fear he had when he was first brought to the hospital or the crying he had when he was separated from his mother’s arms.

When he was 4 years old, his family doctor showed him this photo of him lying in his hospital bed.

“Ted only glanced at it before quickly looking away; he refused to see it again,” Wanda recalled. “Oh my God! He still felt the same way.”

When Ted was four years old, his father caught a gopher and put it in a cage in the backyard, then called Ted and his brother to see it.

“Let it go! Let it go!” Ted shouted as he saw the groundhog trapped in the cage from afar. Such impulses were extremely rare in Ted’s life. He stomped his feet like a tantrum, his little face flushed red, and screamed until he saw his father open the cage and release the groundhog.

“His appearance at that time reminded me,” Wanda’s memories always unconsciously returned to when Ted was 9 months old. “When I left the hospital, he scratched at the crib railing with his little hands. He wanted me to come back. He cried and waved his arms at me, but the nurse pushed me out.”

Wanda Kaczynski was a petite, gentle Chicagoan. Perhaps because neither she nor her husband Richard had received higher education in their early years, the birth of Ted in 1942 provided her with an opportunity to compensate. “This mother practically lived for her child,” said Leroy Weinberg, a former neighbor of the Kaczynski family. “Wanda would spend her days at home tutoring the child, sometimes sitting on the front steps reading Scientific American to Ted, whether he understood or not.” Wanda also frequently took young Ted to the Art Institute of Chicago. “I told Wanda,” said Ted and David’s 89-year-old aunt, “‘Wanda, the child is too young; he’s not old enough to learn so much.’ But Wanda would say, ‘You don’t know how smart he is; he learns everything in no time.’”

Richard was a reasonable, easy-going, and cheerful father who always supported Wanda’s approach to raising their children. He even lobbied with Wanda to establish a children’s school near their neighborhood. Richard, too, was naturally drawn to nature. This food processing plant technician would often take his children hiking after work. Ted and David would follow him like shadows, roaming the Mississippi River and camping in the Maniste National Forest—a period of carefree and joyful childhood cherished by both brothers. During this time, their father taught them many basic survival skills, such as how to locate water by identifying plants, how to hunt porcupines, and how to make fire. Their childhood was both scholarly and wildly romantic, setting them apart from their peers. They possessed a certain aloofness and pride that seemed incongruous with their age and background.

Six years ago, elderly Richard, unable to bear the pain of cancer, ended his twilight years with a shotgun, leaving 79-year-old Wanda alone in Chicago. David and Linda repeatedly urged her to sell her house and move to Schenectady, New York, to be closer to her family. Wanda initially refused, hoping Ted would come back to see her.

In early 1996, David came from New York to discuss moving with Wanda again. It was during this opportunity that...

David voiced his deepest doubts.

“No, it couldn’t be Ted,” the old woman interrupted David firmly, almost before he could give a reason. David didn’t try to explain, because he saw an unwavering look in his mother’s eyes. He hugged his mother tightly, determined not to bring up the topic again. But Wanda continued to nag, “Ted wouldn’t do such a thing, he couldn’t possibly be that cruel.” She then went on to tell the story of the groundhog again.

David cried like a child, “I’m sorry, Mom.”

Over the next few days, they began quietly cleaning out the old house. Wanda brought out Ted’s letters and some scattered notes and articles. “Show these to those people; they’ll eventually prove Ted isn’t the killer.”

Wanda Kaczynski didn’t even ask federal investigators for a search warrant. So, on a still-cold day in mid-March, federal investigators searched her Chicago residence with her consent.

“It was a completely unexpected discovery,” a Justice Department official said afterward. “We analyzed the texts and other items and found traces of the bomb killer; some of the letters were direct quotes from that manifesto.”

At the same time, a top-secret memorandum was presented to Attorney General Janet...

On Renault’s desk was a sign that read, “This is very likely the person we’re looking for.”

Ted

Frankly, we can sketch a very abstract outline of Ted Kaczynski’s early life based on the impressions of others (and we will see how contradictory those impressions are!), but we know almost nothing about his later life in the Montana Mountains, the life he deliberately pursued.

Let’s first look at the history that he later completely abandoned.

Ted was born on May 22, 1942, in a suburb of Chicago, Illinois. It was a middle-class, so-called “white good neighborhood,” but the Kaczynski family belonged to the blue-collar class. Her mother, Wanda, was an exceptionally intelligent and talented woman, but her education coincided with the Great Depression, a time when college graduates fought tooth and nail for jobs, and education funding was repeatedly cut. Not having a college degree was a lifelong regret for the ambitious Wanda. After raising two children to Ivy League schools, she finally went to college herself. In 1968, the same year Ted received her doctorate from the University of Chicago and went to teach at UC Clifton, she herself finally completed her studies in education at the University of Iowa and earned a degree. She did this almost solely to put an end to one regret, and therefore, this fact is virtually unknown.

Wanda meticulously kept a record of young Ted’s development: how many words he had mastered, when he started doing addition and subtraction within hundreds, and even the questions he asked after returning from the Art Institute of Chicago that she couldn’t answer immediately—she wrote them all down without hesitation. Ted was so introverted that he wouldn’t show his dependence on his parents, but Wanda knew he loved her because he made her proud: he skipped two grades in middle school and started high school from the second year.

In the eyes of their neighbors, the Kaczynski children were “over-educated.” “They didn’t interact much with the people around us,” recalls 74-year-old Leroy Weinberg, who used to live on the street behind the Kaczynskis. “Their children didn’t play much with other children either, especially Ted; he didn’t even like to go out once he got home. The other children weren’t like that.”

Ted seemed born a mathematician; he loved pondering mentally taxing problems. “He would become completely absorbed in solving a problem or something else, sometimes bursting into uncontrollable laughter, as if he were talking to someone,” said his former classmate, Patrick Morris. “In fact, he had never been that happy with anyone.” Another high school classmate, Russell Mosny, said, “My feeling was that he was 10 years younger than our peers, both mentally and socially. On the one hand, the education system did a good job of meeting his intellectual needs, but on the other hand, his emotional needs were neglected. Back then, nobody noticed these things.”

Retired teacher Robert Lippey said Ted was one of the brightest kids in his class: “His thinking was so sharp sometimes it was overwhelming for the teachers, so when it came time to go to high school, we discussed letting him skip a grade.” Outside of school, he participated in biology, German, and math groups, and even played the bassoon. He excelled at everything, but it all seemed like routine, without sparking any interest in social activities. “Ted is a genius, but he clearly isn’t ready for the world yet,” Weinberg said.

But he did have a particular interest in one thing: “Ted liked to make explosives with batteries, coils, potassium nitrate, and stuff like that,” said childhood friend Dale Eckerman. “He was an extremely intelligent person. He was very passionate about fireworks,” said former classmate Roger Baldwell, “but many of us were like that back then.” He recalled an explosion in the chemistry lab that left a girl deaf. “A boy asked Ted how to make explosives, and he told him. That idiot messed things up. Ted didn’t make them, but he didn’t think to tell him it was dangerous; he was very naive, so he always suffered in silence.” But Mosny and Morris didn’t see anything destructive in Ted’s character: “He never got angry; he was a very easygoing person.”

In 1950, Ted’s younger brother David was born; the 1950s were a time of great scientific and technological advancement following World War II. If their parents, enjoying a life of abundance, had fallen silent due to the political clamor of McCarthyism, the terror of nuclear weapons, and memories of the Great Depression, then the new “baby boomer” generation was determined to make a big fuss and do something.

In the 1950s, computers began to be used in business in the United States, and television sets became more widespread than ever before. Television not only simulated real society, but also participated in and changed society—followed by the gradual arrival of the information age, like a bloodless revolution. It influenced the course of society, changed an entire generation, not only changing their views on their parents, teachers, and the world, but also making them rethink how to conduct themselves in society.

What separated this generation from their parents was not just television sets, but also the atomic bomb. For these peers born around the same time as the atomic bomb, “tomorrow” became an extremely abstract concept; the whole world suddenly seemed as fragile as an egg. The “future panorama” designed by their parents at the New York World’s Fair was steadily becoming a reality, but it was accompanied by a heavy industrial stench that suffocated any possible beautiful imagination.

In October 1957, the Soviet Union launched the first artificial Earth satellite, thus surpassing the United States in space technology. Amidst surprise and embarrassment, Americans turned their attention to education. In 1958, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act, which specifically emphasized providing financial support for the teaching of natural sciences, mathematics, and foreign languages to strengthen teaching and research in these disciplines. The National Defense Education Act clearly expressed a fundamental idea: education must be integrated with national defense to ensure the nation’s future security and prosperity.

Ted received the National Intellectual Scholarship upon graduating from Evergreen Park High School, thus ending his childhood prematurely. In 1958, at the age of 16, Ted Kaczynski received a scholarship to the Department of Mathematics at Harvard University. Given his talent and opportunities at the time, he seemed destined for greatness, and entering Harvard was, in effect, crossing the threshold into the upper echelons of mainstream society.

This shy, reserved young man from the Midwestern suburbs was clearly not used to the aristocratic atmosphere of the Harvard campus, nor was he adept at the relaxed and elegant social norms observed by his Eastern classmates. He was living in the Elliott Residence on campus at the time. “It was mostly rich and prestigious Eastern kids living there,” said Patrick McIntosh, who lived on the same floor. “We Midwestern lads were also put there, probably because the school wanted to change that spoiled vibe a bit.” But even with his fellow Midwesterners, Ted didn’t get along very well, and his aloofness and arrogance became even more pronounced after he left home. His dorm room was at the end of the hallway. “He had a special skill for avoiding people, even avoiding greetings. He would quicken his pace when passing by others and hurriedly close the door as soon as he entered his room,” said his classmate, Mike Lohr. “In my memory, he seemed more interested in bedbugs than people.” Ted’s dorm room was “full of garbage and smelled of sour milk and sandwiches,” McIntosh recalled. “He was one of the strangest people I met at Harvard. He wasn’t rude, and if you asked him a question, he would try to answer in the shortest possible way. But you could never know what he was thinking.”

Ted’s introverted and reclusive nature wasn’t particularly surprising to those around him; mathematicians are often eccentric in their social interactions: their world tends to be extremely abstract. “He was thin, with a delicate face and curly dark brown hair,” recalled a Harvard alumnus a few years his junior, who would occasionally appear in the campus’s all-night cafeteria, joining discussions among mathematics and philosophy students. Ted seemed particularly interested in Kant’s idealistic philosophy.

But another Harvard classmate, Richard Adams, had almost no memory of Ted: “I can only recall him sitting alone in the classroom. You could hardly find anyone to be his friend; it was as if he didn’t have any friends in his life.”

The situation was much the same when he graduated from Harvard and went on to pursue his doctorate at the University of Michigan. In the 1960s, it was uncommon to see someone wearing a jacket and tie on a campus, but Kaczynski maintained this attire, appearing awkward and conservative. His reactions to the outside world were never sensitive, making him seem out of place. “I think he never wanted to step outside and socialize,” said Peter Durand, Ted’s advisor at the University of Michigan. During his studies, Ted had already begun publishing papers in academic journals, a rarity among graduate students at the time. His research focused on bounded functions in advanced calculus, which Durand considered outdated and advised him to choose a more popular and practical field. But Ted refused. The lack of research partners wasn’t a problem for him, as he always preferred to research and work alone—which was why he studied mathematics. At the end of his studies, his doctoral dissertation received the university’s Outstanding Achievement Award, but almost no one around him knew, let alone congratulated him. For him, these things had little meaning, and he felt no sense of accomplishment. In his view, he had only completed some substitute social activities—people’s own abilities were increasingly restricted by the tracks laid out by the system, and they were just sliding along this predetermined track throughout their lives.

In 1967, at the age of 25, Dr. Ted Kaczynski was fortunate enough to be hired as an assistant professor in the Department of Mathematics at the prestigious University of California, Berkeley. Among the 10 scholars newly hired by the department that year, Ted was considered the most promising and most likely to receive tenure.

In 1967, at UC Berkeley, 25-year-old Ted Kaczynski became an assistant professor in the mathematics department.

At that time, beneath the surface of economic prosperity, the United States was experiencing unprecedented ideological turmoil. The New Left, the sexual revolution, the anti-Vietnam War movement, the Black civil rights movement… the traditional elements that had long held orthodox positions in American culture were undergoing fundamental upheaval. The youth’s rejection of tradition led to the rise of counterculture. During this period, New Left thought had a profound influence on young people, directly impacting the rebellious movements of American youth throughout the 1960s in many ways. Psychologist Paul Goodman, in his widely circulated book *Growing Up Stupid* (which was also cited by the bomb killer and found at Kaczynski’s place), keenly observed and analyzed American society, arguing that while American society possessed vast wealth, a phenomenon of “alienation” had emerged among its youth, with many irrational thoughts and behaviors, and that the problem lay within the system itself.

The most influential figure in the “New Left” intellectual movement was the philosopher Herbert Marcuse. In his 1964 book, *The One-Phase Man*, Marcuse elaborated on his “critical social theory.” He reconciled Marxism with Freudianism, arguing that the highly developed productive forces of modern society control people’s minds and behaviors, creating “one-phase man.” He advocated uniting all forces dissatisfied with society to reject the lifestyles and economic methods of modern society, aiming to destroy modern capitalist society. This series of theories had a significant guiding role in the youth rebellion of the 1960s.

The youth political movement at the time became part of the “New Left” ideology. In 1962, the Michigan Student Association for a Democratic Society issued a 62-page manifesto that reflected some of the ideas of the young students involved in the political movement. The most crucial point was the proposal of the slogan “shared democracy,” that is, to establish a social management system in which everyone participates in solving major problems. It proposed to establish some micro-social structures that run parallel to the existing social system, but with their own political, economic, and cultural norms and methods, namely the so-called “parallel communities.”

In his manifesto, *Industrial Society and Its Future*, the bomber extensively re-analyzed and critiqued the ideas of this period, including the “New Left,” the Black Civil Rights Movement, the Women’s Rights Movement, and the Sexual Liberation Movement. However, his own action strategies also stubbornly bore the mark of the new “Left” of this era. For example, he did not deny the significance of violence, believing that one of the functions of violence was to provoke the authorities and force them to take severe retaliatory measures, thereby “tearing off its mask” and guiding people to re-understand American society and themselves.

At the time, UC Berkeley, where Ted was studying, was a hub of student activism. The anti-war movement on campus, in the words of Ted’s alumnus Robert Ward, was “all-encompassing”: “You have to choose; you’re either part of the movement or you’re against it.” Even Ted’s advisor at Michigan, Durand, drafted a manifesto urging his colleagues in education not to serve the state apparatus or sign military service contracts. But Ted remained unchanged, quiet, and avoided all groups and social gatherings. At the time, drugs and sex were rampant among the rebellious students, but Ted simply observed with indifference. “He was naturally introverted and didn’t follow the crowd,” a classmate recalled. Ted was teaching a basic theory course when a prankster pasted a colorful nude illustration from Playboy magazine in the center of the blackboard. Ted, however, acted as if he hadn’t seen it, simply walking around it while writing on the board.

In September 1964, Berkeley publicly banned students from engaging in political and social activities unrelated to their studies on campus, which triggered a much larger “free speech” movement that lasted for six years. This was a direct challenge to the guiding ideology that had prevailed in the United States for many years after the war, that “institutions of higher learning should be an important tool for achieving national goals.” Almost all students participated in this movement, calling for not to be slaves to the system.

Then something happened that deeply surprised those around Ted: he submitted his resignation. “It wasn’t surprising in itself,” recalled John Addison, the former department head. “Many cynical students dropped out and went off to do other things; one of my students went to the countryside to become a carpenter. What surprised me was that it happened to Ted as well. He wasn’t the radical type, and most people thought his future at the college was pretty much set.” Addison tried to persuade Ted to stay and teach, but his mind was made up.

Go to the mountains

In June 1969, Dr. Ted Kaczynski officially resigned his teaching position at UC Berkeley and embarked on a journey akin to that of Henry David Thoreau. A century earlier, Thoreau, weary of the prevailing educational system, left school and began putting his philosophy of making nature his home into practice. For Thoreau, wandering in nature, immersing himself in its observation, and transforming nature into his own consciousness, was a story about us and the places we inhabit, about where we and these places began, and where we will end. He believed that if we can find our place, then we can face the situation of losing it: “Having done so, he might have to rely on the North Star to find his home in the darkness; having lost his way on Earth, he feels closer to it.” In the “fresh, pure environment of the heights,” Thoreau said, “one can feel a sublime and solitary tranquility, far removed from the influence of mediocrity.”

Ted first went to Salt Lake City, where he worked odd jobs at a sawmill, and then traveled to Mexico, where he learned fluent Spanish. Giving up mathematics was, in effect, giving up his only sense of identity in society, his only social connection to mainstream society. At the time, most Americans lived largely similar lives; regardless of political views or religious beliefs, they drove cars, bought vegetables and ready-made foods from mechanized farms in plastic bags from supermarkets, and used refrigerators, air conditioning, and piped gas—these seemed to be the common hallmarks of modern life. Almost no one foresaw the ignorance behind this civilization: industrialization was encroaching on nature, bringing energy crises and other threats to human survival.

At the same time, high technology is making continuous breakthroughs, especially the emergence of third-generation electronic computers and the application of remote sensing technology, which constitute an important part of the third technological revolution.

Once in the mountains, Ted Kaczynski found he could never return to the modern society that was progressing relentlessly according to some kind of inertia. Once, mathematics was his ivory tower, a refuge from interpersonal relationships; now he had nothing left. In 1970, David also graduated from Columbia University. After the frustrations of the rebellion, those who had initially opposed the mainstream culture began to return to mainstream society, and America was entering a conservative era. Faced with the gap between ideals and reality, David felt lost about the future. Because of this, he understood and admired his brother’s life choices. In 1971, he helped his brother buy a piece of land in the wilderness near the Continental Divide in Montana, where Ted built a 10 x 12-foot log cabin and dug a cellar—skills he had learned from his father. Ted lived there for several winters, occasionally going out to find odd jobs to earn a living. In letters to his brother, Ted proudly recounted how he had lived a fairly fulfilling year on a mere few hundred dollars. He worked for a while at a nearby mill, but didn’t seem to be very good at it. “Ted worked very hard; he never slacked off,” said Leland Mason, a 57-year-old shop assistant in town. But he was a bit clumsy and lacked some basic common sense, especially when it came to operating machinery, so he always earned his money with difficulty. One day, a truck came into the mountains, but it broke down, and he didn’t know how to fix it, so he abandoned it. After being exposed to the elements for more than six months, someone bought it and drove it away for only $25 in repair costs. From then on, Ted only rode a bicycle out of the mountains.

Just as we cannot definitively say why he suddenly abandoned his teaching position and retreated to the mountains, it is equally difficult to explain why, after distancing himself from the world, his attachment to it actually increased. On February 28, 1970, he wrote a letter to the local municipal construction department, expressing his concerns about the construction of highways and the widespread use of cars. In 1972, he wrote a lengthy paper criticizing potential problems in genetic research. In an effort to get it published, he sent the article to newspaper columns across the country, but all his submissions were rejected without a trace.

During this period, David taught at a community school in Iowa. Like his brother, he was a quiet, introverted, and intelligent man, but much more easygoing. He would happily accept invitations to neighborhood parties and sometimes invite students or colleagues to his home for chats. His colleague, Jim West, said, “You could talk to David without any reservations. He was shy and didn’t talk much, but he was very understanding. Sometimes we would joke about his seemingly simple-minded nature, and he would blush and talk about his brother, saying that his brother was much smarter than him, and even he himself had difficulty communicating with him.” Another striking impression people had of David was his frugality. At his home, he used jam jars as coffee cups to entertain guests, which was almost an eccentricity in an era of high consumption.

His correspondence with his brother occupied a significant part of his life. He was intimately familiar with the development of his brother’s thoughts and saddened by the repeated failures of his brother’s attempts to communicate with the outside world. The purpose of life—as his brother later vehemently expressed in his letters—was autonomy, a state of absolute freedom. He also refuted John Donne’s assertion that “man cannot be an island,” arguing that only on an island can one live peacefully within oneself.

However, during this period, Ted would still occasionally venture out of the mountains for hikes. David, on the other hand, suddenly resigned from his teaching position in 1976, taking up a bus driving job while writing novels. Unlike his brother, he didn’t like to share his writings publicly; to this day, his novel manuscripts fill several drawers.

“I’m going to sort this out.”

One day in 1977, Donald Surrey, a mathematics professor at Northwestern University in Chicago, received a visitor in his office. The man was tall, thin, with a full beard, spoke with a local accent, and was polite, but his hairstyle and attire were extremely strange and unkempt, as if he came from a very distant and unfamiliar place. The man presented him with a thick stack of papers for his critique. At first, Surrey thought he was a humble student from a community college seeking advice, but upon taking the manuscript, he found it to be a rambling commentary criticizing industrial society and high-tech research. He casually flipped through it, and couldn’t help but feel surprised.

He looked up and met the other man’s anxious yet eager gaze. “Ah, is that so?” Sari asked, somewhat flustered, “Is there anything I can do for you?”

“These are some of my thoughts on the realities of society. I believe it is necessary to involve more people in this kind of thinking and to do something about the realities of society.”

Sari turned his head to the side, indicating that he was willing to hear the details.

“I hope it will get published, but I don’t know how to do it.”

Sari almost burst out laughing: There really are such stubborn and foolish people in the world! But he tried to remain serious, saying, “Yes, yes, but in reality, conflicts arise much faster than we can resolve them, and people often know where the problem lies but still continue to do it.” Seeing that the other person wanted to argue something, he quickly finished speaking: “What I mean is: the problem itself isn’t so simple—but I would recommend you to one or two professors in the engineering department; their field is closer to your interests, and perhaps you’ll have something to talk about.” He hastily wrote the names of two professors from the university’s engineering department on a note and sent the visitor away.

To his surprise, the strange and eccentric man reappeared in his office the next day.

He was wearing the same clothes as yesterday, only looking more disheveled. His hair, which he had deliberately combed back yesterday, was now a mess, as if he had just woken up from a dream. He was still holding that thick thesis in his hand.

“They don’t even want to look at it,” the stranger said in a low voice, clearly trying to suppress the tremor caused by shame and anger, but bitterness was still evident in his tone.

This was no surprise to me, Sari thought, surprised by how fragile and impulsive the man was.

“Ah, to be honest, perhaps your writing is still immature and a bit too emotional. To put it bluntly, I think you might as well go back to school and receive systematic academic training.” Sari clearly regarded the visitor as a boorish man with little cultural refinement.

The other person was deeply provoked, for his face turned red and his body trembled with anger.

“I’m going to sort this out,” he said, enunciating each word clearly, and then he left.

In a later, crucial moment, Surrey found himself desperately needing to know who this person was, but he struggled to recall their name. The man had given their name, and it was signed on the title page of his thesis, but Surrey clearly hadn’t paid attention to these details. He only remembered that the man’s name contained the syllables “K,” “C,” and “Z.” It wasn’t until nearly 20 years later, in 1996, when he read Kaczynski’s name in the newspaper, that Surrey finally understood.

Allen

In 1977, David returned to Chicago and worked at a sponge factory in Lombard, a suburb of the city, where he quickly rose to the position of business manager. David was the kind of person who was extremely dedicated and responsible in whatever he did, even though he was only doing this job to earn some travel money. Like his brother, he thought at the time that he would have to go on the road sooner or later.

Ted’s trip to Chicago was, of course, for his painstakingly written thesis, but it was initially because David had written to him, saying that he could find work back home. “We have to work to survive first,” he said. In addition, he was very much looking forward to the brothers’ reunion after many years apart.

Thus came this rare reunion between the brothers in their hometown. We cannot know what this reunion evoked in Ted, but David was certainly moved by his brother’s travel-worn face. A story was brewing within that travel-worn appearance. But Ted had never been good at expressing himself, or perhaps he refused to. This began when he was nine months old, when he became aware of his situation and developed a certain attitude; from then on, he lay in his baby cradle in the hospital ward.

That year, old Richard was still in relatively good health and ran a small food processing plant. Wanda, after her two sons had left home and she had completed her university studies, tried teaching at a nearby community elementary school, but it didn’t seem to go as smoothly as teaching her own children; she was often teased by the disobedient kids. After a while, the proud Wanda finally left this unbearable job, and the unexpected return of her two sons greatly compensated for her disappointment.

In the summer of 1978, Ted brushed past a woman. It was the only moment in his life he truly connected with reality, making the blow he suffered all the more devastating. Unlike the blow he received in Surrey’s office, this was something he could never truly recover from. Afterward, Ted quickly moved on, disappearing from public view. Looking back now, we might have reason to regret the inexplicable warmth he felt at that time, because it could have rewritten our tragic story.

In the summer of 1978, a new woman named Ellen Tamak arrived at the sponge factory where Ted and David worked. Ted quickly found himself falling in love with her.

As far as we know, Ted had never developed a particular attachment to any woman in his 36 years of life prior to this. He seemed to be interested in only two things from birth: mathematics and monastic life, both of which excluded women. We have traced his abstinent life back to the drug- and sex-ridden Harvard-Berkeley campus of the 1960s, and we know that female students were once attracted to this handsome and unconventional young professor, but none of this had any impact on Ted’s life. Since we believe in the magic of love, it was Ted himself who found it truly incomprehensible that he had fallen in love.

What we know about Ellen is that she was a well-educated woman from the East.

She’s close in age to David, another baby boomer. We don’t know much about her.

But judging from her appearance in the media after Ted’s recent arrest,

One can still vaguely sense her charm from 20 years ago. But charm could never have been the only, or even the main, thing that captivated Ted Kaczynski. Regarding that delicate emotional entanglement...

All we know is that Allen rejected Ted’s advances with a clear, almost cold, understanding. Nearly 20 years later,

She rejected the media’s pursuit with the same almost cold attitude, including their offers of money.

She made it clear that she would not make this private relationship public. However, when de Kaczynski was portrayed by the outside world as a petty, twisted, heartbroken man,

She stood up for him.

On August 23, 1978, David, the factory’s operations manager, decided to fire his brother Ted because he discovered that the heartbroken Ted was scribbling Ellen Tammac’s name on the factory’s machines and even composing doggerel. This continued despite warnings, and his work performance was clearly unsatisfactory, nearly resulting in an accident on one occasion.

It was humiliating for his brother to do something like that, and David could hardly forgive his brother’s outburst. Although he began to feel deep remorse for it many years later, firing Ted was purely a matter of official business, and there wasn’t much room for regret. What troubled David most was that, outside of work, he hadn’t been able to do anything for his brother.

After being fired, Ted didn’t leave Lombard immediately, but instead worked for a while at another factory nearby. During this time, he wrote to Ellen saying that he had considered hurting her, but had changed his mind.

In the mountains

In the summer of 1979, Ted quit his job and returned to the Montana Mountains. This was one of the most pristine and vast wildernesses on the American continent. Apart from the scattered thatched huts left by nomads for shelter, there was no sign of human habitation or any trace of industrial society. Isolated, ignorant, and wildly untamed, it remained almost entirely in its pre-discovery state, the very place where Ted Kaczynski would ultimately entrust his life. In his eyes, it was the entrance to his home, a gateway to paradise. The failures of his efforts to connect with society, and his experiences in the outside world, had given him a new understanding of his origins and destinations. Once back in the mountains, his goals became even clearer.

As for the place Ted chose to settle, we can delve into its appearance before human intervention, using our memories and imagination. In almost any season, there are more bears and badgers than people here. Furthermore, one can hear some of the oldest celestial sounds on Earth, even the soft rustling of dragonfly wings across the grass and trees. Birch and red pine stretch endlessly, ferns thrive, and it offers all sorts of exotic flavors: marigolds and raspberries, wild apples, wild strawberries in spring dew, and persimmons in autumn frost.

Of course, bison still exist here, but the spectacular sight of them roaming in herds as they did 100 years ago is no longer visible. The indiscriminate killing by settlers in the last century nearly wiped them out. It is said that vast swathes of grassland were once stained red with bison blood, and later covered in a trail of bleached bison bones.

Such history imbues this landscape with an eternal sense of tragic beauty. As night falls and the wilderness falls silent, everything becomes a ghostly, dreamlike scene.

However, there are still some things that are beyond our imagination. For example, how did Ted Kaczynski survive day after day, year after year, entirely through his natural vitality in such a wild place where anything could be, but it was definitely not a realistic living environment? We can imagine life in ancient times, but it’s hard to imagine going back to ancient times. Ted must have faced difficulties that all of us modern people would fear, including using eyes accustomed to electric lights to familiarize himself with the pitch-black night of the wilderness, using stomachs accustomed to pure water and cooked food to digest rough wild game, and constantly facing attacks from wild animals.

In the harsh winter when snow blankets the mountains, all sounds on this land are swallowed by the howling north wind, and all life enters a near-death slumber. But Ted is always awake. He would stay in his cabin for months on end, reading by candlelight by the fireplace. He whiled away the most unbearable winter nights with Shakespeare and Thackeray, but spent most of his time reading medieval history, cultural history, the history of science, and even the history of the Chinese revolution.

Sometimes, when the weather became unbearably cold, he would try to hitch a ride on the mail bus into Lincoln, where he would spend several days whiling away the hours in the town library. There, he would read Scientific American and other academic journals, the local Montana newspaper (the library didn’t subscribe to newspapers from other states), and some Spanish and German books. Every month or two, he would also visit Becky Garland’s grocery store in town, because it had a “food bank” that donated free food. Sometimes they also provided used clothing. He always came out with a backpack full of bread and canned tuna. He always rode a rattling bicycle that was almost falling apart, and he reeked of burnt wood. Because of the lack of access to water, he rarely even bathed, and his clothes were extremely filthy, but fortunately, he was never aware of the reactions of others. He was not good at talking to people, and due to his long-term seclusion, he was extremely impatient with necessary conversations, and rarely uttered a complete sentence. He was an oddball, the townspeople said. But there are always oddballs, so this in itself didn’t seem unusual.

Ted plans a trip almost every year, sometimes more, depending on his financial situation. His cabin has no electricity, no running water, and not even a clock. Sometimes he’ll travel a long way to the nearest inn to ask for the exact time. When people curiously ask him what he’s going to do, he simply replies that he’s going away for a few days. Almost every time, he hitchhiks on the highway to Helena and then catches a flight from there.

Like Thoreau’s cabin at Walden Pond, Ted’s log cabin, nestled in Helena National Forest, was built with a borrowed axe. His life bears many traces of deliberate imitation of Thoreau, from his method of digging burrows to his choice of lifestyle. Thoreau once wrote, “If life were not life, I would not want to live it, because life is so costly.” However, it is puzzling that Ted may have overlooked the most fundamental humanistic spirit in Thoreau’s thought; at least, this advice did not resonate with Ted: “A person has no inherent obligation to eliminate any injustice, even if it is the greatest injustice… I came into this world not primarily to make it better or more suitable for living, but to live in it, whether it is good or bad.” This does not mean escapism, Thoreau explains, but rather that we “still have other things to take care of,” that is, we “can fulfill our obligations at any time and in any place”: “He has at least an obligation not to participate in injustice; and if he is unwilling to think more about it, he should not give it factual support.” Thoreau believed that the way to achieve justice is to do what we must do for ourselves, to learn how to live in the world, and the obligation we need to fulfill is to “treat the only spirit that deserves such treatment, and the only one who can understand it, with the utmost kindness and consideration.”

Ted is clearly eager to settle things, which may lead him to resort to any means necessary and live a life of secrecy and gloom for a long time. When someone curiously pries into his life, he warns, “Curiosity will get you a cat’s head.”

As we already know, David and his brother’s correspondence did not cease due to the unpleasant incident in the summer of 1978; rather, a tacit understanding developed between them: they would never discuss the details of their lives in their letters, nor would they pry into each other’s privacy—probably because the course of reality was extremely difficult for them to accept. However, David began to occasionally send money to his brother, because Ted said he had to take some important trips related to the meaning of his life, and David had no intention of knowing anything more.

Interestingly, in 1983, David also left Chicago, choosing a path closer to his brother, following in his footsteps to the wilderness of Texas. Although he lived 1,400 miles away from Ted, he felt spiritually close to him.

Unlike his brother, David was determined to gain wider understanding and acceptance for his philosophy, including his explicit advocacy of nonviolence and his appreciation of the ideas of Gandhi and Thoreau. Even while retreating to the mountains, he maintained contact with friends, and his easygoing and sincere nature quickly earned him a lot of new knowledge in the area. He once joined a group of like-minded individuals in a protest against the construction of a mountain road. “We were all deeply worried about humanity’s enthusiasm for industrial technology. But we were at a loss,” his friend Jonah recalled.

During this time, the Kaczynskis visited their youngest son in the Texas mountains (they also hoped to see Ted, but Ted declined, saying he needed to simplify his life as much as possible. Richard and Wanda felt a sense of loss, but they respected his choice). In a way, Richard could be considered the one who introduced his two sons to nature, but he was still shocked by his sons’ overly primitive lifestyle and impulsively called him “crazy.”

Because his place lacked electricity and running water, David sometimes bathed in a forestry team’s shed in the woods. It was there that he met Sanchez, a Mexican farmer who made a living doing odd jobs. This old man had been extorted and impoverished in Mexico; Sanchez had lost his meager land and, like thousands of other Mexicans who migrated illegally each year, was forced to become an illegal immigrant. Because Sanchez was poorly educated, couldn’t speak English, and was older, he didn’t try to make it in big cities like most illegal immigrants. When David met him, he had been wandering in the Chichiwa Desert of Texas for over a year, working on a farm in Trinwa. David felt deep sympathy for his plight. He taught Sanchez to speak English, helped him write letters to complain and fight for his rights. Of course, David also often told him about himself, about Ted, and even about his own bittersweet college romance. Needless to say, his deep concern and generosity towards Sanchez’s life became a source of sustenance for David himself. Later, he often spoke to Linda about Sanchez’s remarkable involvement in his life’s turning point, how two people from vastly different backgrounds rediscovered themselves through each other’s help. Influenced by the simple and straightforward Sanchez, David’s life underwent a miraculous change: at Sanchez’s urging, he began writing to Linda, his first love whom he hadn’t spoken to for nearly 20 years. Just as Sanchez boasted, his spell worked. In 1989, Linda Patrick, his childhood friend who had sung “Blowin’ in the Wind” with him, found him in the Texas wilderness and together they found their way home. The following year, David cut his long hair and married Linda in New York State. Linda became a lecturer at Union University in Schenectady, New York (now an associate professor), while David became an active social worker. David’s life’s purpose provided immense comfort to Richard, who was suffering from cancer. That year, the elderly Richard ended his life with a shotgun.

1990 was a turning point for Ted, but it took a completely different turn from David’s life. David’s marriage and his father’s death must have been a shock to him, but the result was that he completely severed his remaining connections with society, even complaining that David’s letters about his father’s funeral were too trivial and “not worth marking with a red line.” Naturally, he did not return to Chicago for his father’s funeral.

After that, David and Linda would return to the Texas mountains every year for their vacation. They even dug a new foundation next to their old cabin and carved two intertwined hearts and their initials on it.

David remained concerned about Sanchez’s life on the farm. Knowing that Ted spoke Spanish and could communicate more with Sanchez, David wrote to Ted before leaving Texas, informing him of Sanchez’s situation. This led to a long-term correspondence between Ted Kaczynski and the impoverished 68-year-old farmer with only two years of primary school education. From the end of 1988 until his arrest in 1996, he wrote more than 50 letters to Sanchez. In these letters, he connected Sanchez’s fate with his own, denouncing the state authorities as “cheaters who twist the law and do whatever they want” when discussing Sanchez’s life setbacks. He comforted Sanchez, saying, “Although you have to endure these hardships, you will eventually overcome them, and your descendants will live on, generation after generation. How I wish I had a wife and children!” In these simple correspondence with the farmer, Ted Kaczynski, unusually, relaxed his closed-off heart, revealing a rare human touch.

In his meticulously handwritten and grammatically precise Spanish letters, Ted also described his dire financial situation to Sanchez. With the precision of a mathematician, he wrote: “Speaking of my poverty, I only have $53.01 left. If I don’t hunt some wild rabbits to eat this winter, I’m afraid I won’t make it to Christmas.” That Christmas, perhaps to reassure Sanchez that he was still alive, he sent a special gift: a beautifully carved wooden handle with the inscription in Spanish: “The man in the mountains is forever free.”

David was constantly worried about Ted’s survival. In October 1994, he sent Ted $1,000. Two months later, Thomas Mercer of New Jersey was killed in a mail bomb sent from San Francisco. In February 1995, Ted wrote that he had run out of money and needed to travel, so David wired another $2,000. Two months later, Gilbert Marry was killed in a mail bomb sent from San Clemento.

Chapter Three: The Search

Search

In early 1996,

The bomb killer task force contacted Northwestern University, Brigham Young University, the University of Chicago, and the University of California, Berkeley.

They requested assistance from their libraries to check the borrowing status of several books.

These books were cited by the bomb killer in his anti-industrial technology manifesto. The four books are: L. Sprague de Camp’s *The Ancient Engineers*, Chester C. Tan’s *Chinese Political Thought in the Twentieth Century*, Eric Hoffer’s *The True Believer*, and Hugh Davis Graham and Ted Robert’s *Violence in America: Historical and Comparative Perspectives*.

The universities all stated that such inquiries would not actually help in catching the bomber. “Once the book is returned, the borrower’s identification number is cancelled from our records,” the Chicago Library stated. Robert McKesson, head of the Northwestern University Science and Engineering Library, adopted a bureaucratic tone, saying, “The FBI needs a formal legal subpoena to access our borrowing records.” He was quite dismissive of the FBI’s approach: “We’ve had ‘The Ancient Engineers’ since 1963, and it’s been reprinted countless times—the bomber could get it from any bookstore, library, or even a private vendor.” He also subtly mocked the FBI, suggesting they were exposing themselves rather than searching for the bomber: “There’s an article in ‘Northwestern Summer’ (a student-run newspaper) mentioning that Thomas Taylor (a professor at UC Berkeley who received a bomb from the bomber) was a former faculty member at Northwestern. I don’t think even the FBI knows about that.”

In February, mysterious visitors began to appear from time to time in Lincoln, Montana, and the nearby Blackford River Hotel also saw a number of people dressed in what appeared to be government officials checking in. They left early and returned late, and their whereabouts were unpredictable.

They were members of the bomb killer task force. FBI Director Louis Freeh demanded they do a good job this time, emphasizing “safety first, speed second, and no mistakes allowed.” For one of the longest-running cases in FBI history, this demand was clearly not unreasonable.

Investigators began cautiously approaching the forest that had once been far beyond their sight. Disguised as loggers, postmen, or mountain dwellers, they calmly set up electronic sensors, cameras, and microphones in the woods, positioned snipers near the mysterious cabin, and even deployed satellite surveillance to closely monitor its movements. This high-tech operation, reminiscent of a James Bond film, created a tense and thrilling atmosphere.

The situation clearly disappointed the police. Kaczynski’s living environment was like an isolated island, a desert—not the kind of place where bombs could be made and manipulated—its poverty, decay, and desolation were not fit for a movie. Washington requested more patience, but David Kaczynski insisted that his brother should not be arrested without solid evidence.

The FBI also drew personnel from its elite “Hostage Rescue Task Force,” fully equipping them with gear specifically designed for harsh, icy environments. They were placed on 24-hour alert in the forest, and Kaczynski’s every move was monitored at night using highly sensitive surveillance and listening devices.

“The mantis stalks the cicada, unaware of the oriole behind.” Before the police investigation had even concluded, his whereabouts had already attracted the attention of the ever-present news media. CBS News, somehow obtaining information, sent a message to the FBI, offering to reveal details of their manhunt. The FBI, fearing to alert the suspects, requested more time from CBS. However, within days, CBS couldn’t wait any longer, claiming they were facing competition from another news outlet, ABC, who also wanted the exclusive story. One day, David Kaczynski stepped out of his residence to find himself surrounded by the media; his yard was filled with reporters holding flashbulbs. He was furious.

The FBI was forced to accelerate its actions, no longer able to honor its promises to David Kaczynski. On April 3, FBI Special Agent Donald Satchburn, along with a Justice Department lawyer, submitted a detailed application requesting authorization to search Kaczynski’s residence. The Helena Federal Court approved the application. Immediately, Satchburn and his task force drove from Helena to Lincoln. As they trudged into the woods and knocked on Kaczynski’s wooden door, they felt as if they were placing bets in Las Vegas.

Cassins, dressed in rumpled black clothes, with disheveled hair and covered in grass and dust, hesitated warily for a moment as he opened the door. At that moment, police officers kicked the door open and burst in. Cassins was quickly ushered into the yard and arrested.

On April 3, 1996, at 4:10 PM Eastern Time, the following message appeared on CNN News:

Police arrest bomb killer suspect

The FBI believes they have identified the bomb killer suspect and have obtained a search warrant to begin their investigation in a remote location in Montana.

According to sources, the search took place near Lincoln, Montana, in the mountains along the Continental Divide, about 40 miles from the state capital, Helena. An official spokesperson in Washington stated that no statement would be made for several hours.

Prior to this, the bomb killer task force had primarily focused on the San Clemento area of Northern California and the San Francisco Bay Area. Montana had never received any attention.

April 3, 1996, 11:15 PM Eastern Time

After 18 years of painstaking investigation, the FBI finally led them to a mountain cabin, where they arrested a man who had been a professor at the University of California and had been accused by his family of being a possible perpetrator of a series of bombings.

The suspect was detained for refusing a police search of his residence. His neighbors identified him as Ted Kaczynski. A Justice Department official stated that Kaczynski was arrested to prevent him from interfering with the investigation.

Kaczynski was held in an undisclosed location for the entire day before being taken to downtown Helena on Wednesday evening (April 3) while a search was underway.

Kaczynski, a bearded man known as “the hermit” by his neighbors, is highly likely the bomb killer the FBI has been searching for. Kaczynski graduated from Harvard University in 1962. According to the University of California, Berkeley, he taught in the mathematics department from 1967 until his resignation in 1969.

According to Kaczynski’s neighbors, Kaczynski was about 5 feet 9 inches tall (about 1.80 meters), had a thin face, often wore a straw hat, did not own a car, and always rode a dilapidated bicycle when he went to Lincoln to buy daily necessities.

Bomb manufacturing materials discovered

April 4, 1996

Bomb-making materials found in the cabin of suspected bomb killer.

Police discovered bomb-making materials in the remote cabin of the former Berkeley mathematics professor.

According to sources, police discovered the materials while inspecting boxes in the cabin using X-rays.

Ted Kaczynski’s name was once on the suspect list of the bomb killer task force, but was later removed.

Early Thursday morning (April 4), an unnamed federal investigator said 53-year-old Kaczynski would be charged with bomb-making. Attorney General Janet Reynolds plans to hold a brief press conference on the case this afternoon.

The authorities could detain Kaczynski based on this initial indictment, but would not link it to the bomb killer incident until they had the details of the case.

The FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives searches are ongoing.

“Our search is proceeding very slowly because we don’t know if we’re encountering a trap or a snare,” a federal investigator said.

“He concealed his tracks very carefully,” said Louis Bertram, an FBI official who worked on the bomb killer task force. “He destroyed evidence and hibernated from 1987 to 1993.”

Evidence gathering related to the explosion

The New York Times reported on Thursday that during the search of the cabin, “...police found evidence linking Kaczynski to the bombing, including fingerprints, typewriter markings, explosive devices, and DNA analysis of saliva on stamps (the bomber licked stamps with saliva when mailing bombs and letters).”

Bertrand also said that federal investigators had been monitoring Kaczynski’s cabin for several weeks. The investigation would not have progressed further without the clues provided by Kaczynski’s family in Chicago, who found content in the bomber’s manifesto that matched his statements.

Kaczynski, who was once an assistant professor in the Department of Mathematics at the University of California, Berkeley, graduated from Harvard at the age of 20 and later earned his master’s and doctoral degrees from the University of Michigan.

John Edison, his colleague at Berkeley, said of him, “He was an introvert, but I never heard anything negative about him.”

Kaczynski has lived in this solitary wooden cabin without running water or electricity for over a decade. Neighbors describe him as a reclusive hermit, always traveling on foot or by bicycle. “He was a good man, very refined and quiet, speaking softly. He never bothered anyone,” one woman said. In the early 1970s, after retiring from academia, Kaczynski spent some time in Utah, where he did manual labor and odd jobs.

Dahl Ekerman, who was Kaczynski’s classmate in high school, said that since school, “Ted liked to tinker with batteries, wires, gunpowder, or any material that could be used to make explosives.”

“We even went to parts stores together and made what you call bombs out of everyday items.” Eckerman is now a professor of anthropology at Dartmouth.

April 4, 1996, 3:20 PM Eastern Time

The suspect has not yet been charged as the bomber.

The bombing suspect, Ted John Kaczynski, was taken from a jail to the nearby federal building, where he was charged with possession of explosives.

Kaczynski has not yet been identified as the bomber since 1978, and the current charges could allow investigators to keep him in jail while they gather evidence.

At a brief hearing, the FBI submitted a statement saying that during a search of Kaczynski’s cabin in the woods, they found “a bomb that was about to be made,” chemicals, and diagrams and notes for making the bomb.

In Washington, Attorney General Janet Reynolds said the investigation was ongoing, but she did not want to “comment on an unresolved matter.”

The former university professor, sporting a full beard, was escorted by police today in an orange prison uniform through a loading and unloading tunnel surrounded by news photographers as he entered the courtroom.

In court, Kaczynski answered the judge’s questions politely, but appeared somewhat dazed. He said he didn’t have enough money to hire a lawyer, and Judge Charlie Lowell appointed a public defender for him.

Lowell demanded that Kaczynski respond by noon on Friday (April 5) to whether he needed a hearing for imprisonment or a preliminary investigation to raise his complaint that he should not be tried.

The explosive material seized from Kaczynski’s residence has been sent to the FBI laboratory in Quantigo, Virginia, for further analysis.

Kaczynski’s cabin is located in a canyon 4.5 miles south of Lincoln. According to a neighbor, Clifford Green, Kaczynski built the cabin there in 1971. A police spokesperson said the area lacks water and electricity, making it almost unbelievable that a bomb could be built there.

“He was a hermit,” Ge Ling said. “He was always very polite. But he just didn’t like to talk. He stayed in his little cabin all day long without showing his face.”

Dick Lundberg from Lincoln said he once gave Kaczynski a ride to Helena’s airport.

The investigation is far from over.

The suspect, Ted Kaczynski, has not yet been identified as the bomber, but is charged with possession of explosives. Federal officials stated that the charge is solely to detain him for further investigation and evidence gathering.

Despite the task force having worked for 18 years and despite Kaczynski having been under surveillance for several weeks, the investigation is far from over.

“This investigation is very important and it will continue. They (the police) have done a great job, but there is still a lot to be done,” said U.S. Attorney General Janet Reynolds.

Peter Linren, Kaczynski’s professor at the University of Michigan, agreed with the need for caution: “I want to remind everyone: sooner or later there will be a verdict. But right now, the only person who knows whether Kaczynski was the bomber or not is Kaczynski himself.”

April 5, 1996, 1:30 PM Eastern Time

The typewriter was discovered and is suspected to be the source of the bomb killer’s manifesto.

In Kaczynski 10 × 12

Two hand-operated typewriters were found in a 1,500-foot-long wooden cabin in Montana and have been moved to FBI headquarters in Washington for analysis. The FBI believes one of them is the same type used by the bomber to print the 35,000-word manifesto.

According to officials, the bomb killer’s other letters were also printed from the same printer.

According to a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Justice, Kaczynski has apparently decided to waive his right to a preliminary hearing. A federal grand jury will convene on April 17 to discuss whether to indict Kaczynski on the current charges.

Kaczynski’s family is currently in seclusion in Schenectady, New York. “They don’t want to talk to anyone,” said neighbor Bob Welsh. “They’re completely broken down, they’re having sleepless nights.”

April 6, 1996

Detonate a bomb in Kaczynski’s cabin.

On Saturday (April 6), federal investigators detonated a bomb found in the Kaczynski cabin. They believe the bomb was originally intended to kill someone.

Officials say the FBI is increasingly convinced that the 53-year-old, reclusive Harvard graduate is the killer who has maimed 23 people and taken three lives over the past 18 years.

Federal investigators say the cabin was actually a bomb-making workshop. They X-rayed more than 40 boxes found on the cabin’s rooftop and then moved them to the FBI lab for further analysis. Kaczynski is currently being held at the Lewis-Clark Jail in Helena.

The FBI allowed a group of reporters to tour the cabin on Saturday. It is located at the end of a muddy mountain road and has no water or electricity, and no one else lives nearby.

Two dilapidated bicycles, almost falling apart, leaned against the front of the house; Kaczynski usually rode them around. There were also two gardens in front of the house.

“I don’t believe anyone would want to live in this godforsaken place,” said journalist Martin Walker.

Carol Wells said that Kaczynski had been buying kerosene and batteries from him for years. “This isn’t Ted’s home; it’s just a place he stays,” he said.

Another reporter described the place as “very quiet and peaceful”.

The Kaczynski family’s lawyer announced Saturday that he (David Kaczynski) will hold a press conference on Monday at the University Club in Washington, D.C. The lawyer requested that reporters respect the family’s privacy.

It was his brother, David Kaczynski, who reported Kaczynski to the FBI.

David Kaczynski, who lives in New York, has remained silent since his brother’s arrest.

Attorney Tony Pesegri, who has acted as an intermediary between David Kaczynski and the FBI, said he would release a statement from Kaczynski’s family at a press conference in Washington on Monday, but that they would not appear in public themselves and would continue to refuse any requests for visits.

Kaczynski “Revitalizes” Mountain Economy

In Montana, while federal investigators continued their search and evidence collection at Kaczynski’s residence, the nearby town of Lincoln was jubilantly welcoming a kind of economic revival.

Wayne Kesman, owner of the Blackford River Hotel, said that some plainclothes FBI agents stayed there six weeks ago, and business has been “good” since Kaczynski’s arrest on Wednesday.

Kelsman also owns the 7 Up Farm Dinner Club, where the gift shop sells T-shirts featuring the famous bomb killer’s silhouette and the restaurant bills itself as “FBI Bomb Killer Task Force Headquarters.”

In just two days, 400 of the $20 T-shirts have been sold, and another 2,000 have been pre-ordered. The gift shop also sells commemorative hooded sweatshirts for $50 each.

Officials viewed Kaczynski’s travel records

The FBI is searching Kaczynski’s travel records in hopes of finding traces of the bomb killer.

Kaczynski had long lived in a remote mountain cabin in Montana, but investigators have determined that he made at least 25 trips to Helena (where there is an airport), four of which coincided with the bomb killer’s five attacks.

Parker Hotel owner Jack McCabe said federal investigators obtained records of Kaczynski staying at his hotel between 1982 and 1995. Referring to Kaczynski, McCabe said, “I tried to talk to him several times, but he always gave me the runaround.”

The FBI is also searching for Kaczynski’s other activities, which means hotels, flights, buses, gas stations... anywhere his name has appeared.

Hotel records provide clues to the bomb killer

Investigators of the bomb killer have found hotel records proving that Ted Kaczynski was present during the bombing in San Clemento, California.

It has been revealed that at least two people recall seeing the former mathematics professor in Northern California, the location of the four most recent bombings.

Frank Hensley, an employee at the Royal Hotel in San Clemento, said he saw Kaczynski in the neighborhood almost every year over the past five years.

This hotel is located near the San Clemento bus station, just three blocks from the post office. It was from here that the letter from the 1993 bomber to the New York Times was mailed. According to Hensley, Kaczynski stayed at this hotel two or three times, usually in early spring or summer.

“If he hadn’t been arrested recently, I estimate I would have seen him again sometime this year,” Hensley said.

“I think I’ve seen him buying breakfast here before,” recalled Mike Star, manager of the Burger King restaurant, who said he had seen Kaczynski several times in recent years.

In Washington, Justice Department officials will meet with federal prosecutors from California, New Jersey, Montana, Utah, Connecticut, and Illinois to discuss how to handle the case.

Federal officials said they will continue their search over the next week, with a focus likely to remain on Montana until a jury meets at Great Falls on April 17 to discuss indictments.

Our hearts are with Ted.

April 8, 1996

Our hearts are with Ted.

Kaczynski’s family began suspecting his involvement in the bombings last summer. His brother, David, “believes Ted is involved.”

At a press conference in Washington, lawyer Tony Pesegre read a brief statement from the Kaczynski family:

“Our hearts are with Ted. We extend our deepest sympathies to the victims and their families. We will not be giving any press interviews, now or in the future.”

Pisegri said Kaczynski’s family had not seen him for six years.

According to Pesegri, David Kaczynski began to suspect his brother last summer, especially after learning about the bomb killer’s activities and locations from the newspapers.

David Kaczynski then compared the bomber’s manifesto and open letter with his brother’s past letters. “There were striking similarities in both the content of the ideas and the syntax and wording,” Pesegri said. “David was very disturbed by this.”

Last October, David Kaczynski contacted private investigator Susan Swanson, a close friend of Kaczynski’s wife. Swanson collected Kaczynski’s writings and contacted Clint Vanzand, a former member of the FBI’s Behavioral Science Division. Vanzand and his analysis team concluded that “the manifesto and these written letters are highly likely to have been written by the same person.”

Swanson then contacted Pisegri, who, according to the lawyer, first made contact with the FBI in mid-January 1996.

Pesegri said the Kaczynski family “suffered considerable psychological torment” in deciding to denounce Ted Kaczynski.

“It’s a very loving family. I think David desperately wants to believe that his brother isn’t the killer, and I think he still hopes so… I can tell he’s a bit shaken.”

Pesegri said that neither he nor David Kaczynski were aware of the million-dollar reward when they contacted the FBI.

“It has absolutely nothing to do with this money,” the lawyer stated. Pisegri believes that if the family receives any reward, they will use it for the victims of the bomber.

The family has not contacted Kaczynski since his arrest, but hopes to meet him if possible, Pisegri said. However, Ted Kaczynski stated he does not wish to see his family.

When asked if his family knew why Kaczynski chose to live a reclusive life, Pesegri replied, “I don’t know. They (his family) don’t know. Perhaps we never will.”

Although the Justice Department decided not to disclose the contents of Monday’s (April 8) meeting, one source confirmed that it was only a preliminary meeting to discuss the next steps in the investigation and a suitable trial location.

Because the bomb killer’s crimes were committed in various states, choosing a suitable trial location was not easy.

The search is ongoing.

April 9, 1996

The search of Kaczynski’s cabin is ongoing.

In order not to miss any details, the FBI is still conducting searches of Kaczynski’s residence.

The search was so thorough that the FBI even considered airlifting the entire cabin from the mountains to another location.

According to police, the FBI found names and company names in the cabin. There are reports that the list may include past victims and bombing targets, but this has not yet been confirmed.

Police also stated that reports of a second bomb being found at Kaczynski’s residence were inaccurate. The Justice Department warned that unsubstantiated rumors always seem to plague high-profile cases like this. “People will come up with different theories based on the same evidence,” said a U.S. Department of Justice official.

The official added that when a case involves too many agencies—such as the Postal Service, the FBI, and the Department of Justice—unspoken competition and infighting between them are inevitable. “Sometimes leaked information is exaggerated in a clearly biased way, and the result is bad,” he said.

In Helena, Kaskiy remains incarcerated at Lewis-Clark Jail, where he lives alone in a 7x10-foot cell, isolated from the other inmates.

As a prisoner, Helena’s chief justice, Chuck O’Reilly, said he was “no different from any other prisoner.”

“But he was always writing furiously,” Oriel said. “I don’t know what he was writing because we weren’t allowed to look at them. But we saw him constantly reading medieval history books. He also took walks in the courtyard and played basketball by himself.”

He was extremely polite to the regulators, and although he seemed nervous in the first few days, he is now clearly much more relaxed and at ease, Oriel said.

This serene recluse has apparently become a hot topic in legal circles. Mike Donahue, the court-appointed lawyer for Kaczynski, filed a motion on Monday (April 8^th) to prevent other lawyers from taking his client away. Kaczynski has also apparently received numerous letters of self-recommendation from lawyers willing to represent him. Some lawyers expressed deep admiration for Kaczynski’s resentment towards high technology in their letters, while others wrote poems in his honor.

Kaczynski doesn’t use public phones.

This bomb-wielding suspect, a former mathematics professor, could build sophisticated bombs but didn’t know how to use a public telephone.

According to a telephone company, in 1991 Kaczynski wrote to the state commerce department complaining that several telephones in Lincoln were unusable, failing to connect after inserting coins and thus cheating him out of his money.

“He didn’t know how payphones worked,” said Bob Orr, general manager of Lincoln Telephone Company.

Kaczynski often complained about the two payphones along the Lincoln town highway, unaware that he had to wait for someone to answer before inserting a coin.

“The instructions are right there on the phone,” Orr said. “All he has to do is read them.”

Kaczynski’s cabin had no running water, no electricity, and no telephone, so he would often stop by the telephone company to complain when he passed by. “He would come to the office, and we would return the amount of money he had inserted,” Orr said.

“It is clear that the telephone company has a responsibility to replace the broken telephones, or to repair them as soon as possible, or to simply remove them,” he wrote in a letter. “The telephones are still squeezing the public’s money, and the telephone company is turning a deaf ear, so they are deliberately deceiving people.”

Orr said the call actually only cost 10 cents to get through. Kaczynski’s letter was sent to the state public service commission that handled telephone company affairs, and the commissioner forwarded the letter to the telephone company, which then wrote back to Kaczynski.

The letter specified that coins should be inserted after answering, and indicated which phone calls could be connected without inserting coins.

April 10, 1996

The judge refused to disclose the contents of the arrest warrant.

A federal judge rejected the press’s request to release the arrest warrant and related investigative materials. U.S. District Judge Charles Lowell said this would have to wait until the search was completed and a grand jury indicted the suspects.

NBC, The New York Times, and The Denver Post believe the warrant must contain specific information that police need to search and information from the FBI.

Reports of new discoveries at the Kaczynski cabin continue to emerge. The latest reports appear in the Chicago Tribune and the San Francisco Chronicle, claiming that a pair of sunglasses and a hooded tracksuit similar to those seen in the silhouette of the bomber were found in the Montana cabin. The silhouette was originally drawn based on the impression of the bomber’s sole eyewitness.

A legal professional told The Assistance News that the FBI has evidence that Kaczynski may have had occasional contact with at least four of the bomb killer’s victims.

·

Pat Fisher, professor of computer science at Vanderbilt University, was injured in a mail bombing in 1982. While Kaczynski was studying at Harvard, Fisher was at MIT and took electives at Harvard. Both institutions are located in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

“We might be in the same class,” Fisher said. “I think he knows who I am.”

This connection persisted during Kaczynski’s graduate studies in mathematics at the University of Michigan: Fisher’s father worked in the department, and Fisher frequently visited him.

James O’Knell was injured in the 1985 bombing. He taught in the psychology department at the University of Michigan in the mid-1960s, where Kaczynski was also present.

·

Hugh Sgulaton was killed in 1985 by a bomb placed outside his computer store. He had taken math courses at UC Berkeley in the summer of 1967, the same year Kaczynski began teaching in the school’s math department.

·

Percy Wood, president of Air Harbor Airlines, was injured by a mail bomb in 1980. From 1967 to 1969, he was a member of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Pollution Control Council. Kaczynski was teaching at Berkeley at that time. Wood told a reporter from the Oakland Tribune that he did not remember Kaczynski and did not recall any environmental controversies that had drawn his attention.

Other developments:

The New York Times reported that a third typewriter was found in Kaczynski’s cabin. Investigators are attempting to link these typewriters to letters and manifestos printed by the bomber.

USA Today reported that an eyewitness recalled seeing Kaczynski looking for work at a temporary employment agency in Salt Lake City in 1978.

The article states that the job agency was not far from the computer store where the explosion occurred nine years later. Another person recalled seeing Kaczynski in the vicinity between 1992 and 1993.

The Washington Post, citing investigative data, reported that shortly before the December 10, 1994 bombing, Kaczynski received a $1,000 money order from his brother David, and then David sent him another $2,000 before the April 24, 1995 bombing.

-

NBC

The report said that a bomb package was found in Kaczynski’s cabin. It was already wrapped and ready to be mailed, with a fake mailing address written on it, but the destination was not yet filled in.

I never felt that he had any faults.

Kaczynski was “the last person in the world I could think of who would be involved in the bombing,” said Robert Ripper, Kaczynski’s high school teacher.

“I never thought he was bad at all during the time I knew him,” Ripert said, who had taught Kaczynski math, physics, and chemistry. Ripert remembered Kaczynski as “a cheerful and outgoing child.”

At least during his teenage years, Kaczynski was by no means the reclusive person people imagined, Ripert said. Of the thousands of students he taught, he said Kaczynski was “one of the top three or four.”

“He participated in many extracurricular activities, and he was very creative. Sometimes I would finish teaching him how to prove a theorem, and a few days later he would come up to me and say, ‘I’ve found another way to prove it,’” Ripert said. “He had the mind of a mathematician from a young age.”

The FBI is investigating Kaczynski’s romances.

The FBI investigated Kaczynski’s failed romance during 1978, the year the bomb killers began to emerge.

In 1978, while working at a sponge latex factory where his brother David worked, Kaczynski was fired after harassing a female colleague after she refused his advances. In May 1978, the bomber began his bloody career. However, current information does not confirm whether Kaczynski’s dismissal occurred during this period.

The woman, who was described by the media as having had a romantic relationship with Kaczynski, came out to declare that she had never had a personal relationship with Kaczynski because “we had nothing in common.”

Ellen Tamek had worked as a department manager at a packaging materials plant in the Chicago area, where Kaczynski worked for two months before being fired by his brother David.

Accompanied by two lawyers, Tamick read a statement refuting media rumors and reports at a press conference.

She said she first met Kaczynski when he had just started working at the factory as an operator. That day was June 23, 1978—about a month after the bomb killer appeared. On May 26, 1978, a bomb exploded on the Northwestern University campus north of Chicago.

Tamak said she was disgusted by the constant phone calls to her home and workplace, and the high prices offered to persuade her to give interviews.

She said she had turned down various offers, including one for $10,000. Tamak refused to disclose her current work location or identity.

“I am not a public figure, and I do not believe that taking advantage of someone’s misfortune is appropriate,” she said. She added that she had never received threats from Kaczynski, nor had he ever discussed environmental or industrial technology issues with her. Tamak said she was “surprised” by Kaczynski’s arrest. She described him as “intelligent and calm.”

Kaczynski’s possible motives for making the bomb remain a mystery.

U.S. District Judge Charles Lowell, at the request of federal prosecutors, sealed off the cabin and 1.4 acres of surrounding property on Thursday (April 11), where police will conduct further searches.

A legal professional said he suspects Kaczynski’s failed romance may have been a motive for his bombing activities. Kaczynski is said to have had almost no contact with anyone since moving to the Montana Forest.

The New York Times detailed Kaczynski’s seven-year correspondence with a Mexican farmer during his reclusive life. “Although you are going to suffer a lot now, you will eventually overcome them, and your children will grow up and continue generation after generation,” Kaczynski wrote to Mexican farmer Sanchez in May 1994.

“I really wish I had a wife and children,” he wrote.

Attorney General Janet Reynolds declined to discuss whether Kaczynski would face the death penalty if he were indeed the bomber.

The Justice Department announced that a six-member task force investigating the bomb killer will handle the investigation and prosecution. The task force will be led by New Jersey federal prosecutor Robert Collier.

The Manifesto of the Bomb Killer Was Found

April 12, 1996, 7:30 PM Eastern Time

Official news: The bomber’s manifesto was found in the cabin.

(CNN News) — The original printed copy of the bomb killer’s manifesto has been found in Kaczynski’s cabin, a Justice Department official told CNN on Friday (April 12).

In 1995, the bomber sent a 35,000-word manifesto to a domestic newspaper, along with a letter threatening to continue his bombing activities if it was not published. The original manuscript of this letter was also found in the cabin.

The 35,000-word book, “Industrial Society and Its Future,” is the bomb killer’s declaration of war against high technology and the warrant for his killing spree. Its discovery in Kaczynski’s cabin further convinced investigators that they had found the person they were looking for.

“He left behind not just a still-smoking, hot gun, but fingerprints, and all of these fingerprints point to our defendant, Kaczynski,” said lawyer Joe Larsenello.

Kaczynski has not yet been charged in connection with the bombing killer case, but he is clearly facing a growing backlog of evidence.

Archived electrical wires from past bombings, particularly copper wires, can help determine if they match the origin of those found in the cabin. Additionally, there are...

DNA evidence included hair found at the crime scene and saliva samples from the stamps used to attach them.

More compelling evidence is emerging from repeated searches of the cabin:

·

According to The New York Times, texts related to some of the victims of the bomb killer were found in Kaczynski’s notebooks.

• Wearing sunglasses and a hooded tracksuit similar to those in the silhouette of the bomb killer.

• One bomb is already completed and another is under construction.

·

A third typewriter was found in the cramped attic of the Kaczynski cabin. A printed copy of what appeared to be the bomb killer’s manifesto lay next to it.

One of Kaczynski’s typewriters was bought from Cindy Davis’s grocery store.

“Ted sometimes comes to the store to pick up donated clothes. He took a fancy to an old typewriter I had, which I had priced at $10. I gave it to him for free when I was about to close the store,” Cindy said.

April 15, 1996, 3:30 PM Eastern Time

The inventory of items in the Kaczynski cabin has been made public.

A federal judge on Monday (April 15) ordered the FBI to release a list of more than 700 items found in the cabin.

Judge Charles Lowell also informed the FBI that Kaczynski’s lawyers, Mike Donach and Anthony Carrar, could be allowed a “limited inspection” of the cabin near Lincoln.

Among the items found in the cabin were a .22 caliber handgun, a company official address book, a list of mathematics professors from UC Berkeley, a San Francisco street map, and a bus timetable.

The bomber carried out three bombings in the San Francisco Bay Area. The list did not disclose the names of company officials, but it did include a hooded sweatshirt, a blue zip-up t-shirt, and two pairs of plastic sunglasses.

The Washington Post reported that the FBI identified the names of approximately 25 professors in Kaczynski’s notes and other documents.

Lowell’s decision to release this long list marked the end of the FBI’s search of the cabin. Federal investigators also found six books on Eastern mysticism, a Bible guide, a Bible dictionary, a book titled *Growing Up Foolish*, and a bottle of antidepressants. Police seized more than 100 books in total.

The Saturday Review published a 222-word letter written by Kaczynski on February 28, 1970, criticizing the construction of highways and the use of cars. This letter expressed views similar to those of the bomber’s 35,000-word manifesto.

Another letter, written in 1978, was addressed to the woman he had pursued. Time magazine reported that Kaczynski stated in the letter that he had considered hurting her, but he abandoned the idea.

The Washington Post identified the woman as Ellen Tamak, who lives in Aurora, Illinois.

Although federal officials denied that they had found the (bomb killer’s) pre-arranged targets, many people, including academics and timber industry officials, were informed by police that their names appeared in Kaczynski’s notes and documents.

Strut Udowski, chair of the Department of Psychiatry at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said his name had been informed that it was on Kaczynski’s list.

The chemicals found in the cabin included: potassium nitrate, ammonium nitrate, alum, manganese dioxide, boric acid, aluminum ammonium, copper compounds, salt solution, lead hydroxide, and lead carbonate.

These chemicals were packaged in bottles with Kaczynski’s handwritten labels.

In addition, among Kaczynski’s messy books, documents, and notes, an envelope filled with blank paper was found with the word “autobiography” written on it.

Appendix: Some of the items found in Kaczynski’s cabin:

• bomb components

• Temporary explosive device

• bomb

• Handmade detonator

• Switch trigger inside a plastic can

A box containing articles, newspaper clippings, bus timetables, directories, and maps

• A .25 caliber Raven Arms pistol and bullets wrapped in newspaper.

• Bolt-action .22 caliber rifle

• Remington .30–06 gun

• .22 caliber black-handled revolver and nine strings of ammunition

• Homemade pistol

• Toolbox, including pliers, saw, axe, etc.

• 232 books

• 16 notebooks

• 3 typewriters

• 7 volumes of maps

• Several pages of practice sheets with mathematical equations drawn on them

• A Montana driver’s license and $32 in cash were in a plastic bag.

• A bottle of the antidepressant Trazadone

April 17, 1996

Kaczynski’s lawyers are demanding the withdrawal of the lawsuit.

Just as the federal grand jury was setting a schedule to begin considering indictments against Kaczynski, his lawyers argued that their client was unlikely to receive a fair trial due to leaks and frequent comments from federal authorities regarding the search. The two lawyers filed a motion to halt further investigations.

The motion also calls for the court to return the property seized from Kaczynski’s cabin and to postpone the grand jury trial.

Attached to the motion was a 10-page list detailing information leaked to the press from unknown sources. The motion stated that if the government argued it bore no responsibility for such leaks, the defense would demand that the press provide the sources of this information.

Grand jury postpones trial of bomb killer.

The federal grand jury, which was originally scheduled to begin discussions on the Kaczynski case on Wednesday (April 17), has postponed its actions, and officials have not yet revealed when formal charges against Kaczynski will begin.

April 21, 1996

The task force investigated Kaczynski’s reading habits.

Investigators are searching local libraries and bookstores for information about Kaczynski. According to Anna Hale, manager of Aunt Bonnie’s Bookstore, Kaczynski frequently visited the store to browse books on political science and mathematics. Weeks before Kaczynski’s arrest, the FBI had Hale look for several books and magazines there.

Although Hale stated that the FBI’s list included books sold in her store, she couldn’t recall which one Kaczynski had bought.

Robert Diederrickson, a writer who lived in Lincoln, said he often saw Kaczynski at the town library. “He was always in a hurry,” the writer recalled.

Two walls of the cabin belonging to bombing suspect Ted Kaczynski were entirely filled with books. Some of these books were purchased from Aunt Bonnie’s Bookstore in Helena. Bookstore records indicate that Kaczynski visited the store six times since May 1995.

Federal investigators seized hundreds of books and magazines from the cabin. Under state law, library staff are prohibited from disclosing borrowing records, but several librarians from the Lincoln area have already been taken in by the FBI.

Meanwhile, Kaczynski read medieval history in prison and occasionally glanced at the newspapers.

May 1, 1996

“I’m going to sort this out.”

A mathematics professor recently said he was almost certain that the bombing suspect, Kaczynski, was the same person who visited him in 1977.

Northwestern University professor Donald Surrey said at a press conference on Wednesday (May 1) that shortly after Kaczynski’s arrest, he wrote a letter to the FBI. He said that when he first saw the photo on Kaczynski’s driver’s license, he did not think that Kaczynski was the visitor from the past, but after seeing more photos of Kaczynski in the newspaper, he confirmed that the man was the visitor from 1977.

Sarri said he was “99.99% sure” he had met the man between 1977 and 1978.

“He is a very distinctive person, and I recognized him at a glance, even though he had a beard.”

Surrey said that in 1977, a man visited him and showed him an article criticizing industrial technology, hoping he could help get it published. Surrey said he thought the article was “a bit naive” and sent him to other engineering professors at Northwestern University and the University of Illinois.

“I said he should move beyond that naivety, which means he should go back to school and study for a few more years,” Sari said.

The visitor was clearly angry, Sari said. “He didn’t raise his voice, but he was trembling with anger as he said, ‘I’m going to settle this.’”

Not long after, by chance, Surrey met this man again in a lecture hall at Northwestern University, where he was giving a lecture entitled “Gunpowder: For Good or For Evil?”

Five weeks later, the bomber made his first appearance, with the bombing taking place in front of the engineering building on the University of Illinois at Chicago campus.

Sixteen years ago, Surrey responded to the FBI’s call for public cooperation and recounted this incident, although he did not know the name of the person in question.

In September 1994, he contacted the FBI again, by which time the bomber had committed 14 crimes.

In April 1995, he wrote a three-page detailed statement to the FBI, but received no response.

Sari said he remembered the man’s name contained the letters C, S, and Z, but it wasn’t until he saw the FBI on TV last month that he suddenly remembered the full name.

Kaczynski accused of being the bomb killer

June 18, 1996

Kaczynski accused of being the bomb killer

Ted Kaczynski, the suspect in the bombing, was charged on Tuesday (June 18) as the perpetrator of two murders and two assaults. The indictment aims to bring the death penalty upon the former mathematics professor, who has become a recluse in Montana.

The indictment includes the bombing cases;

December 11, 1985: Hugh Scratton, age 38.

He was killed in a bombing near his computer store in San Clemento. Two articles of the charges support the federal government’s death penalty provisions.

June 22, 1993:

Charles Epstein, a geneticist at the University of California, San Francisco, was injured in a bombing at his home. The bomb was sent from San Clemento.

June 24, 1993:

Yale University computer science professor David Gallente was injured in his office by a bomb sent from San Clemento.

April 24, 1995: Gilbert Marry, 47, President of the California Forestry Association.

He was killed by a bomb mail package at the association’s headquarters in San Clemento. The package was sent from Oakland. One of the charges supports the federal government’s death penalty provisions.

Investigators and prosecutors said they focused the case on the 1995 bombing because it left strong evidence of bomb debris, and also because Marry’s death occurred after a federal court reinstated the death sentence in 1994.

Kaczynski will be transferred to San Clemento Prison. “Here he will have a bed, a latrine, a bathtub, and a table. He will also have a window for light and a view outside,” said San Clemento Prison Warden Glenn Clueg.

It appears that federal grand juries in other states will proceed with separate indictments. Currently, the potential sentences in the San Clemento indictment include 20 years in prison without parole and the death penalty.

June 23, 1996

The suspect in the bombing was taken to California.

The bombing suspect, Ted Kaczynski, arrived in San Clemento today, where he will face four charges related to the terrorist who rebelled against industrial technology.

Cassins disembarked from the plane at 11:00 AM.

They were taken to a black police car and escorted by a convoy of security police to San Clemento prison.

June 25, 1996, 4:45 PM Eastern Time

Kaczynski pleaded not guilty to charges in the bomb killer case.

Kaczynski’s lawyers pleaded not guilty in the four bombing murder cases.

Kaczynski, 54, was not handcuffed and was wearing a green shirt, brown trousers, and tennis shoes. He remained silent throughout the hearing, only nodding when Judge Peter Novinsky appointed a public defender for him.

He spent Monday at the San Clemento prison, going for a walk in the morning, eating breakfast alone in his cell, and greeting his guards. Kaczynski was isolated from the other inmates. Although visitors were allowed, a prison spokesperson said Kaczynski did not want to see anyone.

“He is a very well-mannered prisoner—he obeys all our requests,” said spokeswoman Sharon Taylors. “However, he is quite withdrawn.”

Kaczynski’s lawyer, Quinn Danville, estimates the trial will take place in 18 months.

If convicted, he could face the death penalty.

After 18 years of being passively attacked and wrongly arrested 200

Multiple suspects, interviews with tens of thousands of self-proclaimed informants, and over 20,000 calls to 1-800-701-BOMB

After the hotline tip-off, the FBI has learned its lesson.

They still refused to say that they had caught the real bomb killer.

Eighteen years later, the bomb killer case is far from over. Even as Kaczynski appeared in court, the bomb killer task force’s hotline was still ringing. An official spokesperson stated that the hotline remains active, available 24/7.

Chapter Four: Aftermath

Aftermath

Less than a month after his arrest, Ted Kaczynski, the suspect in the bombing, has found himself at a peculiar crossroads in American culture, where he has become infamous for his heinous crimes.

The 35,000-word manifesto of “Unabomber” Kaczynski sold out in many bookstores, Kaczynski became a hot topic on the internet, and people could even buy T-shirts printed with “Unabomber” (his nickname) as if he were a rock star; a campaign to run for president with Kaczynski’s signature was also underway. Clearly, the public reaction to Kaczynski far surpassed that of Timothy McWay, the Oklahoma City bombing suspect.

While federal agencies were intensely investigating the Kaczynski case and the legal department was repeatedly scrutinizing the prosecution, Americans generally showed strong curiosity and interest in this Montana hermit who allegedly took three lives, crippled 23 people, and carried out terrorist activities for 18 years.

This may be because the case is one of the most bizarre and horrifying in the United States this century. But criminologists, writers, psychologists, and other scholars believe that the public’s interest in it has a deeper meaning—that it reveals Americans’ deep-seated reverence for the wild individual master and their anxiety about runaway industrial technology.

“The bomber has almost become a folk hero because he managed to outmaneuver the police for so many years; that alone makes him famous,” said Eric Hatch, a criminology expert at California State University. Hatch had been an advisor to the FBI task force for many years.

At first glance, calling the bomber or Kaczynski (if he really was the bomber) a “folk hero” seems absurd and ridiculous—he not only killed and injured many innocent people, ruining their futures and disrupting the normal lives of many families, but also left tens of thousands of people living in an invisible shadow for a long time.

“There is certainly a considerable element of sympathy involved, and this sympathy comes not only from the poor, but from all socioeconomic classes. These people do not feel like they are part of society. They will think: He shouldn’t have done this; he shouldn’t have killed someone, but I can understand his frustration and his anger.”

A thrilling story

Undoubtedly, the story itself is the main attraction.

Humans’ love of stories is almost innate, says Nancy Rothenberger, assistant professor of comparative literature at UC Berkeley. Stories are not only entertaining, but they also shape heroes and villains, thereby reinforcing cultural values and providing life lessons. “Stories are one of the earliest ways people understand the world.”

On a superficial level, the story of the bomb killer easily evokes the mysterious and suspenseful detective films commonplace in cinema. On a deeper level, it resonates with the existential dilemmas and moral struggles depicted in Dostoevsky’s *Crime and Punishment*. After more than a decade of character development and build-up, the bomb killer’s story culminates in a series of climaxes after 1993. Finally, after crippling two professors, killing an advertising executive, and a lumber industry activist, the bomb killer doesn’t forget to add a touch of humor, threatening to blow up an airplane. In contrast, the FBI is overwhelmed, organizing the largest investigative operation in American history, yet remaining utterly helpless for over a decade.

This piqued public interest, captivating many. The bomb killer, like a supervillain in a farce, became the public’s number one criminal genius.

When Cassins was arrested on April 3^rd of this year, the story took on a series of twists and turns, with the characters’ personalities full of contradictions and shrouded in mystery. A lonely genius, captivatingly shy; a brilliant mathematician, a born bomb-wielder. A stubborn, extremely cold and reserved man, yet he had written letters to a Mexican farmer for a long time, overflowing with comfort, sympathy, and care, revealing a longing for family and the joys of being surrounded by wife and children.

“His level and educational background are beyond the norm,” said David Spear, professor of psychology and behavioral sciences at Stanford University. “What attracts attention is that it challenges our usual notions that education and good upbringing can solve any problem.”

The philosophy of captivating people

The story of the bomb killer easily evokes interest and sympathy on many levels, some consciously, some unconsciously. What’s most moving is his expression of concern for the natural environment and his rejection of industrial technology.

Author Kirkpatrick Sell

Sale is a prominent figure in the emerging anti-industrial technology movement in the United States. He said that he discussed bomb killer rhetoric in a speech last year, which received a very strong public response.

“What surprised me was that so many people were willing to listen to his ideas and find resonance in them.”

“The problem it reveals is that industrial technology is eroding us psychologically, economically, and socially. I think we should discuss this in the media. To be honest, I think the bomb killer has done a great job in this regard.”

Searle further points out: “What makes this interesting is that this is a person with extremely high intelligence who can judge himself to be absolutely right, and then stubbornly stick to his convictions and act unilaterally. Most people don’t think they can do that; they usually feel powerless in their own situation. That’s also what’s interesting, even if people disagree with his ideas.”

Wild individualism

Kaczynski’s story is a typical American myth, reminiscent of many similar tales, such as the Puritans’ relentless pursuit of freedom, Daniel Boone’s courageous and pioneering journey, and Henry David Thoreau’s solitary life in his cabin at Walden Pond.

“Some of the bomb killer’s high-sounding pronouncements and Kaczynski’s lifestyle are remarkably consistent with the American way of thinking,” says Robert Harrison, a professor at Stanford University. Harrison, in his book *The Forest* (1992), explored the significant role of the forest in Western thought. In the conversation, Harrison contrasts Kaczynski with Thoreau, who famously declared that individuals should live according to their own moral code, a philosophy that has had a profound impact on posterity. “Like Thoreau, the bomb killer hoped to rouse people with his words,” Harrison notes, “but the late 20^th century was fundamentally different from the mid-19^th century. To gain acceptance for his views and claims, the bomb killer felt the need to first attract attention with bombs.” Therefore, the dividing line between the bomb killer and his predecessors is that he killed people.

Uncertain Legend

Despite the huge public reaction to the bomber, opinions on his historical significance are divided.

Some scholars worry that the bomber will become a role model for non-mainstream individuals or groups who hold dissenting views on society. For example, radical environmental organizations have found the bomber’s words and actions “inspiring.”

Scholars are equally interested in the topic of bomb killers. Professor Harrilin said that a major publishing house has approached him, hoping to publish a collection of essays on the lives and thoughts of bomb killers.

With the Kaczynski case under trial, Kaczynski will remain a hot topic of public discussion for a considerable period of time. Genold Yullman, a member of OJ Simpson’s “dream team” and a defense attorney, predicts that the Kaczynski case will be a truly spectacular “trial of the century.”

The trial and its outcome will ultimately determine how the story of the bomber will be written into American history and how it will circulate among the public.

“Neo-Luddite”

After the bomber’s manifesto was published, the media was in an uproar and the public reacted enthusiastically. Among the many who responded enthusiastically were John Zerzan, the well-known anarchist from Oregon.

“It is regrettable that his views and propositions ultimately had to be made public through violent means,” Zerzan said. Zerzan has long been regarded as a “master” among American leftists and anarchists. “Violence is a last resort, but it seems that his views and propositions have finally seen the light of day.”

Investigators of the bombing killer have been closely monitoring the activities of various extremist groups, hoping to find clues from anarchist movements, their information networks, leaflets, and activities. Oregon, where Zerzan is located, has long been a region where anarchist movements are active.

Zerzan, idolized by his followers, appeared calm and gentle, with a touch of melancholy in his pale face. “The Neo-Luddite”—that’s how people liked to describe Zerzan and his self-proclaimed anarchist movement.

Zerzan himself believed that industrial technology, in essence, is the control of people’s minds, which contradicts the principle of freedom. In commenting on the bomb killer’s manifesto, he said: “We anarchists do not have any deep-seated grudge against industrial technology, and we are certainly happy to see industrial technology serve society. But what we want to say is that our social organization creates a false impression that modern industrial technology can solve social poverty and many other problems.”

Zerzan considered the bomb killer’s manifesto to be “spot on.” Zerzan’s reflections on industrial technological innovation and his critique of advertising consumerism are concentrated in his essay collections *Elements of Refusal* and *Future Primitive*.

In its May 1995 issue, the New York-based Anarchist Quarterly described The Component of Rejection as something that “would drive you to kill your landlord, your boss, your television, your alarm clock, the Oxford English Dictionary, the museum curator, and the local guru.”

Another writer known for his vehement anti-industrial technology stance, Kerpatrick Searle, described himself as a “deep admirer” of Zerzan, speculating that the anarchists and radical environmentalists whom the bomber cited as allies in his manifesto might have been Zerzan. “I believe that in this small world, Mr. Zerzan’s voice resonated with many and inspired their minds,” Searle said.

“My political stance is to destroy industrial technology,” Zerzan said, “to return to an era without the division of labor.”

In his sparsely furnished, book-lined apartment in Eugene, Oregon, when asked by a New York Times reporter how he planned to implement his political agenda, Zerzan said, “It’s a big question, it’s tricky. I’m certainly willing to imagine, but I don’t want to give any concrete blueprints,” probably knowing that his “blueprints” would cause trouble.

John Zerzan dreamed of becoming a university professor during his student days in the late 1960s. He graduated from Stanford University with a degree in political science and later earned a master’s degree in history from San Francisco State University. “Looking back now, it was all a waste of time,” he said. He also completed three years of doctoral studies at the University of Southern California.

He later worked for several years in San Francisco promoting the labor movement before moving to Eugene, Oregon in the early 1980s, primarily because of the lower cost of living and the greater amount of time he could dedicate to reading and writing. “I mainly make a living by doing odd jobs; I don’t earn any money from publishing books,” he said, noting that most of his publications were not for sale.

Zerzan remains single and leads a very simple life. Naturally, he doesn’t use computers. “Not only because I’m philosophically opposed to it,” Zerzan says, “but also because for me, writing requires paper and pen. I don’t understand how a machine can help you think.”

The bomb killer is running for president

The 1996 US presidential election, like most political games of this era, became a tedious routine. Opponents engaged in heated debates in the media, which were essentially empty rhetoric, or they got bogged down in trivial details. It was all just a formality, and the public had to patiently listen.

However, in mid-May this year, a unique election farce unfolded in front of the Boston Public Library, Boston’s largest district, leaving some people amazed, others speechless, and the rest completely bewildered.

One morning at 7:30, some campaign workers had already gathered here, and several of them had unfurled a banner that read “1996 Signature Campaign for Bomb Killer,” which was clearly visible.

“There are more signs here that say ‘bomb killer’ than signs that say ‘Clinton,’ ‘Gore’—or even if you include the Republicans,’” a reporter said, standing in front of a camera and holding a microphone. “So it seems that the bomb killer has definitely won out.”

Some of the “Bomber Killer Campaign” participants were carrying Nazi symbols, indicating their white supremacist affiliation, which angered those around them, including other members of the campaign. A tall man finally snapped and yelled at the group, “Fuck you fascists!” He then turned and shouted at the camera pointed at him, “Don’t point your damn camera at me!”

When he noticed a reporter still taking pictures of him, he angrily threw his coffee at the reporter’s face, then punched him, knocking off the reporter’s glasses. He clearly transferred his anger towards the Nazis to the news media, vividly illustrating the public’s weariness with the media’s role in political events.

“What’s going on here?” another journalist jumped over and pointed his microphone at the photographer.

At that moment, the tall man ran into the library.

“I was just taking pictures,” the photojournalist said, wiping his face with a tissue. “That person works in this library.”

“So you’re an independent photographer, and you’ve been attacked,” the reporter, holding the microphone, emphasized dramatically, turning to face his television camera and saying, “It seems things aren’t looking good here.”

“Indeed, quite a few onlookers felt provoked (by the Nazi symbol),” another journalist commented.

“It’s disgusting,” one onlooker said in front of the television cameras. “I find it absolutely disgusting.”

“What do you think?” a reporter asked Chris Koda, one of the event organizers. The reporter’s question was clearly emotional: “Think about what has happened in Israel’s history, why don’t you just take this stuff home?”

“Oh, of course not,” Koda replied, “There are many people in this country who are ready to bring the Nazis back.”

Many journalists wanted to know more, but Koda then backed into his car. A reporter caught up with him and asked which organization he represented. He hastily replied, “The Institute of Global Dada.”

In this sense, the 1996 election for the bomb killer can be seen as a revival of the Situationism movement in Paris during the 1950s and 60s. That movement used pranks to lure the news media in order to spread its serious ideas; it was essentially Dadaism in the age of mass media.

UNAPACK (Bomb Killer Political Action Committee)

A Boston-based website urging support for the bomber as a presidential candidate sparked a major controversy across the United States. The website, WWW.Paranoia.com/unapack/, which ran a petition for the bomber to run for president, was widely covered by Time magazine, CNN, CSPAN, The New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, and other major media outlets.

From March 1, 1996, to the end of April, the activity center received over 14,000 visitors via computer network, urging people to vote for the bomb killer in the November election. The organization (the bomb killer political action committee, or UNAPACK for short) was formed by 25 Boston social activists.

In late April, Extra!, the national television news agency of Time Warner, produced a television program about the event in Boston, which was subsequently broadcast on over 100 television programs nationwide and aired on WCVB Channel 5. Reporter Leni Fitchella interviewed UNAPACK members Klas Koda and Lydia Eclas in a Cambridge café. Koda and Eclas spoke candidly to the microphone and camera, outlining the organization’s views and stance. Below is some background information released by the organization itself.

What are the real goals of our “Bomb Killer Political Action Committee”? Is it an art project or a real election campaign?

It was a real election. Art, it seems, shouldn’t be directly involved in actual events, but rather exert its influence spiritually. But this can be reversed, making social action a means of sensing the spirit, a channel for disseminating ideas. Furthermore, social interactions (legal procedures, elections, commercial trade) all have ritual norms, so our project can utilize these ritual norms in the same way that art uses style and form.

Through elections and actual voting, we possess a social ritual that influences public opinion or exposes certain facts about the so-called legitimate election process.

My initial reaction to the bomber’s appearance was one of novelty. I was fascinated to see anarchism—Laddett’s ideas—burst out of the academic realm and begin to influence events in practice. He (the bomber) brought hope; he was the product of a long intellectual journey—Marx, the Frankfurt School, anarchism—a continuation of the questioning of industrial technology. Furthermore, by hijacking the news media, his actions revealed an appreciation for concepts such as media monopoly and propaganda machines (Chomsky!). This collectivist—industrial technology—media complex is what I’m interested in. I’m exhilarated to see these topics break free of subculture and ascend to a prominent position in the media.

I have a few questions and answers regarding violence. First, although I have never used violence—not even when I was physically attacked—I believe that advocating for an unconditional ban on violence is self-destructive. From a personal perspective, how would you view a woman who has been abused using violence against someone threatening her life? I also think of various armed groups in other countries: revolutionary armies, guerrilla groups—clearly, people are not hesitant to use violence. Perhaps the bomber’s violence seems unacceptable because it was a lone, desperate act.

However, I am looking at this from a situationalist perspective. He did use violence to achieve his goal—but how can we not consider his situation? He successfully drew people’s attention to crucial issues; are we going to let them pass by so quickly? Now is a rare opportunity to delve deeper into these topics, which in the past seemed too abstract and irrelevant, all because of authoritarian media opinion.

Regarding the media

The whole problem lies in the rejection of any non-mainstream thought. Every day we are told, in various ways, that this is the best place in any possible world, that America is the best of all possible nations, and that American life is a utopian dream. Furthermore, we are told that the social development we are committed to is an infinite linear progression, made possible by industrial technology. Today, industrial-technological utopianism is at its zenith. We seriously questioned this in the 1960s, but today elections have buried that questioning. Thus, the bomber’s killings are intertwined with spreading this lesson—because the only way to draw attention to these ideas is through crime. He committed a crime—and let’s not forget, his manifesto was only made public through coercion—demanding the unvarnished publication of his ideas. The question is: could this have been achieved without coercion? I think the answer is no. Therefore, we cannot separate the act of violence from the political opportunity it creates, because they are one and the same. People say, why elect a bomber? Why not choose a non-violent, responsible anarchist? Why not choose someone with better writing skills, or a thinker (like the Kirk-palatinate Trike Sell)? The answer is: a responsible anarchist will not be allowed to emerge in such a closed political system.

We need not discuss here whether the use of violence was just, as it is already a fait accompli. Furthermore, the bomber swore in the exchange that he renounced further violence, reserving only the right to destroy property and facilities. We could even argue that it was precisely through this effort to keep his thoughts alive that he effectively reduced the possibility of further violence.

opportunity

One of the problems that troubles me is that anarchists in subcultures seem content to remain forever underground. This is escapism. No one seems to be thinking about taking any real action to influence the order. Since the 1960s, the power structure has learned how to marginalize dissent, how to ignore their existence, and how to appease and fawn over them once they actually rise to prominence and threaten their own, turning them into a form of entertainment devoid of political meaning. Therefore, the crucial political question is how to deal with this process’s inexplicable immune system. Left-wing forces are a thing of the past, and the idea of organizing in a mobile, geographically neutral community seems impossible (note: the politicians on the stage recognize this. This is why the party system is collapsing). People as individuals are beginning to communicate directly through the media.

Therefore, we face the fact that the only way to influence the public is through the media, which is also the “consciousness industry,” protecting its system from change by disseminating information. Is there a way to use the media without being consumed by it (aside from the tactics of bomb killers)? We must entice and control the media.

This is our idea behind adopting elections as a social form. This signature campaign will not be limited to a 30-page photo booklet with captions; the bomb killer campaign is a real action.

UNAPACK is no joke.

In his essay “Sympathy for the Devil,” about the bomb killer, Alexander Beam mistakenly portrays the “signature campaign for the bomb killer to run for president” as a joke. However, it is a very serious matter. Clearly, even if elected, he (the bomb killer) would not take office. But UNAPACK’s aim is to win this election, turning it into an agenda addressing the alienation and poverty of our industrial age, exposing the current suicidal denial of social and environmental issues. We must resolutely and clearly point out our true situation and social desires, rather than “choosing” from a limited list of candidates who unanimously agree with inhumane industrial and technological views.

If enough citizens can genuinely participate in this signature campaign, we can transform this empty election into a utopian movement—and act before industrial technological hegemony destroys us.

Here are the top 10 reasons for running for president by the “Bomb Killer Political Action Committee.” If you think this is a joke, think again. Got a car? Please help promote this campaign by putting a Bomb Killer sign on your car. Take action now.

Since March 1, 1996, 172 people have pledged to participate in this election campaign.

We have raised $1,857 in donations for this campaign!

We are fearless, and so should you. Join us! Let’s revolutionize the (conventional) presidential campaign!

Vote for the bomb killer!

Top 10 Reasons Why the Election Bomb Killer Could Be the US President

1. Everyone else is just there to make a living. Clinton, Gingrich, Powell, Perot, Forbes, Dole, Graham, Rugel, Alexander, Donan, Keyes, and so on.

2. He’s a hot topic! He’s not universally loved, but he’s certainly a household name. We don’t need to “hype” him; the media has already done it, and the “bomb killer” campaign is just going with the flow. A bomb killer is the perfect person to disrupt the presidential election process; he can make a hollow, deceitful campaign crumble.

3. Foresight. “The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have always been a human catastrophe”—regardless of your opinion of the “Bomb Killer” and his views, he is indeed right. Have you ever heard of any legitimate candidate, any election, any debate ever putting such a question on the table? We should knock them out before they even have a chance…we should smash their election with our referendum on industrial technology. The “Bomb Killer” has thrown us a rope; we should grab it. We must not miss this opportunity that the “Bomb Killer” has risked everything for.

4. Break down party lines. This activity can offer a third-party option, allowing voters who are far removed from the center to enter the center, into the inner workings of the media-controlled system.

5. Even if he were elected, he wouldn’t take office. It’s essentially a “nobody gets elected” election. The bomb killer didn’t run, so it’s a clean sweep, a win-win situation. Campaign slogans, banners, sermons, pranks, and whatever else you want: do as you please.

6. Don’t waste your vote. The media is like a therapist—you can’t communicate during an election. If you refuse to vote, you’ll be seen as apathetic, politically indifferent, or worse, content with the status quo; if you choose a less popular but less problematic candidate from the mainstream, you’re essentially endorsing the existing regime and burying your voice. Either way, you’re wasting a vote. An election bombshell is essentially voting and boycotting the election—voting against the current electoral game. You can freely cast an anarchist vote, letting people know that running for president is a complete hoax.

7. Vote against the propaganda machine. The bomber broke the monopoly of the press, gaining the freedom to speak beyond censorship. Through his grand scheme, he exposed the media as a closed communication system, clearly initiating a war of information exchange. While mass media is heavily fortified, and various terrorists use it for ulterior motives, the bomber’s use of terrorism to gain media exposure was purely for personal gain. Notice how the press interpreted the bomber’s story! They viewed it as a vulgar tale of a series of criminal and deranged killers, completely ignoring its intellectual content. They cried out, “Why not punish him in the media? What if others try to use the media to do the same?” They wanted us to believe that the lack of top-down media control would be a disaster.

8. He has earned his ticket. The bomber did not lose his candidacy because of his use of violence; he successfully used violence to achieve political goals, and his beliefs and abilities demonstrate that he possesses the most basic qualifications to be president. Ultimately, Colin Powell’s only qualification is his performance as an effective hitman. No one calls him a hitman, and no candidate denounces the bloodshed of the Gulf War, a country that plays war like a video game in a high-tech arcade. We don’t even know how many Iraqis, how many citizens and soldiers, how many of our taxpayer dollars became cannon fodder. Occupational deaths and diseases…aren’t they violence? Cancer caused by toxic fumes in the air, food, and workplace…aren’t they violence? Famine caused by low income and poverty and its consequences…aren’t they violence? The atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima…aren’t they violence? Terror? Anyone discussing violence should put it on the table, not just accept it based on power structures. Only those who oppose any form of violence (but then there would have been no American Revolution) have the right to question the bomber’s presidential qualifications. However, he will never be president, and even an overwhelming majority of votes would not put him in office.

9. The value of entertainment. Watch as those well-fed individuals laboriously swallow, chew, and ruminate on television this explosive, killer campaign. It delivers an irrefutable message and breaks the mold of typical election rhetoric.

10. Don’t blame me—I’ve elected the bomb killer as president. After the election, you can even show off your slogan!

Author Kierkepatric Searle, who has written extensively on Neo-Ladatism, recently criticized the manifesto of the Bomb Killer in an article, finding its writing crude, its insights unoriginal, and its borrowing of academic Neo-Ladatist viewpoints without attribution. In an interview, Searle repeatedly denigrated the Bomb Killer, not for its violence, but for a greater accusation: that it corrupted the world’s most important style and grammar. Clearly, Searle would disdain reading what follows, because we UNAPACK people are full of anti-industrial, technological nonsense. But we don’t want to apologize for our incoherence; computers, the internet, and the news media are powerful tools—that’s the problem. But if we abandon these tools because of this, we are foolish losers. (We’ll give them a taste of their own medicine.)

The “Bomb Killer PAC” is no joke, and we will work tirelessly to make it a success. Our mission, like Clinton’s and Dole’s, is to win votes.

For us, this election is about putting the bomber’s critique of industrial society on the agenda, which is far more important than the “topics” raised by the mainstream candidates. Our message is: The bomber is right!

Industrial technology is determining our fate. We are at a critical juncture, yet powerless to control our future. What people are essentially doing is making the evolution of industrial technology a natural process, placing it outside the realm of human choice. Don’t you see this as a form of political despair?

Contrary to media opinion, UNAPACK believes the bomber was right. We are utopian realists. We feel the most important first step in changing society is to expose unconscious submission, to reveal the true source of this “election apathy.” All the bomber’s voters represent a complete rejection of political illusions, and this is our first step towards freedom.

Once you vote for the bomb killer, anything begins to become possible. Even if we fail, we do not succumb. We can be free, even when industrial technology still dominates society.

Kirk Patrik Sell should be ashamed of his academic criticism of the Bomb Killer. The Bomb Killer didn’t aspire to be a tenured professor; unlike Sell, he put his theories into practice. If Sell was trying to change the world, he should have stepped forward and joined us. Instead, Sell saw the current situation as apocalyptic while content to sit there and talk. He should be held responsible for the Bomb Killer’s final, desperate act.

We have long and repeatedly reflected on the relationship between our activities and violence. In response to the question from the media: “How can you endorse a killer?” our first answer is: “If we didn’t associate ourselves with the bomber and his violence, you wouldn’t be talking to us now.” Elections always rely on the media for their existence, and only through violence can these “dangerous claims” be heard. We have no other choice.

Our connection with violence is both our greatest moral dilemma and our only opportunity. Since it is our only opportunity, and given these extraordinary times, the moral dilemma is readily resolved.

Our strategy can be summarized as three Rs: Reveal the unfreedom and subjugation we face; break with the electoral political process that acts as a propaganda machine and hinders our freedom; and begin to envision and create a society that is no longer oppressive and is exhilarating, based on the pleasure principle.

Yes, this is utopia. But please note that industrial technological idealism is also utopia, and this kind of utopia separates our mind and body, ultimately reducing us to software programs that flash forever between digital screens.

Think about how cyberspace is destroying humanity’s understanding of itself! When we’re glued to our computer screens, we’ve already distanced ourselves from our own bodies and the real world.

We are picking up our stolen dreams, and perhaps this is utopia. So the question becomes, which utopia do you want?

Bombing Civilization—A Death Notice to Humanity’s Future

The bomb killer became a celebrity on the computer internet.

A high school student in California named Joseph Ziller created an online “Bomb Killer Information Center,” and emails quickly began pouring in. Even more remarkably, some people in Boston organized a “Bomb Killer Political Action Committee,” launching an online “Sign Up for the Bomb Killer for President” campaign. “He’s not universally loved, but he’s certainly a household name,” the committee claimed in its campaign materials. “Don’t blame me—I vote for the Bomb Killer for president.”

Another librarian in Maryland created a “Bomb Killer” page because he was worried that bomb killers would tarnish the reputation of anarchism.

Stephen Howe, an engineering student at MIT, on his local homepage

He claimed, “To the surprise of my family and the FBI, I am not the bomber.”[6]

The 20-year-old Hao said he had received many letters and gifts addressed to the bomb killer. He said, “These people are not really fans; they are just moved by something.”

However, on many other websites, the bomb killer is presented as a romantic and mysterious knight-errant; people can even play a “Find the Bomb Killer” game on Time Warner’s website. (From Metro, North Carolina)

Active’s information was highly critical of the FBI’s initial sketch of the bomber: “The sunglasses are too tacky, and the hoodie is even worse.” So, they went all out and gave the bomber a complete makeover. The revised sketch was dubbed “Molotov-style” and included the following description: “Wearing these framed sunglasses, this anarchist terrorist looks even more dashing. The sunglasses are Giorgio Armani, $140 each; the black quilted suit, $1550; the white corduroy shirt, $395. And the black silk tie, Hugh Bowes, $125 each. Designer: Andrew.”

On the same website, a long article was posted by someone claiming to be “not the bomb killer.” In the article, he said that he was “a 42-year-old anarchist living in San Clemento with a deep philosophical disdain for the existing society.” He said that although he was exactly like the bomb killer described by the police, “if any of you know me, please don’t report me as the bomb killer.”

For over a decade, the Bomber Killer Task Force consistently viewed computer users as allies, considering them a reliable source of leads. In an email sent via the internet “to those online,” the task force stated that they, like scholars and scientists, were “targets of the Bomber Killer,” and even created a dedicated email address for computer users to report violations. Ironically, the task force ultimately apprehended Kaczynski not through high-tech means, but through the most traditional method of “public whistleblowing.” Even more unacceptable is that, since Kaczynski’s capture, the Bomber Killer has suddenly become a prominent figure on the internet.

First, there are the 35,000

The manifesto has become a hot topic online. According to Jim Thomas, a sociology professor at Northern Illinois University, no fewer than [number missing] people retrieve the bomb killer’s manifesto from his website every day.

CNN on UNAPACK

The organizers, Chris Koda and Lydia Eklis, conducted a telephone interview, with Jonah Ott, resources editor of Newsweek, also present.

CNN host: Bomb killers are all the rage on the internet.

This is truly unbelievable. Let’s hear what those who have set up online bomb killer sections have to say. Chris Koda is participating in the discussion by phone. Chris,

I know you’ve set up a computer website about bomb killers. Can you tell us why?

Koda: Of course…yes, we set up the Bomb Killer network because we’re running a “Sign for Bomb Killer for President” campaign. This is a real campaign. We want to try to get this campaign going all over the country.

CNN: You mean this isn’t a joke, right?

Kodak: This is no joke.

CNN: Why do you think he’s qualified to be president?

Koda: Yes, we believe he possesses all the qualities of a good president.

CNN: For example?

Koda: First of all, he is a well-known public figure, he is very famous...

CNN: (Laughs) Yes, yes, I can sense the irony, but please go on...

Koda: I don’t think this is funny; it’s a very serious matter. One of the problems with the news media system is that without its support, no one in this country can have any real political power. That’s why I wanted to participate in this discussion. I’ve heard some of your TV guests discuss this, so I think it’s necessary for us to clarify some things. The bomber is waging a guerrilla war, isn’t he? There are always accidental casualties in war. He’s declaring war in the name of nature, and I have to make that clear; I don’t know how many of your guests realize this. Humanity has wiped out one-third of all other species on Earth. We are wiping out a species every 40 minutes—

CNN: I think many people would agree, but one

Koda: These are all facts, and besides—

A female guest asked: “Is it really worth blowing up those advertisers and tech workers for this?”

Koda: That’s right. It’s necessary to clarify something here. The news media is America’s number one industry; in fact, the news media has become a tool for manipulating humanity.

Female guest: Hold on, you’re operating the computer and the internet; you’re the media. I mean, don’t you think you’re contradicting yourself? Aren’t you using the internet to promote and support the bomber?

Koda: That’s called being adaptable! These are extraordinary times. We won’t give up any means we can use to wake people from their illusions.

CNN: I also have a guest here, Mr. Jonah Otter, the resources editor of Newsweek. Mr. Otter, what are your thoughts?

Ott: To be honest, I find it disgusting. I really wish he (referring to Koda) would go see Mrs. Moser, who’s in New Jersey now. Her husband was killed a few years ago by a bomber—he was mistakenly identified as running an advertising campaign for Exxon, which was completely fabricated, but he’s dead, leaving behind a family, and that’s no joke. Yes, we can certainly talk at length about industrial technology, its use and abuse, but we have to separate this discussion from the actions of the bomber…

CNN: But Jonah—

Otto: That guy (referring to the bomber) is a pig! He should be treated like a pig...

CNN: Okay, okay, my question was about that declaration, I wanted to see if there was anything worth considering—

Ott: Too cheap, too cheap for a pig. Well, sure, I think he raised some issues, but to call them profound insights is absurd. Well, some of his points could be topics for discussion. For example, he criticized conservatism because conservatism in contemporary America is blind faith in a market free from all constraints. But we know we can’t both blindly believe in such a market and uphold traditional values, because the market has an eroding effect on traditional values. So he accurately—the bomber accurately—pointed out the inherent contradiction of conservatism. He also made a similar analysis of liberalism—

CNN: Hmm, okay—

Ott: ...We can sit down and discuss these things. We can discuss the history of industrial technology, how it erodes traditional ways of life—these are all worth discussing, but they must be separated from the evaluation and analysis of the bomb killer—I don’t even want to discuss this with Chris—

CNN:

I think you’ve raised a very interesting point. Yes, Jonah, I’d like to connect with Chris Koda on the phone.

Listen to his opinion.

Ott: I don’t want to talk to Chris because I don’t accept the premise of such a conversation—

CNN: Sure, that’s no problem.

But I’m curious about what interests Chris Koda is having on the internet, and how people are reacting.

Koda: We received a warm response. I think we should understand that the social image portrayed by the media won’t fool everyone. There are still many clear-headed people who see through the media’s tricks. They are hostile to the media because it tries to entice people to adapt to an industrialized, technological society. We members of the “Action Committee” have a feeling that we are easy prey for the media. I hope everyone will think about this carefully.

CNN: What is the “action committee” you mentioned?

Koda: “The Explosive Killer Political Action Committee”.

Otto: Why are you being so blatant? I mean, this is just attention-seeking...

Chris: Listen to me—

Ott: Go see the victims.

Chris: Okay, let’s talk about violence, is that alright?

Otto: Ridiculous, ridiculous!

Chris: Would you like to talk about violence?

CNN: You have 15 seconds.

Chris:

Okay, all I want to say is that the bomber used violence, but I also want to say that he is still qualified to be president, because no president is without violence.

Female guest: If that’s the case, then great! Let’s release him from prison, and also release the Oklahoma City bomber, so he can run for president!

CNN:

Okay, that’s all for now. Thank you to all our guests for participating in the discussion, and thank you to all our listeners for listening. In the next episode, we’ll continue our discussion: Is there a Radette within each of us? Perhaps you and your Radette have more in common than you initially thought. Okay, see you next time.

Regarding the Bomb Killer Political Action Committee

Q: Why do you think the questions raised by the bomb killer are so important?

Kodak: The Bomb Killer is currently the only public figure to have raised the real dilemma we face: the destruction of nature by industrial technology and the dehumanization of humanity it causes.

I don’t think the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, or any third party will take this predicament seriously.

Eclas: While mainstream campaign politics is bickering over trivial matters,

We are facing an increasingly imminent disaster. This includes the looming environmental and social catastrophes.

There is a general neglect across political parties regarding the theme of the “Bomb Killer Political Action Committee.”

The signature campaign for the bomb killer aims to free people from the shackles of politics.

Q: Why are you so fascinated by bomb killers?

Koda: We are struggling with a global environmental crisis. Humans have destroyed one-third of the species on Earth, and we are currently losing one species every 40 minutes. In the 1970s, it was one species every 60 minutes. In the United States alone, we are losing an acre of forest every eight seconds. This is a serious crisis, yet neither the Communist Party, the Democratic Party, nor any third party takes this issue seriously.

The bomber raised this question, and his insights have gained widespread public attention, which is a huge victory.

Eclas: What attracts me to the bomber is his awareness of the failures of our political system. He realized that behind what we call democracy and freedom, crucial issues are never taken seriously because the media has become so deeply involved in driving industrial and technological progress. That’s why the bomber also targeted the news media.

So when I see someone stepping forward to raise the agonizing dilemma we face, I am inspired. Discussing this dilemma is far more urgent than topics like raising the minimum wage by 50 cents.

The bomber’s rhetoric makes other political opinions seem absurd and laughable. He was a starting point, and we feel we must inherit and develop his ideas. Interestingly, the media’s reaction is to separate his ideas from the man himself, while we should do the exact opposite.

They were trying to say that we should discuss this person as a mental patient; what he said doesn’t matter, the important thing is that he’s crazy.

We should do the exact opposite; we should take his ideas into account. Behind that deliberate political action lies a great dedication. He resorted to deliberate violence, while our electoral campaign is nonviolent.

The bomber believes the existing system is beyond redemption and cannot be expected to change. Our position lies between him and those who believe change can be made through the existing system. We don’t believe the existing system will bring about any change, so our goal is to resist it. We are employing classic democratization processes to try and create a political rupture. Once this rupture succeeds, we believe people will begin to focus on the truly significant issues in their lives.

Q: Because of your support for the bomber’s information, many people will immediately assume that you also support his killings. Do you support his killings?

Koda: People always think of him as a killer or a terrorist. But there are different perspectives on this issue.

We might say the bomber was fighting a guerrilla war, that he was fighting to defend nature. And in any war, accidental injury is inevitable. Isn’t the bomber a war hero, just like General Colin Powell? Yes, we could say Colin Powell killed thousands of Iraqis to defend America’s right to control oil prices. The bomber, on the other hand, fought against industrial technology, to defend nature, yet he’s seen as a killer or terrorist. It’s interesting. It’s a double standard, and I think it’s crucial that people realize that.

If you oppose all forms of violence, that’s a different story. That’s admirable. I myself am completely against violence, and I don’t believe violence is the way to change society. But I think people like me are an exception. In fact, if you look at it fairly, you’ll see that most Americans supported the war in Iraq. They supported fighting for oil. It’s clear that most people don’t oppose violence as long as it’s for their own benefit, as long as it’s for their own lives.

I think it’s important to understand this. We must be open and honest, not naive, and we must understand that the bomber was fighting in the name of nature, and the media was his target. He knew perfectly well that he could only use violence to coerce the media, otherwise his ideas would never be widely discussed. He had a subtle but effective military strategy.

Eclas: His insights will never be taken seriously or discussed under any circumstances, except as a crime story presented to the media for entertainment purposes.

Some have asked why not find a mainstream Socialist Party candidate who expresses the same views, or even more precisely? Our answer is that Alan Keyes is a mainstream figure, yet he once went on a hunger strike to gain an audience during his campaign. This shows that even some mainstream figures have a weak voice.

Now you’re accusing us of speaking for a murderer, but you wouldn’t be talking to us if he were nobody. You only do news about bomb killers because you know how attractive they are.

Q: Do you believe there are more people supporting the bomber than is known to exist?

Eclas: As a constituency, we declare that everyone must take this first step and stop the election. Stopping the current election campaign is the first step in an election bombing killer.

Koda: I agree. If those who usually stay at home and don’t participate in elections were to come out and vote for the bomb killer, we would win in November.

Isn’t the current election a blatant waste of time? In some European countries, if not enough voters participate, they have to hold a new election. But we don’t do that here. We should ask why we don’t. The reason is that the media is controlled by corporations.

The media is controlled by conglomerates, and the political system is a mere formality. This isn’t life; it’s just a charade. It’s important to make people understand this, to get them out of their homes (staying home doing nothing will be interpreted as an affirmation of the system) and vote for the bomber. This is a form of protest.

Q: Do you know how many people actually support the bomber?

Eclas: First of all, many people have contacted me directly, and many others have called to inquire about the event. We have to see that they are under a lot of pressure, and the media has been trying to erase the bomber from political activities.

We sense that some people are conscious supporters, some are very interested, and many more are unconsciously reaching out to us. Our strategy is to awaken their awareness, get them to take action, liberate themselves, and actively participate in the election campaign.

Q: Why do you want the bomb killer to be president? Is it just a show, or is it genuinely important, and he is the only one who deserves the presidency?

Koda: The bomb killer can’t be president: even if he were elected, he wouldn’t be president. Clearly, our actions aren’t about him personally, but about his election. We’re trying to create a utopian moment, to forge a break with the media system that has monopolized the campaign.

If enough people actually stand up and vote for the bomber, then the November election will be spectacular, historic. It will be unprecedented in America. That’s our hope.

We want to create an atmosphere that makes the media realize that (campaigning) is not an ordinary business, and things can’t continue like this...

Q: Assuming that gentleman (referring to Kaczynski) really was the bomb killer, he obviously didn’t have a computer or use the internet. Why do you people use the internet?

Eclairs: It’s like asking why the bomber went to the New York Times. He attacked the media, but why did he want the New York Times to publish his manifesto?

For the same reason, we are facing a control system, and we are trying to break through it. This system controls our ability to communicate within itself. We use it as a tool because it is our only means of communication.

People think this is contradictory, but it isn’t. The reason we use the internet is the same as why bomb killers use the New York Times: because the media controls communication systems. They control our thoughts.

Our choice is either to abandon communication altogether, or to leverage the system of dependence we’ve been forced into to facilitate dialogue. It was the bomber’s initial actions that made all of this possible; his actions gave us the power to communicate.

The reason we use the control mechanisms we resist as tools is because they have deprived us of any other means of communication. They force us to depend on them, leaving us with no other choice.

In fact, many articles have analyzed why computer users are so interested in bomb killers. I think people may have forgotten that those who deal with computers every day are forced to spend their lives on them; of course they would be interested in bomb killers…

Kodak: Industrial technological society is composed of control and hierarchy at various levels.

Education, entertainment, advertising, newspapers, radio, television… Through control at these levels,

People have been incorporated into an industrialized, technologically advanced society. The research and treatment of mental illness represents another level of control. People are driven to accept their fate.

Go and leave it to fate.

Therefore, we believe the best way to attack these levels of control is to fight fire with fire. That’s why we’re dealing with news organizations like yours. We want to gradually transform your media from being controlled by corporations and conglomerates.

Q: Why should people support bomb killers?

Eclas:

I’m glad people ask this question. It’s a question we should be asking people too. Since we became slaves to cars, more and more people are dying from work stress, high-fat foods, cancer, and the office lifestyle. Have we counted these deaths? Because we don’t consider them, they remain anonymous. We’re handing ourselves over to an anonymous serial killer. If you take this anonymous serial killer into account, you’ll find that the bomb killer’s killings pale in comparison.

Q: How do you explain these things to a primary school student?

Eclas: Absolutely no problem. Elementary school students grasp the movement instantly. We have no problem talking to young people; they understand that we’re planning their future. The best people to participate in this movement are those who have just left school and refuse to entrust their future to meaningless things.

What I mean is that industrial technology is contrary to human natural adaptation. Animals typically adapt to and harmonize with their natural environment, while humans have developed industrial technology, which is anti-adaptive to the Earth. It is an aggressive system, and we are gradually being swallowed up by it.

We are getting closer to extinction because we are not adapting to our environment. We are now facing a grim choice: either continue on our path, building ever larger and larger man-made environments, or turn back and try to live and develop in a balanced and harmonious way with the Earth.

No one has offered a more vivid and compelling portrayal of the increasingly troubling psychological problems in contemporary society than Robert Bly. The renowned author of the bestselling *Iron John* recently released *The Sibling Society*, in which Bly argues that a fraternal culture of verbal sparring has emerged in America, driven by a desire to dismantle authority. Below is a portion of his discussion on the topic of bomb killers.

The bomb killer’s actions provide a vivid example of resistance to science and technology, and may also offer a glimpse into a severe form of mental illness. The details of his life reveal a pattern of regression to childhood, a pattern that will continue to repeat itself among us in the future.

Henry David Thoreau also retreated to his self-built thatched cottage, where he devoted himself to the study of classical texts and complex literature; he also diligently observed all kinds of plants—grasses and trees—and traveled extensively. He could accurately predict which plants within a 50-mile radius would bloom on which day, and he always maintained close ties with family and friends. It was in the mountains and forests that he truly matured.

Today, through our advertising-driven consumer culture, we have created a semi-adult society that makes it difficult for people to grow up. Take Ted Kaczynski, for example; his reclusive life seems to be a return to childhood. This seclusion has the temperament of an irresponsible child: he wants to prove to his parents that they cannot abandon him—but he will.

This type of regression contains something that astonishes us: the immature adult is not the innocent and carefree figure Rousseau imagined, but a cold, cruel, and ruthless child, capable of heinous acts. He harbors a desire to tear everything apart, even to erase his parents from his heart.

Using sealed explosives to kill grown-ups—this is the manifestation of that hidden desire. Premature attacks and betrayals are becoming increasingly common, especially on the internet, where dirty and hateful words frequently emerge from among faceless people. Yet, the dignity of adult society is supposed to be maintained by the faces we can see.

Kaczynski’s repulsive return also includes a desire to kill those in “higher positions.” For the Oklahoma City bomber, “higher positions” meant those working in the government; for the “airplane-campus” bomber we’re discussing now, “higher positions” meant those working in companies. There are certainly a few bad apples among them, but ruthless killers never discriminate. The absurd idea of improving society through murder is brewing in our culture. Violent films teach this lesson every day.

What we need to learn from this tragic event is not the bomber’s psychological problems, but our own psychological problems—our own paranoia and arrogance. The bomber’s resistance to industrial society was not without reason—industrial development should indeed slow down—but he chose to strike from behind, which ultimately led to his condemnation. Intriguingly, his isolated situation in resisting modern industrial society strikingly mirrors the isolation of those eroded by industrialization. Those who surrender themselves to industrial technology, viewing it as omnipotent, may possess a paranoia and arrogance no greater than the bomber’s.

Appendix 1

(A self-narration written by David Gallente, a victim of the bombing, after Kaczynski’s arrest)

My first experience of being overwhelmed with gratitude was during a visit to a Hollywood film studio as a child. By chance, I was chosen to play a minor role, guiding a lifelike, roaring gorilla in a movie. People cheered loudly for me. My experience of being severely injured by an exploding mail package mirrored this story—simply put, it was an incredibly high compliment. According to public opinion, the bomb’s target was computer technology, so I was the chosen “Mr. Computer.” In its short history, computers have made enormous contributions to knowledge, employment, wealth, and space exploration, among many other areas. I am proud to represent this academic field, but I truly feel undeserving. There are many computer scientists far more talented than me, and frankly, I don’t particularly like computers. Computers often lead to deep-seated and manipulative professional problems, which I’m not the type to work myself to the bone to solve. I’d rather stay home with my wife and children. Unless I’m pressed for work, I’d rather spend my time and energy with my kids, patiently helping them solve their little computer problems.

I feel unworthy of being chosen as a representative for this discipline because some of my articles on computer science have been criticized by colleagues as being unfaithful to their profession. The most attention-grabbing part of my book, *Mirror World*, was the controversy surrounding several individuals’ views on science and technology; in the book, the skeptical side of computer science prevailed. I have also written articles criticizing the use of computers in schools: parents hope their children will build a solid foundation in the humanities and sciences, and receive a good upbringing in reading and writing, but too many teachers resort to pointless computer operations for education.

The fact that the bombing suspect was a Harvard graduate left me speechless; otherwise, I wouldn’t have been interested in him. There’s a tendency among intellectuals and journalists to whitewash the motives and ideologies of violent crime, which often fills me with contempt and disdain. I don’t want to concern myself with this man’s views on high technology or what message he’s trying to convey; the message I’m getting is that in any society, no matter how wealthy or free, there will always be a small group of wicked individuals.

Months after the bombing, I returned to my office. It had been ravaged by the explosion, but now my friends, colleagues, and students had transformed it. Underneath a crate, I found my collection of E.B. White’s essays, badly damaged but still largely legible. One short essay, “What Holds Our Hearts?”, recounts in a calm tone a Christmas he and his wife spent in Florida, their subtle unease and forced smiles—and their joy at receiving a package from their hometown of Maine, the scent of fir wood from which they found solace.

What I want to say is that the solace that hardship brings is that it makes you more certain of what you cherish in your heart. I didn’t learn anything new from this ordeal, but it confirmed my premonition. Just as I had always suspected, I realized more clearly that the time I spend with my wife and children may be more important than anything else.

I stopped being discouraged by my lack of success in my career. By nature, I’m a writer and painter; I used to work with computers to support my family. The bombing blew off my right hand, and for months I grieved because I could no longer paint. But after I learned to paint with my left hand, I never again ignored my sense of mission as a painter. For the same reason, I continued writing tirelessly. Before the bombing, I was planning to write a book about the 1939 New York World’s Fair, part history, part fiction—at the time, I thought it would be a long and arduous project, and I wondered how many years it would take me to muster the courage to pick up a pen. But as soon as I returned home from the hospital, I immediately realized: “Thinking while sitting is not as good as getting up and doing.” I began to write. The result was unexpected success; a critic who had reviewed White’s work gave me the same praise.

In the end, choosing me as “Mr. Science” might not have been a wise move. The symbol of this fundamental endeavor shouldn’t be a great scientist; someone who doesn’t consider industrial technology the most important part of life, someone who would rather spend more time with his wife and children, might better represent the true meaning of humanity’s quest. My reaction to the recent capture of the bomb killer suspect was to congratulate the FBI on their achievement, thank those who lent a helping hand, remember the innocent victims, and finally, raise a glass—to the intelligent life of humanity, to the human cause that bombs cannot destroy.

Appendix 2: Industrial Society and Its Future

—Unabomber’s (Explosive Killer) Manifesto

Industrial Society and Its Future

INTRODUCTION

1. The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries.

2. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: there is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy.

3. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than later.

4. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system. This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We can’t predict any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the measures that those who hate the industrial system should take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of society. This is not to be POLITICAL revolution. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society.

5. In this article we give attention to only some of the negative developments that have grown out of the industrial-technological system. Other such developments we mention only briefly or ignore altogether. This does not mean that we regard these other developments as unimportant. For practical reasons we have to confine our discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which we have something new to say. For example, since there are well developed environmental and wilderness movements we have written very little about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild nature, even though we consider these to be highly important.

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM

6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.

7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the twentieth century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal-rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by “leftism” will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. (Also, see paragraphs 227–230.)

8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn’t seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19^th and early 20^th centuries.

9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call feelings of inferiority and oversocialization. Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.

FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY

10. By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms “negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy,” “dude” or “fellow.” The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal-rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion.” Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the word “primitive” by “nonliterate.” They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity or leftish anthropologists.)

12. Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant,-abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle to upper middle-class families.

13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)

14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

16. Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative,” “enterprise,” “optimism” etc. play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

18. Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analysing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification or some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s because he has not been brought up properly.

19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior[7]. But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.

21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principle, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Move-over, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist actvists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.

22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.

23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.

OVERSOCIALIZATION

24. Psychologists use the term “socialization” to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are oversocialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem.

25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term “oversocialized” to describe such people[8].

26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society’s expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society’s expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think “unclean” thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life runnung on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human beings inflict on one another.

27. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism. Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or members of the upper middle class. Notice that university intellectuals[9] constitute the most highly socialized segment of our society and also the most left-wing segment.

28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today’s leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes[10]) for a long time. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles.

29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society while pretending to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black people into high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more money for such schools; the way of life of the black “underclass” they regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just like upper middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they want to preserve African-American culture. But in what does this preservation of African-American culture consist? It can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food, listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going to a black-style church or mosque. In other words, it can express itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects most leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform to white middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white. They want to make black fathers “responsible,” they want black gangs to become non-violent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the industrial-technological system. The system couldn’t care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a “responsible” parent, is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it, the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the system and make him adopt its values.

30. We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the oversocialized type, NEVER rebel against the fundamental values of our society. Clearly they sometimes do so. Some oversocialized leftists have gone so far as to rebel against one of modern society’s most important principles by engaging in physical violence. By their own account, violence is for them a form of “liberation”. In other words, by committing violence they break through the psychological restraints that have been trained into them. Because they are oversocialized these restraints have been more confining for them than for others; hence their need to break free of them. But they usually justify their rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence they claim to be fighting against racism or the like.

31. We realize that many objections could be raised to the foregoing thumbnail sketch of leftist psychology. The real situation is complex, and anything like a complete description of it would take several volumes even if the necessary data were available. We claim only to have indicated very roughly the two most important tendencies in the psychology of modern leftism.

32. The problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and defeatism are not restricted to the left. Though they are especially noticeable in the left they are widespread in our society. And today’s society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any previous society. We are even told by experts how to eat, how to exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth.

THE POWER PROCESS

33. Human beings have need (probably based in biology) for something that we will call power process. This is closely related to the need for power (which is widely recognized) but is not quite the same thing. The power process has four elements. The three most clearcut of these we call goal, effort and attainment of goal. (Everyone needs to have goals whose attainment requires effort, and needs to succeed in attaining at least some of his goals.) The fourth element is more difficult to define and may not be necessary for everyone. We call it autonomy and will discuss it later (paragraphs 42–44).

34. Consider the hypothetical case of a man who can have anything he wants just by wishing for it. Such a man has power, but he will develop serious psychological problems. At first he will have a lot of fun, but by and by he will become acutely bored and demoralized. Eventually he may become clinically depressed. History shows that leisured aristocracies tend to become decadent. This is not true of fighting aristocracies that have to struggle to maintain their power. But leisured, secure aristocracies that have no need to exert themselves usually become bored, hedonistic and demoralized, even though they have power. This shows that power is not enough. One must have goals toward which to exercise one’s power.

35. Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization.

36. Nonattainment of important goals results in death if the goals are physical necessities, and in frustration if nonattainment of the goals is compatible with survival. Consistent failure to attain goals throughout life results in defeatism, low self-esteem or depression.

37. Thus, in order to avoid serious psychological problems, a human being needs goals whose attainment requires effort, and he must have a reasonable rate of success in attaining his goals.

SURROGATE ACTIVITIES

38. But not every leisured aristocrat becomes bored and demoralized. For example, the emperor Hirohito, instead of sinking into decadent hedonism, devoted himself to marine biology, a field in which he became distinguished. When people do not have to exert themselves to satisfy their physical needs they often set up artificial goals for themselves. In many cases they then pursue these goals with the same energy and emotional involvement that they otherwise would have put into the search for physical necessities. Thus the aristocrats of the Roman Empire had their literary pretensions; many European aristocrats a few centuries ago invested tremendous time and energy in hunting, though they certainly didn’t need the meat; other aristocracies have competed for status through elaborate displays of wealth; and a few aristocrats, like Hirohito, have turned to science.

39. We use the term “surrogate activity” to designate an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward, or let us say, merely for the sake of the “fulfilment” that they get from pursuing the goal. Here is a rule of thumb for the identification of surrogate activities. Given a person who devotes much time and energy to the pursuit of goal X, ask yourself this: If he had to devote most of his time and energy to satisfying his biological needs, and if that effort required him to use his physical and mental faculties in a varied and interesting way, would he feel seriously deprived because he did not attain goal X? If the answer is no, then the person’s pursuit of goal X is a surrogate activity. Hirohito’s studies in marine biology clearly constituted a surrogate activity, since it is pretty certain that if Hirohito had had to spend his time working at interesting non-scientific tasks in order to obtain the necessities of life, he would not have felt deprived because he didn’t know all about the anatomy and life-cycles of marine animals. On the other hand the pursuit of sex and love (for example) is not a surrogate activity, because most people, even if their existence were otherwise satisfactory, would feel deprived if they passed their lives without ever having a relationship with a member of the opposite sex. (But pursuit of an excessive amount of sex, more than one really needs, can be a surrogate activity.)

40. In modern industrial society only minimal effort is necessary to satisfy one’s physical needs. It is enough to go through a training program to acquire some petty technical skill, then come to work on time and exert the very modes effort needed to hold a job. The only requirements are a moderate amount of intelligence and, most of all, simple OBEDIENCE. If one has those, society takes care of one from cradle to grave. (Yes, there is an underclass that cannot take the physical necessities for granted, but we are speaking here of mainstream society.) Thus it is not surprising that modern society is full of surrogate activities. These include scientific work, athletic achievement, humanitarian work, artistic and literary creation, climbing the corporate ladder, acquisition of money and material goods far beyond the point at which they cease to give any additional physical satisfaction, and social activism when it addresses issues that are not important for the activist personally, as in the case of white activists who work for the rights of nonwhite minorities. These are not always PURE surrogate activities, since for many people they may be motivated in part by needs other than the need to have some goal to pursue. Scientific work may be motivated in part by a drive for prestige, artistic creation by a need to express feelings, militant social activism by hostility. But for most people who pursue them, these activities are in large part surrogate activities. For example, the majority of scientists will probably agree that the “fulfilment” they get from their work is more important than the money and prestige they earn.

41. For many if not most people, surrogate activities are less satisfying than the pursuit of real goals (that is, goals that people would want to attain even if their need for the power process were already fulfilled). One indication of this is the fact that, in many or most cases, people who are deeply involved in surrogate activities are never satisfied, never at rest. Thus the money-maker constantly strives for more and more wealth. The long-distance runner drives himself to run always farther and faster. Many people who pursue surrogate activities will say that they get far more fulfilment from these activities than they do from the “mundane” business of satisfying their biological needs, but that is because in our society the effort needed to satisfy the biological needs has been reduced to triviality. More importantly, in our society people do not satisfy their biological needs AUTONOMOUSLY but by functioning as parts of an immense social machine. In contrast, people generally have a great deal of autonomy in pursuing their surrogate activities.

AUTONOMY

42. Autonomy as a part of the power process may not be necessary for every individual. But most people need a greater or lesser degree of autonomy in working toward their goals. Their efforts must be undertaken on their own initiative and must be under their own direction and control. Yet most people do not have to exert this initiative, direction and control as single individuals. It is usually enough to act as a member of a SMALL group. Thus if half a dozen people discuss a goal among themselves and make a successful joint effort to attain that goal, their need for the power process will be served. But if they work under rigid orders handed down from above that leave them no room for autonomous decision and initiative, then their need for the power process will not be served. The same is true when decisions are made on a collective basis if the group making the collective decision is so large that the role of each individual is insignificant[11].

43. It is true that some individuals seem to have little need for autonomy. Either their drive for power is weak or they satisfy it by identifying themselves with some powerful organization to which they belong. And then there are unthinking, animal types who seem to be satisfied with a purely physical sense of power (the good combat soldier, who gets his sense of power by developing fighting skills that he is quite content to use in blind obedience to his superiors).

44. But for most people it is through the power process — having a goal, making an AUTONOMOUS effort and attaining the goal — that self-esteem, self-confidence and a sense of power are acquired. When one does not have adequate opportunity to go through the power process the consequences are (depending on the individual and on the way the power process is disrupted) boredom, demoralization, low self-esteem, inferiority feelings, defeatism, depression, anxiety, guilt, frustration, hostility, spouse or child abuse, insatiable hedonism, abnormal sexual behavior, sleep disorders, eating disorders, etc[12].

SOURCES OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS

45. Any of the foregoing symptoms can occur in any society, but in modern industrial society they are present on a massive scale. We aren’t the first to mention that the world today seems to be going crazy. This sort of thing is not normal for human societies. There is good reason to believe that primitive man suffered from less stress and frustration and was better satisfied with his way of life than modern man is. It is true that not all was common among the Australian aborigines, transexuality was fairly common among some of the American Indian tribes. But it does appear that GENERALLY SPEAKING the kinds of problems that we have listed in the preceding paragraph were far less common among primitive peoples than they are in modern society.

46. We attribute the social and psychological problems of modern society to the fact that society requires people to live under conditions radically different from those under which the human race evolved and to behave in ways that conflict with the patterns of behavior that the human race developed while living under the earlier conditions. It is clear from what we have already written that we consider lack of opportunity to properly experience the power process as the most important of the abnormal conditions to which modern society subjects people. But it is not the only one. Before dealing with disruption of the power process as a source of social problems we will discuss some of the other sources.

47. Among the abnormal conditions present in modern industrial society are excessive density of population, insolation of man from nature, excessive rapidity of social change and the breakdown of natural smallscale communities such as the extended family, the village or the tribe.

48. It is well known that crowding increases stress and aggression. The degree of crowding that exists today and the isolation of man from nature are consequences of technological progress. All pre-industrial societies were predominantly rural. The industrial revolution vastly increased the size of cities and the proportion of the population that lives in them, and modern agricultural technology has made it possible for the earth to support a far denser population than it ever did before. (Also, technology exacerbates the effects of crowding because it puts increased disruptive powers in people’s hands. For example, a variety of noise-making devices: power mowers, radios, motorcycles etc. If the use of these devices is unrestricted, people who want peace and quiet are frustrated by the noise. If their use is restricted, people who use the devices are frustrated by the regulations. But if these machines had never been invented there would have been no conflict and no frustration generated by them.)

49. For primitive societies the natural world (which usually changes only slowly) provided a stable framework and therefore a sense of security. In the modern world it is human society that dominates nature rather than the other way around, and modern society changes very rapidly owing to technological change. Thus there is no stable framework.

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

51. The breakdown of traditional values to some extent implies the breakdown of the bonds that hold together traditional small-social groups. The disintegration of small-scale social groups is also promoted by the fact that modern conditions often requires or tempt individuals to move to new locations, separating themselves from their communities. Beyond that, a technological society HAS TO weaken family ties and local communities if it is to function efficiently. In modern society an individual’s loyalty must be first to the system and only secondarily to a small-scale community, because if the internal loyalties of small-scale communities were stronger than loyalty to the system, such communities would pursue their own advantage at the expense of the system.

52. Suppose that a public official or a corporation executive appoints his cousin, his friend or his coreligionist to a position rather than appointing the person best qualified for the job. He has permitted personal loyalty to supersede his loyalty to the system, and that is “nepotism” or “discrimination,” both of which are terrible sins in modern society. Would-be industrial societies that have done a poor job of subordinating personal or local loyalties to loyalty to the system are usually very inefficient. (Look at Latin America.) Thus an advanced industrial society can tolerate only those small-scale communities that are emasculated, tamed and made into tools of the system[13].

53. Crowding, rapid change and the breakdown of communities have been widely recognized as sources of social problems. But we do not believe they are enough to account for the extent of the problems that are seen today.

54. A few pre-industrial cities were very large and crowded, yet their inhabitants do not seem to have suffered from psychological problems to the same extent as modern man. In America today there still are uncrowded rural areas, and we find there the same problems as in urban areas, though the problems tend to be less acute in the rural areas. Thus crowding does not seem to be the decisive factor.

55. On the growing edge of the American frontier during the 19^th century, the mobility of the population probably broke down extended families and small-scale social groups to at least the same extent as these are broken down today. In fact, many nuclear families lived by choice in such isolation, having no neighbors within several miles, that they belonged to no community at all, yet they do not seem to have developed problems as a result.

56. Furthermore, change in American frontier society was very rapid and deep. A man might be born and raised in a log cabin, outside the reach of law and order and fed largely on wild meat; and by the time he arrived at old age he might be working at a regular job and living in an ordered community with effective law enforcement. This was a deeper change than that which typically occurs in the life of a modern individual, yet it does not seem to have led to psychological problems. In fact, 19^th cenury American society had an optimistic and self-confident tone, quite unlike that of today’s society[14].

57. The difference, we argue, is that modern man has the sense (largely justified) that change is IMPOSED on him, whereas the 19^th century frontiersman had the sense (also largely justified) that he created change himself, by his own choice. Thus a pioneer settled on a piece of land of his own choosing and made it into a farm through his own effort. In those days an entire county might have only a couple of hundred inhabitants and was a far more isolated and autonomous entity than a modern county is. Hence the pioneer farmer participated as a member of a relatively small group in the creation of a new, ordered community. One may well question whether the creation of this community was an improvement, but at any rate it satisfied the pioneer’s need for the power process.

58. It would be possible to give other examples of societies in which there has been rapid change and/or lack of close community ties without the kind of massive behavioral aberration that is seen in today’s industrial society. We contend that the most important cause of social and psychological problems in modern society is the fact that people have insufficient opportunity to go through the power process in a normal way. We don’t mean to say that modern society is the only one in which the power process has been disrupted. Probably most if not all civilized societies have interfered with the power process to a greater or lesser extent. But in modern industrial society the problem has become particularly acute. Leftism, at least in its recent (mid to late twentieth century) form, is in part a symptom of deprivation with respect to the power process.

DISRUPTION OF THE POWER PROCESS IN MODERN SOCIETY

59. We divide human drives into three groups: (1) those drives that can be satisfied with minimal effort; (2) those that can be satisfied but only at the cost of serious effort; (3) those that cannot be adequately satisfied no matter how much effort one makes. The power process is the process of satisfying the drives of the second group. The more drives there are in the third group, the more there is frustration, anger, eventually defcatism, depression etc.

60. In modern industrial society natural human drives tend to be pushed into the first and third groups, and the second group tends to consist increasingly of artificially-created drives.

61. In primitive societies, physical necessities generally fall into group 2: they can be obtained, but only at the cost of serious effort. But modern society tends to guaranty the physical necessities to everyone[15] in exchange for only minimal effort, hence physical needs are pushed into group 1. (There may be disagreement about whether the effort needed to hold a job is “minimal”; but usually, in lower to middle-level jobs, whatever effort is required is merely that of OBEDIENCE. You sit or stand where you are told to sit or stand and do what you are told to do in the way you are told to do it. Seldom do you have to exert yourself seriously, and in any case you have hardly any autonomy in work, so that the need for the power process is not well served.)

62. Social needs, such as sex, love and status, often remain in group 2 in modern society, depending on the situation of the individual[16]. But, except for people who have a particularly strong drive for status, the effort required to fulfill the social drives is insufficient to satisfy adequately the need for the power process.

63. So certain artificial needs have been created that fall into group 2, hence serve the need for the power process. Advertising and marketing techniques have been developed that make many people feel they need things that their grandparents never desired or even dreamed of. It required serious effort to earn enough money to satisfy these artificial needs, hence they fall into group 2. (But see paragraphs 80–82.) Modern man must satisfy his need for the power process largely through pursuit of the artificial needs created by the advertising and marketing industry[17], and through surrogate activities.

64. It seems that for many people, maybe the majority, these artificial forms of the power process are insufficient. A theme that appears repeatedly in the writings of the social critics of the second half of the twentieth century is the sense of purposelessness that afflicts many people in modern society. (This purposelessness is often called by other names such as “anomie” or “middle-class vacuity.”) We suggest that the so-called “identity crisis” is actually a search for a sense of purpose, often for commitment to a suitable surrogate activity. It may be that existentialism is in large part a response to the purposelessness of modern life[18]. Very widespread in modern society is the search for “fulfilment.” But we think that for the majority of people an activity whose main goal is fulfilment (that is, a surrogate activity) does not bring completely satisfactory fulfilment. In other words, it does not fully satisfy the need for the power process. (See paragraph 41.) That need can be fully satisfied only through activities that have some external goal, such as physical necessities, sex, love, status, revenge etc.

65. Moreover, where goals are pursued through earning money, climbing the status ladder or functioning as part of the system in some other way, most people are not in a position to pursue their goals AUTONOMOUSLY. Most workers are someone else’s employee and, as we pointed out in paragraph 61, must spend their days doing what they are told to do in the way they are told to do it. Even people who are in business for themselves have only autonomy. It is a chronic complaint of small-business persons and entrepreneurs that their hands are tied by excessive government regulation. Some of these regulations are doubtless unnecessary, but for the most part government regulations are essential and inevitable parts of our extremely complex society. A large portion of small business today operates on the franchise system. It was reported in the Wall Street Journal a few years ago that many of the franchise-granting companies require applicants for franchises to take a personality test that is designed to EXCLUDE those who have creativity and initiative, because such persons are not sufficiently docile to go along obediently with the franchise system. This excludes from small business many of the people who most need autonomy.

66. Today people live more by virtue of what the system does FOR them or TO them than by virtue of what they do for themselves. And what they do for themselves is done more and more along channels laid down by the system. Opportunities tend to be those that the system provides, the opportunities must be exploited in accord with rules and regulations[19], and techniques prescribed by experts must be followed if there is to be a chance of success.

67. Thus the power process is disrupted in our society through a deficiency of real goals and a deficiency of autonomy in the pursuit of goals. But it is also disrupted because of those human drives that fall into group 3: the drives that one cannot adequately satisfy no matter how much effort one makes. One of these drives is the need for security. Our lives depend on decisions made by other people; we have no control over these decisions and usually we do not even know the people who make them. (“We live in a world in which relatively few people — maybe 500 or 1,000 — make the important decisions.” — Philip B. Heymann of Harvard Law School, quoted by Anthony Lewis, New York Times, April 21, 1995) Our lives depend on whether safety standards at a nuclear power plant are properly maintained; on how much pesticide is allowed to get into our food or how much pollution into our air; on how skilful (or incompetent) our doctor is; whether we lose or get a job may depend on decisions made by government economist or corporation executives; and so forth. Most individuals are not in a position to secure themselves against these threats to more that a very limited extent. The individual’s search for security is therefore frustrated, which leads to a sense of powerlessness.

68. It may be objected that primitive man is physically less secure than modern man, as is shown by his shorter life expectancy, hence modern man suffers from less, not more than the amount of insecurity that is normal for human beings. But psychological security does not closely correspond with physical security. What makes us FEEL secure is not so much objective security as a sense of confidence in our ability to take care of ourselves. Primitive man, threatened by a fierce animal or by hunger, can fight in self-defense or travel in search of food. He has no certainty of success in these efforts, but he is by no means helpless against the things that threaten him. The modern individual on the other hand is threatened by many things against which he is helpless: nuclear accidents, carcinogens in food, environmental pollution, war, increasing taxes, invasion of his privacy by large organizations, nationwide social or economic phenomena that may disrupt his way of life.

69. It is true that primitive man is powerless against some of the things that threaten him: disease for example. But he can accept the risk of disease stoically. It is part of the nature of things, it is no one’s fault, unless it is the fault of some imaginary, impersonal demon. But threats to the modern individual tend to be MAN-MADE. They are not the results of chance but are IMPOSED on him by other persons whose decisions he, as an individual, is unable to influence. Consequently he feels frustrated, humiliated and angry.

70. Thus primitive man for the most part has his security in his own hands (either as an individual or as a member of a SMALL group) whereas the security of modern man is in the hands of persons or organizations that are too remote or too large for him to be able personally to influence them. So modern man’s drive for security tends to fall into groups 1 and 3; in some areas (food, shelter etc,) his security is assured at the cost of only trivial effort, whereas in other areas he CANNOT attain security. (The foregoing greatly simplifies the real situation, but it does indicate in a rough, general way how the condition of modern man differs from that of primitive man.)

71. People have many transitory drives or impulses that are necessarily frustrated in modern life, hence fall into group 3. One may become angry, but modern society cannot permit fighting. In many situations it does not even permit verbal aggression. When going somewhere one may be in a hurry, or one may be in a mood to travel slowly, but one generally has no choice but to move with the flow of traffic and obey the traffic signals. One may want to do one’s work in a different way, but usually one can work only according to the rules laid down by one’s employer. In many other ways as well, modern man is strapped down by a network of rules and regulations (explicit or implicit) that frustrate many of his impulses and thus interfere with the power process. Most of these regulations cannot be dispensed with, because they are necesary for the function of industrial society.

72. Modern society is in certain respects extremely permissive. In matters that are irrelevant to the functioning of the system we can generally do what we please. We can believe in any religion we like (as long as it does not encourage behavior that is dangerous to the system). We can go to bed with anyone we like (as long as we practice “safe sex”). We can do anything we like as long as it is UNIMPORTANT. But in all IMPORTANT matters the system tends increasingly to regulate our behavior.

73. Behavior is regulated not only through explicit rules and not only by the government. Control is often exercised through indirect coercion or through psychological pressure or manipulation, and by organizations other than the government, or by the system as a whole. Most large organizations use some form of propaganda[20] to manipulate public attitudes or behavior. Propaganda is not limited to “commercials” and advertisements, and sometimes it is not even consciously intended as propaganda by the people who make it. For instance, the content of entertainment programming is a powerful form of propaganda. An example of indirect coercion: There is no law that says we have to go to work every day and follow our employer’s orders. Legally there is nothing to prevent us from going into business for ourselves. But in practice there is very little wild country left, and there is room in the economy for only a limited number of small business owners. Hence most of us can survive only as someone else’s employee.

74. We suggest that modern man’s obsession with longevity, and with maintaining physical vigor and sexual attractiveness to an advanced age, is a symptom of unfulfilment resulting from deprivation with respect to the power process. The “mid-life crisis” also is such a symptom. So is the lack of interest in having children that is fairly common in modern society but almost unheard-of in primitive societies.

75. In primitive societies life is a succession of stages. The needs and purposes of one stage having been fulfilled, there is no particular reluctance about passing on to the next stage. A young man goes through the power process by becoming a hunter, hunting not for sport or for fulfilment but to get meat that is necessary for food. (In young women the process is more complex, with greater emphasis on social power; we won’t discuss that here.) This phase having been successfully passed through, the young man has no reluctance about settling down to the responsibilities of raising a family. (In contrast, some modern people indefinitely postpone having children because they are too busy seeking some kind of “fulfilment”. We suggest that the fulfilment they need is adequate experience of the power process — with real goals instead of the artificial goals of surrogate activities.) Again, having successfully raised his children, going through the power process by providing them with the physical necessities, the primitive man feels that his work is done and he is prepared to accept old age (if he survives that long) and death. Many modern people, on the other hand, are disturbed by the prospect of physical deterioration and death, as is shown by the amount of effort they expend trying to maintain their physical condition, appearance and health. We argue that this is due to unfulfilment resulting from the fact that they have never put their physical powers to any practical use, have never gone through the power process using their bodies in a serious way. It is not the primitive man, who has used his body daily for practical purposes, who fears the deterioration of age, but the modern man, who has never had a practical use for his body beyond walking from his car to his house. It is the man whose need for the power process has been satisfied during his life who is best prepared to accept the end of that life.

76. In response to the arguments of this section someone will say, “Society must find a way to give people the opportunity to go through the power process.” This won’t work for those who need autonomy in the power process. For such people the value of the opportunity is destroyed by the very fact that society gives it to them. What they need is to find or make their own opportunities. As long as the system GIVES them their opportunities it still has them on a leash. To attain autonomy they must get off that leash.

HOW SOME PEOPLE ADJUST

77. Not everyone in industrial-technological society suffers from psychological problems. Some people even profess to be quite satisfied with society as it is. We now discuss some of the reasons why people differ so greatly in their response to modern society.

78. First, there doubtless are innate differences in the strength of the drive for power. Individuals with a weak drive for power may have relatively little need to go through the power process, or at least relatively little need for autonomy in the power process. These are docile types who would have been happy as plantation darkies in the Old South. (We don’t mean to sneer at the “plantation darkies” of the Old South. To their credit, most of the slaves were NOT content with their servitude. We do sneer at people who ARE content with servitude.)

79. Some people may have some exceptional drive, in pursuing which they satisfy their need for the power process. For example, those who have an unusually strong drive for social status may spend their whole lives climbing the status ladder without ever getting bored with that game.

80. People vary in their susceptibility to advertising and marketing techniques. Some are so susceptible that, even if they make a great deal of money they cannot satisfy their constant craving for the shiny new toys that the marketing industry dangles before their eyes. So they always feel hard-pressed financially even if their income is large, and their cravings are frustrated.

81. Some people have low susceptibility to advertising and marketing techniques. These are the people who aren’t interested in money. Material acquisition does not serve their need for the power process.

82. People who have medium susceptibility to advertising and marketing techniques are able to earn enough money to satisfy their craving for goods and services, but only at the cost of serious effort (putting in overtime, taking a second job, earning promotions, etc.). Thus material acquisition served their need for the power process. But it does not necessarily follow that their need is fully satisfied. They may have insufficient autonomy in the power process (their work may consist in following orders) and some of their drives may be frustrated (e.g. security, aggression). (We are guilty of oversimplification in paragraphs 80–82 because we have assumed that the desire for material acquisition is entirely a creation of the advertising and marketing industry. Of course it’s not that simple 11.)

83. Some people partly satisfy their need for power by identifying themselves with a powerful organization or mass movement. An individual lacking goals or power joins a movement or an organization, adopts its goals as his own, then works toward those goals. When some of the goals are attained, the individual, even though his personal efforts have played only an insignificant part in the attainment of the goals, feels (through his identification with the movement or organization) as if he had gone through the power process. This phenomenon was exploited by the fascists, nazis and communists. Our society uses it too, though less crudely. Example: Manuel Noriega was an irritant to the U.S. (goal: punish Noriega). The U.S. invaded Panama (effort) and punished Noriega (attainment of goal). Thus the U.S. went through the power process and many Americans, because of their identification with the U.S., experienced the power process vicariously. Hence the widespread public approval of the Panama invasion; it gave people a sense of power[21]. We see the same phenomenon in armies, corporations, political parties, humanitarian organizations, religious or ideological movements. In particular, leftist movements tend to attract people who are seeking to satisfy their need for power. But for most people identification with a large organization or a mass movement does not fully satisfy the need for power.

84. Another way in which people satisfy their need for the power process is through surrogate activities. As we explained in paragraphs 38–40, a surrogate activity is an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that the individual pursues for the sake of the “fulfilment” that he gets from pursuing the goal, not because he needs to attain the goal itself. For instance, there is no practical motive for building enormous muscles, hitting a little white ball into a hole or acquiring a complete series of postage stamps. Yet many people in our society devote themselves with passion to body-building, golf or stamp-collecting. Some people are more “other-directed” than others, and therefore will more readily attach importance to a surrogate activity simply because the people around them treat it as important or because society tells them it is important. That is why some people get very serious about essentially trivial activities such as sports, or bridge, or chess, or arcane scholarly pursuits, whereas others who are more clear-sighted never see these things as anything but the surrogate activities that they are, and consequently never attach enough importance to them to satisfy their need for the power process in that way. It only remains to point out that in many cases a person’s way of earning a living is also a surrogate activity. Not a PURE surrogate activity, since part of the motive for the activity is to gain the physical necessities and (for some people) social status and the luxuries that advertising makes them want. But many people put into their work far more effort than is necessary to earn whatever money and status they require, and this extra effort constitutes a surrogate activity. This extra effort, together with the emotional investment that accompanies it, is one of the most potent forces acting toward the continual development and perfecting of the system, with negative consequences for individual freedom. (See paragraph 131.) Especially, for the most creative scientists and engineers, work tends to be largely a surrogate activity. This point is so important that it deserves a separate discussion, which we shall give in a moment (paragraphs 87–92).

85. In this section we have explained how many people in modern society do satisfy their need for the power process to a greater or lesser extent. But we think that for the majority of people the need for the power process is not fully satisfied. In the first place, those who have an insatiable drive for status, or who get firmly “hooked” on a surrogate activity, or who identify strongly enough with a movement or organization to satisfy their need for power in that way, are exceptional personalities. Others are not fully satisfied with surrogate activities or by identification with an organization. (See paragraphs 41, 64.) In the second place, too much control is imposed by the system through explicit regulation or through socialization, which results in a deficiency of autonomy, and in frustration due to the impossibility of attaining certain goals and the necessity of restraining too many impulses.

86. But even if most people in industrial-technological society were well satisfied, we (FC){1} would still be opposed to that form of society, because (among other reasons) we consider it demeaning to fulfil one’s need for the power process through surrogate activities or through identification with an organization, rather than through pursuit of real goals.

THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS

87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities. Some scientists claim that they are motivated by “curiosity” or by a desire to “benefit humanity.” But it is easy to see that neither of these can be the principal motive of most scientists. As for “curiosity”, that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work on highly specialized problems that are not the object of any normal curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician or an entomologist curious about the properties of isopropyltrimethylmethane? Of course not. Only a chemist is curious about such a thing, and he is curious about it only because chemistry is his surrogate activity. Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification of a new species of beetle? No. That question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only because entomology is his surrogate activity. If the chemist and the entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their abilities in an interesting way but in some nonscientific pursuit, then they wouldn’t give a damn about isopropyltrimethylmethane or the classification of beetles. Suppose that lack of funds for post- graduate education had led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of a chemist. In that case he would have been very interested in insurance matters but would have cared nothing about isopropyltrimethylmethane. In any case it is not normal to put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of time and effort that scientists put into their work. The “curiosity” explanation of the scientists’ motive just doesn’t stand up.

88. The “benefit of humanity” explanation doesn’t work any better. Some scientific work has no conceivable relation to the human race — most of archaeology or comparative linguistics for example. Some other areas of science present obviously dangerous possibilities. Yet scientists in these areas are just as enthusiastic about their work as those who develop vaccines or study air pollution. Consider the case of Dr. Edward Teller, who had an obvious emotional involvement in promoting nuclear power plants. Did this involvement stem from a desire to benefit humanity? If so, then why didn’t Dr. Teller get emotional about other “humanitarian” causes? If he was such a humanitarian then why did he help to develop the H-bomb? As with many other scientific achievements, it is very much open to question whether nuclear power plants actually do benefit humanity. Does the cheap electricity outweigh the accumulating waste and the risk of accidents? Dr. Teller saw only one side of the question. Clearly his emotional involvement with nuclear power arose not from a desire to “benefit humanity” but from the personal fulfilment he got from his work and from seeing it put to practical use.

89. The same is true of scientists generally. With possible rare exceptions, their motive is neither curiosity nor a desire to benefit humanity but the need to go through the power process: to have a goal (a scientific problem to solve), to make an effort (research) and to attain the goal (solution of the problem). Science is a surrogate activity because scientists work mainly for the fulfilment they get out of the work itself.

90. Of course, it’s not that simple. Other motives do play a role for many scientists. Money and status for example. Some scientists may be persons of the type who have an insatiable drive for status (see paragraph 79) and this may provide much of the motivation for their work. No doubt the majority of scientists, like the majority of the general population, are more or less susceptible to advertising and marketing techniques and need money to satisfy their craving for goods and services. Thus science is not a PURE surrogate activity. But it is in large part a surrogate activity.

91. Also, science and technology constitute a powerful mass movement, and many scientists gratify their need for power through identification with this mass movement. (See paragraph 83.)

92. Thus science marches on blindly, without regard to the real welfare of the human race or to any other standard, obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government officials and corporation executives who provide the funds for research.

THE NATURE OF FREEDOM

93. We are going to argue that industrial-technological society cannot be reformed in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing the sphere of human freedom. But, because “freedom” is a word that can be interpreted in many ways, we must first make clear what kind of freedom we are concerned with.

94. By “freedom” we mean the opportunity to go through the power process, with real goals not the artificial goals of surrogate activities, and without interference, manipulation or supervision from anyone, especially from any large organization. Freedom means being in control (either as an individual or as a member of a SMALL group) of the life-and-death issues of one’s existence: food, clothing, shelter and defense against whatever threats there may be in one’s environment. Freedom means having power; not the power to control other people but the power to control the circumstances of one’s own life. One does not have freedom if anyone else (especially a large organization) has power over one, no matter how benevolently, tolerantly and permissively that power may be exercised. It is important not to confuse freedom with mere permissiveness (see paragraph 72).

95. It is said that we live in a free society because we have a certain number of constitutionally guarantied rights. But these are not as important as they seem. The degree of personal freedom that exists in a society is determined more by the economic and technological structure of the society than by its laws or its form of government[22]. Most of the Indian nations or New England were monarchies, and many of the cities of the Italian Renaissance were controlled by dictators. But in reading about these societies one gets the impression that they allowed far more personal freedom than our society does. In part this was because they lacked efficient mechanisms for enforcing the ruler’s will: There were no modern, well-organized police forces, no rapid long-distance communications, no surveillance cameras, no dossiers of information about the lives of average citizens. Hence it was relatively easy to evade control.

96. As for our constitutional rights, consider for example that of freedom of the press. We certainly don’t mean to knock that right; it is a very important tool for limiting concentration of political power and for keeping those who do have political power in line by publicly exposing any misbehavior on their part. But freedom of the press is of very little use to the average citizen as an individual. The mass media are mostly under the control of large organizations that are integrated into the system. Anyone who has a little money can have something printed, or can distribute it on the internet or in some such way, but what he has to say will be swamped by the vast volume of material put out by the media, hence it will have no practical effect. To make an impression on society with words is therefore almost impossible for most individuals and small groups. Take us (FC) for example. If we had never done anything violent and had submitted the present writings to a publisher, they probably would not have been accepted. If they had been accepted and published, they probably would not have attracted many readers, because it’s more fun to watch the entertainment put out by the media than to read a sober essay. Even if these writings had had many readers, most of those readers would soon have forgotten what they had read as their minds were flooded by the mass of material to which the media expose them. In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we’ve had to kill people.

97. Constitutional rights are useful up to a point, but they do not serve to guaranty much more than what might be called the bourgeois conception of freedom. According to the bourgeois conception, a “free” man is essentially an element of a special machine and has only a certain act of prescribed and delimited freedoms; freedoms that are designed to serve the needs of the social machine more than those of the individual. Thus the bourgeois’s “free” man has economic freedom because that promotes growth and progress; he has freedom of the press because public criticism restrains misbehavior by political leaders; he has a right to a fair trial because imprisonment at the whim of the powerful would be bad for the system. This was clearly the attitude of Simon Bolivar. To him, people deserved liberty only if they used it to promote progress (progress as conceived by the bourgeois). Other bourgeois thinkers have taken a similar view of freedom as a mere means to collective ends. Chester C. Tan, Chinese Political Thought in the Twentieth Century, page 202, explains the philosophy of the Kuomintang leader Hu Han-min: “An individual is granted rights because he is a member of society and his community life requires such rights. By community Hu meant the whole society or the nation.” And on page 259 Tan states that according to Carsun Chang (Chang Chun-mai, head of the State Socialist Party in China) freedom had to be used in the interest of the state and of the people as a whole. But what kind of freedom does one have if one can use it only as someone else prescribes? FC’s conception of freedom is not that of Bolivar, Hu, Chang or other bourgeois theorists. The trouble with such theorists is that they have made the development and application of social theories their surrogate activity. Consequently the theories are designed to serve the needs of the theorists more than the needs of any people who may be unlucky enough to live in a society on which the theories are imposed.

98. One more point to be made in this section: It should not be assumed that a person has enough freedom just because he SAYS he has enough. Freedom is restricted in part by psychological controls of which people are unconscious, and moreover many people’s ideas of what constitutes freedom are governed more by social convention than by their real needs. For example, it’s likely that many leftists of the oversocialized type would say that most people, including themselves, are socialized too little rather than too much, yet the oversocialized leftist pays a heavy psychological price for his high level of socialization.

SOME PRINCIPLES OF HISTORY

99. Think of history as being the sum of two components: an erratic component that consists of unpredictable events that follow no discernible pattern, and a regular component that consists of long-term historical trends. Here we are concerned with the long-term trends.

100. FIRST PRINCIPLE. If a SMALL change is made that affects a long-term historical trend, then the effect of that change will almost always be transitory — the trend will soon revert to its original state. (Example: A reform movement designed to clean up political corruption in a society rarely has more than a short-term effect; sooner or later the reformers relax and corruption creeps back in. The level of political corruption in a given society tends to remain constant, or to change only slowly with the evolution of the society. Normally, a political clean-up will be permanent only if accompanied by widespread social changes; a SMALL change in the society won’t be enough.) If a small change in a long-term historical trend appears to be permanent, it is only because the change acts in the direction in which the trend is already moving, so that the trend is not altered but only pushed a step ahead.

101. The first principle is almost a tautology. If a trend were not stable with respect to small changes, it would wander at random rather than following a definite direction; in other words it would not be a long-term trend at all.

102. SECOND PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is sufficiently large to alter permanently a long-term historical trend, then it will alter the society as a whole. In other words, a society is a system in which all parts are interrelated, and you can’t permanently change any important part without changing all other parts as well.

103. THIRD PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is large enough to alter permanently a long-term trend, then the consequences for the society as a whole cannot be predicted in advance. (Unless various other societies have passed through the same change and have all experienced the same consequences, in which case one can predict on empirical grounds that another society that passes through the same change will be likely to experience similar consequences.)

104. FOURTH PRINCIPLE. A new kind of society cannot be designed on paper. That is, you cannot plan out a new form of society in advance, then set it up and expect it to function as it was designed to do.

105. The third and fourth principles result from the complexity of human societies. A change in human behavior will affect the economy of a society and its physical environment; the economy will affect the environment and vice versa, and the changes in the economy and the environment will affect human behavior in complex, unpredictable ways; and so forth. The network of causes and effects is far too complex to be untangled and understood.

106. FIFTH PRINCIPLE. People do not consciously and rationally choose the form of their society. Societies develop through processes of social evolution that are not under rational human control.

107. The fifth principle is a consequence of the other four.

108. To illustrate: By the first principle, generally speaking an attempt at social reform either acts in the direction in which the society is developing anyway (so that it merely accelerates a change that would have occurred in any case) or else it has only a transitory effect, so that the society soon slips back into its old groove. To make a lasting change in the direction of development of any important aspect of a society, reform is insufficient and revolution is required. (A revolution does not necessarily involve an armed uprising or the overthrow of a government.) By the second principle, a revolution never changes only one aspect of a society, it changes the whole society; and by the third principle changes occur that were never expected or desired by the revolutionaries. By the fourth principle, when revolutionaries or utopians set up a new kind of society, it never works out as planned.

109. The American Revolution does not provide a counterexample. The American “Revolution” was not a revolution in our sense of the word, but a war of independence followed by a rather far-reaching political reform. The Founding Fathers did not change the direction of development of American society, nor did they aspire to do so. They only freed the development of American society from the retarding effect of British rule. Their political reform did not change any basic trend, but only pushed American political culture along its natural direction of development. British society, of which American society was an offshoot, had been moving for a long time in the direction of representative democracy. And prior to the War of Independence the Americans were already practicing a significant degree of representative democracy in the colonial assemblies. The political system established by the Constitution was modelled on the British system and on the colonial assemblies. With major alterations, to be sure — there is no doubt that the Founding Fathers took a very important step. But it was a step along the road that the English-speaking world was already travelling. The proof is that Britain and all of its colonies that were populated predominantly by people of British descent ended up with systems of representative democracy essentially similar to that of the United States. If the Founding Fathers had lost their nerve and declined to sign the Declaration of Independence, our way of life today would not have been significantly different. Maybe we would have had somewhat closer ties to Britain, and would have had a Parliament and Prime Minister instead of a Congress and President. No big deal. Thus the American Revolution provides not a counterexample to our principles but a good illustration of them.

110. Still, one has to use common sense in applying the principles. They are expressed in imprecies language that allows latitude for interpretation, and exceptions to them can be found. So we present these principles not as inviolable laws but as rules of thumb, or guides to thinking, that may provide a partial antidote to naive ideas about the future of society. The principle should be borne constantly in mind, and whenever one reaches a conclusion that conflicts with them one should carefully re-examine one’s thinking and retain the conclusion only if one has good, solid reasons for doing so.

INDUSTRIAL-TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY CANNOT BE REFORMED

111. The foregoing principles help to show how hopelessly difficult it would be to reform the industrial system in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing our sphere of freedom. There has been a consistent tendency, going back at least to the industrial revolution, for technology to strengthen the system at a high cost in individual freedom and local autonomy. Hence any change designed to protect freedom from technology would be contrary to a fundamental trend in the development of our society. Consequently, such a change either would be a transitory one — soon swamped by the tide of history — or, if large enough to be permanent, would alter the nature of our whole society. This by the first and second principles. Moreover, since society would be altered in a way that could not be predicted in advance (third principle) there would be great risk. Changes large enough to make a lasting difference in favor of freedom would not be initiated because it would be realized that they would gravely disrupt the system. So any attempts at reform would be too timid to be effective. Even if changes large enough to make a lasting difference were initiated, they would be retracted when their disruptive effects became apparent. Thus, permanent changes in favor of freedom could be brought about only by persons prepared to accept radical, dangerous and unpredictable alteration of the entire system. In other words by revolutionaries, not reformers.

112. People anxious to rescue freedom without sacrificing the supposed benefits of technology will suggest naive schemes for some new form of society that would reconcile freedom with technology. Apart from the fact that people who make such suggestions seldom propose any practical means by which the new form of society could be set up in the first place, it follows from the fourth principle that even if the new form of society could be once established, it either would collapse or would give results very different from those expected.

113. So even on very general grounds it seems highly improbable that any way of changing society could be found that would reconcile freedom with modern technology. In the next few sections we will give more specific reasons for concluding that freedom and technological progress are incompatible.

RESTRICTION OF FREEDOM IS UNAVOIDABLE IN INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY

114. As explained in paragraphs 65–67, 70–73, modern man is strapped down by a network of rules and regulations, and his fate depends on the actions of persons remote from him whose decisions he cannot influence. This is not accidental or a result of the arbitrariness of arrogant bureaucrats. It is necessary and inevitable in any technologically advanced society. The system HAS TO regulate human behavior closely in order to function. At work people have to do what they are told to do, when they are told to do it and in the way they are told to do it, otherwise production would be thrown into chaos. Bureaucracies HAVE TO be run according to rigid rules. To allow any substantial personal discretion to lower-level bureaucrats would disrupt the system, and lead to charges of unfairness due to differences in the way individual bureaucrats exercised their discretion. It is true that some restrictions on our freedom could be eliminated, but GENERALLY SPEAKING the regulation of our lives by large organizations is necessary for the functioning of industrial-technological society. The result is a sense of powerlessness on the part of the average person. It may be, however, that formal regulations will tend increasingly to be replaced by psychological tools that make us want to do what the system requires of us. (Propaganda14, educational techniques, “mental health” programs, etc.)

115. The system HAS TO force people to behave in ways that are increasingly remote from the natural pattern of human behavior. For example, the system needs scientists, mathematicians and engineers. It can’t function without them. So heavy pressure is put on children to excel in these fields. It isn’t natural for an adolescent human being to spend the bulk of his time sitting at a desk absorbed in study. A normal adolescent wants to spend his time in active contact with the real world. Among primitive peoples the things that children are trained to do tend to be in reasonable harmony with natural human impulses. Among the American Indians, for example, boys were trained in active outdoor pursuits — just the sort of thing that boys like. But in our society children are pushed into studying technical subjects, which most do grudgingly.

116. Because of the constant pressure that the system exerts to modify human behavior, there is a gradual increase in the number of people who cannot or will not adjust to society’s requirements: welfare leeches, youth-gang members, cultists, anti-government rebels, radical environmentalist saboteurs, dropouts and resisters of various kinds.

117. In any technologically advanced society the individual’s fate MUST depend on decisions that he personally cannot influence to any great extent. A technological society cannot be broken down into small, autonomous communities, because production depends on the cooperation of very large numbers of people and machines. Such a society MUST be highly organized and decisions HAVE TO be made that affect very large numbers of people. When a decision affects, say, a million people, then each of the affected individuals has, on the average, only a one-millionth share in making the decision. What usually happens in practice is that decisions are made by public officials or corporation executives, or by technical specialists, but even when the public votes on a decision the number of voters ordinarily is too large for the vote of any one individual to be significant[23]. Thus most individuals are unable to influence measurably the major decisions that affect their lives. There is no conceivable way to remedy this in a technologically advanced society. The system tries to “solve” this problem by using propaganda to make people WANT the decisions that have been made for them, but even if this “solution” were completely successful in making people feel better, it would be demeaning.

118. Conservatives and some others advocate more “local autonomy.” Local communities once did have autonomy, but such autonomy becomes less and less possible as local communities become more enmeshed with and dependent on large-scale systems like public utilities, computer networks, highway systems, the mass communications media, the modern health-care system. Also operating against autonomy is the fact that technology applied in one location often affects people at other locations far away. Thus pesticde or chemical use near a creek may contaminate the water supply hundreds of miles downstream, and the greenhouse effect affects the whole world.

119. The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is not the fault of capitalism and it is not the fault of socialism. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity[24]. Of course the system does satisfy many human needs, but generally speaking it does this only to the extent that it is to the advantage of the system to do it. It is the needs of the system that are paramount, not those of the human being. For example, the system provides people with food because the system couldn’t function if everyone starved; it attends to people’s psychological needs whenever it can CONVENIENTLY do so, because it couldn’t function if too many people became depressed or rebellious. But the system, for good, solid, practical reasons, must exert constant pressure on people to mold their behavior to the needs of the system. Too much waste accumulating? The government, the media, the educational system, environmentalists, everyone inundates us with a mass of propaganda about recycling. Need more technical personnel? A chorus of voices exhorts kids to study science. No one stops to ask whether it is inhumane to force adolescents to spend the bulk of their time studying subjects that most of them hate. When skilled workers are put out of a job by technical advances and have to undergo “retraining,” no one asks whether it is humiliating for them to be pushed around in this way. It is simply taken for granted that everyone must bow to technical necessity. And for good reason: If human needs were put before technical necessity there would be economic problems, unemployment, shortages or worse. The concept of “mental health” in our society is defined largely by the extent to which an individual behaves in accord with the needs of the system and does so without showing signs of stress.

120. Efforts to make room for a sense of purpose and for autonomy within the system are no better than a joke. For example, one company, instead of having each of its employees assemble only one section of a catalog, had each assemble a whole catalog, and this was supposed to give them a sense of purpose and achievement. Some companies have tried to give their employees more autonomy in their work, but for practical reasons this usually can be done only to a very limited extent, and in any case employees are never given autonomy as to ultimate goals — their “autonomous” efforts can never be directed toward goals, such as the survival and growth of the company. Any company would soon go out of business if it permitted its employees to act otherwise. Similarly, in any enterprise within a socialist system, workers must direct their efforts toward the goals of the enterprise, otherwise the enterprise will not serve its purpose as part of the system. Once again, for purely technical reasons it is not possible for most individuals or small groups to have much autonomy in industrial society. Even the small business owner commonly has only limited autonomy. Apart from the necessity of government regulation, he is restricted by the fact that he must fit into the economic system and conform to its requirements. For instance, when someone develops a new technology, the small-business person often has to use that technology whether he wants to or not, in order to remain competitive.

THE “BAD” PARTS OF TECHNOLOGY CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE “GOOD” PARTS

121. A further reason why industrial society cannot be reformed in favor of freedom is that modern technology is a unified system in which all parts are dependent on one another. You can’t get rid of the “bad” parts of technology and retain only the “good” parts. Take modern medicine, for example. Progress in medical science depends on progress in chemistry, physics, biology, computer science and other fields. Advanced medical treatments require expensive, high-tech equipment that can be made available only by a technologically progressive, economically rich society. Clearly you can’t have much progress in medicine without the whole technological system and everything that goes with it.

122. Even if medical progress could be maintained without the rest of the technological system. it would by itself bring certain evils. Suppose for example that a cure for diabetes is discovered. People with a genetic tendency to diabetes will then be able to survive and reproduce as well as anyone else. Natural selection against genes for diabetes will cease and such genes will spread throughout the population. (This may be occurring to some extent already, since diabetes, while not curable, can be controlled through use of insulin.) The same thing will happen with many other diseases susceptibility to which is affected by genetic factors (e.g. childhood cancer), resulting in massive genetic degradation of the population. The only solution will be some sort of eugenics program or extensive genetic engineering of human beings, so that man in the future will no longer be a creation of nature, or of chance, or of God (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions) but a manufactured product.

123. If you think that big government interferes in your life too much NOW, just wait till the government starts regulating the genetic constitution of your children. Such regulation will inevitably follow the introduction of genetic engineering of human beings, because the consequences of unregulated genetic engineering would be disastrous[25].

124. The usual response to such concerns is to talk about “medical ethics.” But a code of ethics would not serve to protect freedom in the face of medical progress; it would only make matters worse. A code of ethics applicable to genetic engineering would be in effect a means of regulating the genetic constitution of human beings. Somebody (probably the upper middle class, mostly) would decide that such and such applications of genetic engineering were “ethical” and others were not, so that in effect they would be imposing their own values on the genetic constitution of the population at large. Even if a code of ethics were chosen on a completely democratic basis, the majority would be imposing their own values on any minorities who might have a different idea of what constituted an “ethical” use of genetic engineering. The only code of ethics that would truly protect freedom would be one that prohibited ANY genetic engineering of human beings, and you can be sure that no such code will ever be applied in a technological society. No code that reduced genetic engineering to a minor role could stand up for long, because the temptation presented by the immense power of biotechnology would be irresistible, especially since to the majority of people many of its applications will seem obviously and unequivocally good (eliminating physical and mental diseases, giving people the abilities they need to get along in today’s world). Inevitably, genetic engineering will be used extensively, but only in ways consistent with the needs of the industrial-technological system[26].

TECHNOLOGY IS A MORE POWERFUL SOCIAL FORCE THAN THE ASPIRATION FOR FREEDOM

125. It is not possible to make a LASTING compromise between technology and freedom, because technology is by far the more powerful social force and continually encroaches on freedom through REPEATED compromises. Imagine the case of two neighbors, each of whom at the outset owns the same amount of land, but one of whom is more powerful than the other. The powerful one demands a piece of the other’s land. The weak one refuses. The powerful one says, “OK, let’s compromise. Give me half of what I asked.” The weak one has little choice but to give in. Some time later the powerful neighbor demands another piece of land, again there is a compromise, and so forth. By forcing a long series of compromises on the weaker man, the powerful one eventually gets all of his land. So it goes in the conflict between technology and freedom.

126. Let us explain why technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom.

127. A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at his own pace without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of technological support systems. When motor vehicles were introduced they appeared to increase man’s freedom. They took no freedom away from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn’t want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel much faster and farther than a walking man. But the introduction of motorized transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly man’s freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became numerous, it became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car, especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one likes at one’s own pace; one’s movement is governed by the flow of traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration, insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on purchase price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport the arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they must use public transportation, in which case they have even less control over their own movement than when driving a car. Even the walker’s freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually has to stop to wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous and unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note this important point that we have just illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new item of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.)

128. While technological progress AS A WHOLE continually narrows our sphere of freedom, each new technical advance CONSIDERED BY ITSELF appears to be desirable. Electricity, indoor plumbing, rapid long-distance communications ... how could one argue against any of these things, or against any other of the innumerable technical advances that have made modern society? It would have been absurd to resist the introduction of the telephone, for example. It offered many advantages and no disadvantages. Yet, as we explained in paragraphs 59–76, all these technical advances taken together have created a world in which the average man’s fate is no longer in his own hands or in the hands of his neighbors and friends, but in those of politicians, corporation executives and remote, anonymous technicians and bureaucrats whom he as an individual has no power to influence[27]. The same process will continue in the future. Take genetic engineering, for example. Few people will resist the introduction of a genetic technique that eliminates a hereditary disease. It does no apparent harm and prevents much suffering. Yet a large number of genetic improvements taken together will make the human being into an engineered product rather than a free creation of chance (or of God, or whatever, depending on your religious beliefs).

129. Another reason why technology is such a powerful social force is that, within the context of a given society, technological progress marches in only one direction; it can never be reversed. Once a technical innovation has been introduced, people usually become dependent on it, so that they can never again do without it, unless it is replaced by some still more advanced innovation. Not only do people become dependent as individuals on a new item of technology, but, even more, the system as a whole becomes dependent on it. (Imagine what would happen to the system today if computers, for example, were eliminated.) Thus the system can move in only one direction, toward greater technologization. Technology repeatedly forces freedom to take a step back, but technology can never take a step back — short of the overthrow of the whole technological system.

130. Technology advances with great rapidity and threatens freedom at many different points at the same time (crowding, rules and regulations, increasing dependence of individuals on large organizations, propaganda and other psychological techniques, genetic engineering, invasion of privacy through surveillance devices and computers, etc.) To hold back any ONE of the threats to freedom would require a long and difficult social struggle. Those who want to protect freedom are overwhelmed by the sheer number of new attacks and the rapidity with which they develop, hence they become apathetic and no longer resist. To fight each of the threats separately would be futile. Success can be hoped for only by fighting the technological system as a whole; but that is revolution, not reform.

131. Technicians (we use this term in its broad sense to describe all those who perform a specialized task that requires training) tend to be so involved in their work (their surrogate activity) that when a conflict arises between their technical work and freedom, they almost always decide in favor of their technical work. This is obvious in the case of scientists, but it also appears elsewhere: Educators, humanitarian groups, conservation organizations do not hesitate to use propaganda14 or other psychological techniques to help them achieve their laudable ends. Corporations and government agencies, when they find it useful, do not hesitate to collect information about individuals without regard to their privacy. Law enforcement agencies are frequently inconvenienced by the constitutional rights of suspects and often of completely innocent persons, and they do whatever they can do legally (or sometimes illegally) to restrict or circumvent those rights. Most of these educators, government officials and law officers believe in freedom, privacy and constitutional rights, but when these conflict with their work, they usually feel that their work is more important.

132. It is well known that people generally work better and more persistently when striving for a reward than when attempting to avoid a punishment or negative outcome. Scientists and other technicians are motivated mainly by the rewards they get through their work. But those who oppose technological invasions of freedom are working to avoid a negative outcome; consequently there are few who work persistently and well at this discouraging task. If reformers ever achieved a signal victory that seemed to set up a solid barrier against further erosion of freedom through technical progress, most would tend to relax and turn their attention to more agreeable pursuits. But the scientists would remain busy in their laboratories, and technology as it progressed would find ways, in spite of any barriers, to exert more and more control over individuals and make them always more dependent on the system.

133. No social arrangements, whether laws, institutions, customs or ethical codes, can provide permanent protection against technology. History shows that all social arrangements are transitory; they all change or break down eventually. But technological advances are permanent within the context of a given civilization. Suppose for example that it were possible to arrive at some social arrangement that would prevent genetic engineering from being applied to human beings, or prevent it from being applied in such a way as to threaten freedom and dignity. Still, the technology would remain, waiting. Sooner or later the social arrangement would break down. Probably sooner, given the pace of change in our society. Then genetic engineering would begin to invade our sphere of freedom, and this invasion would be irreversible (short of a breakdown of technological civilization itself). Any illusions about achieving anything permanent through social arrangements should be dispelled by what is currently happening with environmental legislation. A few years ago it seemed that there were secure legal barriers preventing at least SOME of the worst forms of environmental degradation. A change in the political wind, and those barriers begin to crumble.

134. For all of the foregoing reasons, technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom. But this statement requires an important qualification. It appears that during the next several decades the industrial-technological system will be undergoing severe stresses due to economic and environmental problems, and especially due to problems of human behavior (alienation, rebellion, hostility, a variety of social and psychological difficulties). We hope that the stresses through which the system is likely to pass will cause it to break down, or at least will weaken it sufficiently so that a revolution against it becomes possible. If such a revolution occurs and is successful, then at that particular moment the aspiration for freedom will have proved more powerful than technology.

135. In paragraph 125 we used an analogy of a weak neighbor who is left destitute by a strong neighbor who takes all his land by forcing on him a series of compromises. But suppose now that the strong neighbor gets sick, so that he is unable to defend himself. The weak neighbor can force the strong man to give him his land back, or he can kill him. If he lets the strong man survive and only forces him to give the land back, he is a fool, because when the strong man gets well he will again take all the land for himself. The only sensible alternative for the weaker man is to kill the strong one while he has the chance. In the same way, while the industrial system is sick we must destroy it. If we compromise with it and let it recover from its sickness, it will eventually wipe out all of our freedom.

SIMPLER SOCIAL PROBLEMS HAVE PROVED INTRACTABLE

136. If anyone still imagines that it would be possible to reform the system in such a way as to protect freedom from technology, let him consider how clumsily and for the most part unsuccessfully our society has dealt with other social problems that are far more simple and straightforward. Among other things, the system has failed to stop environmental degradation, political corruption, drug trafficking or domestic abuse.

137. Take our environmental problems, for example. Here the conflict of values is straightforward: economic expedience now versus saving some of our natural resources for our grandchildren[28]. But on this subject we get only a lot of blather and obfuscation from the people who have power, and nothing like a clear, consistent line of action, and we keep on piling up environmental problems that our grandchildren will have to live with. Attempts to resolve the environmental issue consist of struggles and compromises between different factions, some of which are ascendant at one moment, others at another moment. The line of struggle changes with the shifting currents of public opinion. This is not a rational process, nor is it one that is likely to lead to a timely and successful solution to the problem. Major social problems, if they get “solved” at all, are rarely or never solved through any rational, comprehensive plan. They just work themselves out through a process in which various competing groups pursuing their own (usually short-term) self-interest[29] arrive (mainly by luck) at some more or less stable modus vivendi. In fact, the principles we formulated in paragraphs 100–106 make it seem doubtful that rational, long-term social planning can ever be successful.

138. Thus it is clear that the human race has at best a very limited capacity for solving even relatively straightforward social problems. How then is it going to solve the far more difficult and subtle problem or reconciling freedom with technology? Technology presents clear-cut material advantages, whereas freedom is an abstraction that means different things to different people, and its loss is easily obscured by propaganda and fancy talk.

139. And note this important difference: It is conceivable that our environmental problems (for example) may some day be settled through a rational, comprehensive plan, but if this happens it will be only because it is in the long-term interest of the system to solve these problems. But it is NOT in the interest of the system to solve these problems or small-group autonomy. On the contrary, it is in the interest of the system to bring human behavior under control to the greatest possible extent[30]. Thus, while practical considerations may eventually force the system to take a rational, prudent approach to environmental problems, equally practical considerations will force the system to regulate human behavior ever more closely (preferably by indirect means that will disguise the encroachment on freedom). This isn’t just our opinion. Eminent social scientists (e.g. James Q. Wilson) has stressed the importance of “socializing” people more effectively.

140. We hope we have convinced the reader that the system cannot be reformed in such a way as to reconcile freedom with technology. The only way out is to dispense with the industrial-technological systems altogether. This implies revolution, not necessarily an armed uprising, but certainly a radical and fundamental change in the nature of society.

141. People tend to assume that because a revolution involves a much greater change than reform does, it is more difficult to bring about than reform is. Actually, under certain circumstances, revolution is much easier than reform. The reason is that a revolutionary movement can inspire an intensity of commitment that a reform movement cannot inspire. A reform movement merely offers to solve a particular social problem. A revolutionary movement offers to solve all problems at one stroke and create a whole new world; it provides the kind of ideal for which people will take great risks and make great sacrifices. For this reason it would be much easier to overthrow the whole technological system than to put effective, permanent restraints on the development or application of any one segment of technology, such as genetic engineering, for example. Not many people will devote themselves with single-minded passion to imposing and maintaining restraints on genetic engineering, but under suitable conditions large numbers of people may devote themselves passionately to a revolution against the industrial-technological system. As we noted in paragraph 132, reformers seeking to limit certain aspects of technology would be working to avoid a negative outcome. But revolutionaries work to gain a powerful reward — fulfilment of their revolutionary vision — and therefore work harder and more persistently than reformers do.

142. Reform is always restrained by the fear of painful consequences if changes go too far. But once a revolutionary fever has taken hold of a society, people are willing to undergo unlimited hardships for the sake of their revolution. This was clearly shown in the French and Russian Revolutions. It may be that in such cases only a minority of the population is really committed to the revolution, but this minority is sufficiently large and active so that it becomes the dominant force in society. We will have more to say about revolution in paragraphs 180–205.

CONTROL OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR

143. Since the beginning of civilization, organized societies have had to put pressures on human beings for the sake of the functioning of the social organism. The kinds of pressures vary greatly from one society to another. Some of these pressures are physical (poor diet, excessive labor, environmental pollution), some are psychological (noise, crowding, forcing human behavior into the mold that society requires). In the past, human nature has been approximately constant, or at any rate has varied only within certain bounds. Consequently, societies have been able to push people only up to certain limits. When the limit of human endurance has been passed, things start going wrong: rebellion, or crime, or corruption, or evasion of work, or depression and other mental problems, or an elevated death rate, or a declining birth rate or something else, so that either the society breaks down, or its functioning becomes too inefficient and it is (quickly or gradually, through conquest, attrition or evolution) replaced by some more efficient form of society[31].

144. Thus human nature has in the past put certain limits on the development of societies. People could be pushed only so far and no farther. But today this may be changing, because modern technology is developing ways of modifying human beings.

145. Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy, then gives them drugs to take away their unhappiness. Science fiction? It is already happening to some extent in our own society. It is well known that the rate of clinical depression has been greatly increasing in recent decades. We believe that this is due to disruption of the power process, as explained in paragraphs 59–76. But even if we are wrong, the increasing rate of depression is certainly the result of SOME conditions that exist in today’s society. Instead of removing the conditions that make people depressed, modern society gives them antidepressant drugs. In effect, antidepressants are a means of modifying an individual’s internal state in such a way as to enable him to tolerate social conditions that he would otherwise find intolerable. (Yes, we know that depression is often of purely genetic origin. We are referring here to those cases in which environment plays the predominant role.)

146. Drugs that affect the mind are only one example of the new method of controlling human behavior that modern society is developing. Let us look at some of the other methods.

147. To start with, there are the techniques of surveillance. Hidden videocameras are now used in most stores and in many other places, computers are used to collect and process vast amounts of information about individuals. Information so obtained greatly increases the effectiveness of physical coercion (i.e. law enforcement[32]). Then there are the methods of propaganda, for which the mass communications media provide effective vehicles. Efficient techniques have been developed for winning elections, selling products, influencing public opinion. The entertainment industry serves as an important psychological tool of the system, possibly even when it is dishing out large amounts of sex and violence. Entertainment provides modern man with an essential means of escape. While absorbed in television, videos, etc. he can forget his stress, anxiety, frustration, dissatisfaction. Many primitive peoples, when they don’t have any work to do, are quite content to sit for hours at a time doing nothing at all, because they are at peace with themselves and their world. But most modern people must be constantly occupied or entertained, otherwise they get “bored,” i.e. they get fidgety, uneasy, irritable.

148. Other techniques strike deeper than the foregoing. Education is no longer a simple affair of paddling a kid’s behind when he doesn’t know his lessons and patting him on the head when he does know them. It is becoming a scientific technique for controlling the child’s development. Sylvan Learning Centers, for example, have had great success in motivating children to study, and psychological techniques are also used with more or less success in many conventional schools. “Parenting” techniques that are taught to parents are designed to make children accept the fundamental values of the system and behave in ways that the system finds desirable. “Mental health” programs, “intervention” techniques, psychotherapy and so forth are ostensibly designed to benefit individuals, but in practice they usually serve as methods for inducing individuals to think and behave as the system requires. (There is no contradiction here; an individual whose attitudes or behavior bring him into conflict with the system is up against a force that is too powerful for him to conquer or escape from, hence he is likely to suffer from stress, frustration, defeat. His path will be much easier if he thinks and behaves as the system requires. In that sense the system is acting for the benefit of the individual when it brainwashes him into conformity). Child abuse in its gross and obvious forms is disapproved in most if not all cultures. Tormenting a child for a trivial reason or no reason at all is something that appalls almost everyone. But many psychologists interpret the concept of abuse much more broadly. Is spanking, when used as part of a rational and consistent system of discipline, a form of abuse? The question will ultimately be decided by whether or not spanking tends to produce behavior that makes a person fit in well with the existing system of society. In practice, the word “abuse” tends to be interpreted to include any method of child-rearing that produces behavior inconvenient for the system. Thus, when they go beyond the prevention of obvious, senseless cruelty, programs for preventing “child abuse” are directed toward the control of human behavior on behalf of the system.

149. Presumably, research will continue to increase the effectiveness of psychological techniques for controlling human behavior. But we think it is unlikely that psychological techniques alone will be sufficient to adjust human beings to the kind of society that technology is creating. Biological methods probably will have to be used. We have already mentioned the use of drugs in this connection. Neurology may provide other avenues for modifying the human mind. Genetic engineering of human beings is already beginning to occur in the form of “gene therapy,” and there is no reason to assume that such methods will not eventually be used to modify those aspects of the body that affect mental functioning.

150. As we mentioned in paragraph 134, industrial society seems likely to be entering a period of severe stress, due in part to problems of human behavior and in part to economic and environmental problems. And a considerable proportion of the system’s economic and environmental problems result from the way human beings behave. Alienation, low self-esteem, depression, hostility, rebellion; children who won’t study, youth gangs, illegal drug use, rape, child abuse, other crimes, unsafe sex, teen pregnancy, population growth, political corruption, race hatred, ethnic rivalry, bitter ideological conflict (e.g. pro-choice vs pro-life), political extremism, terrorism, sabotage, anti-government groups, hate groups. All these threaten the very survival of the system. The system will therefore be FORCED to use every practical means of controlling human behavior.

151. The social disruption that we see today is certainly not the result of mere chance. It can only be a result of the conditions of life that the system imposes on people. (We have argued that the most important of these conditions is disruption of the power process.) If the system succeeds in imposing sufficient control over human behavior to assure its own survival, a new watershed in human history will have been passed. Whereas formerly the limits of human endurance have imposed limits on the development of societies (as we explained in paragraphs 143,144), industrial-technological society will be able to pass those limits by modifying human beings, whether by psychological methods or biological methods or both. In the future, social systems will not be adjusted to suit the needs of human beings. Instead, human beings will be adjusted to suit the needs of the system[33].

152. Generally speaking, technological control over human behavior will probably not be introduced with a totalitarian intention or even through a conscious desire to restrict human freedom[34]. Each new step in the assertion of control over the human mind will be taken as a rational response to a problem that faces society, such as curing alcoholism, reducing the crime rate or inducing young people to study science and engineering. In many cases there will be a humanitarian justification. For example, when a psychiatrist prescribes an antidepressant for a depressed patient, he is clearly doing that individual a favor. It would be inhumane to withhold the drug from someone who needs it. When parents send their children to Sylvan Learning Centers to have them manipulated into becoming enthusiastic about their studies, they do so from concern for their children’s welfare. It may be that some of these parents wish that one didn’t have to have specialized training to get a job and that their kid didn’t have to be brainwashed into becoming a computer nerd. But what can they do? They can’t change society, and their child may be unemployable if he doesn’t have certain skills. So they send him to Sylvan.

153. Thus control over human behavior will be introduced not by a calculated decision of the authorities but through a process of social evolution (RAPID evolution, however). The process will be impossible to resist, because each advance, considered by itself, will appear to be beneficial, or at least the evil involved in making the advance will seem to be less than that which would result from not making it. (See paragraph 127.) Propaganda for example is used for many good purposes, such as discouraging child abuse or race hatred14. Sex education is obviously useful, yet the effect of sex education (to the extent that it is successful) is to take the shaping of sexual attitudes away from the family and put it into the hands of the state as represented by the public school system.

154. Suppose a biological trait is discovered that increases the likelihood that a child will grow up to be a criminal, and suppose some sort of gene therapy can remove this trait[35]. Of course most parents whose children possess the trait will have them undergo the therapy. It would be inhumane to do otherwise, since the child would probably have a miserable life if he grew up to be a criminal. But many or most primitive societies have a low crime rate in comparison with that of our society, even though they have neither high-tech methods of child-rearing nor harsh systems of punishment. Since there is no reason to suppose that more modern men than primitive men have innate predatory tendencies, the high crime rate of our society must be due to the pressures that modern conditions put on people, to which many cannot or will not adjust. Thus a treatment designed to remove potential criminal tendencies is at least in part a way of re-engineering people so that they suit the requirements of the system.

155. Our society tends to regard as a “sickness” any mode of thought or behavior that is inconvenient, for the system, and this is plausible because when an individual doesn’t fit into the system it causes pain to the individual as well as problems for the system. Thus the manipulation of an individual to adjust him to the system is seen as a “cure” for a “sickness” and therefore as good.

156. In paragraph 127 we pointed out that if the use of a new item of technology is INITIALLY optional, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional, because the new technology tends to change society in such a way that it becomes difficult or impossible for an individual to function without using that technology. This applies also to the technology of human behavior. In a world in which most children are put through a program to make them enthusiastic about studying, a parent will almost be forced to put his kid through such a program, because if he does not, then the kid will grow up to be, comparatively speaking, an ignoramus and therefore unemployable. Or suppose a biological treatment is discovered that, without undesirable side-effects, will greatly reduce the psychological stress from which so many people suffer in our society. If large numbers of people choose to undergo the treatment, then the general level of stress in society will be reduced, so that it will be possible for the system to increase the stress-producing pressures. This will lead more people to undergo the treatment; and so forth, so that eventually the pressures may become so heavy that few people will be able to survive without undergoing the stress-reducing treatment. In fact, something like this seems to have happened already with one of our society’s most important psychological tools for enabling people to reduce (or at least temporarily escape from) stress, namely, mass entertainment (see paragraph 147). Our use of mass entertainment is “optional”: No law requires us to watch television, listen to the radio, read magazines. Yet mass entertainment is a means of escape and stress-reduction on which most of us have become dependent. Everyone complains about the trashiness of television, but almost everyone watches it. A few have kicked the TV habit, but it would be a rare person who could get along today without using ANY form of mass entertainment. (Yet until quite recently in human history most people get along very nicely with no other entertainment than that which each local community created for itself.) Without the entertainment industry the system probably would not have been able to get away with putting as much stress-producing pressure on us as it does.

157. Assuming that industrial society survives, it is likely that technology will eventually acquire something approaching complete control over human behavior. It has been established beyond any rational doubt that human thought and behavior have a largely biological basis. As experimenters have demonstrated, feelings such as hunger, pleasure, anger and fear can be turned on and off by electrical stimulation of appropriate parts of the brain. Memories can be destroyed by damaging parts of the brain or they can be brought to the surface by electrical stimulation. Hallucinations can be induced or moods changed by drugs. There may or may not be an immaterial human soul, but if there is one it clearly is less powerful than the biological mechanisms of human behavior. For if that were not the case then researchers would not be able so easily to manipulate human feelings and behavior with drugs and electrical currents.

158. It presumably would be impractical for all people to have electrodes inserted in their heads so that they could be controlled by the authorities. But the fact that human thoughts and feelings are so open to biological intervention shows that the problem of controlling human behavior is mainly a technical problem; a problem of neurons, hormones and complex molecules; the kind of problem that is accessible to scientific attack. Given the outstanding record of our society in solving technical problems, it is overwhelmingly probable that great advances will be made in the control of human behavior.

159. Will public resistance prevent the introduction of technological control of human behavior? It certainly would if an attempt were made to introduce such control all at once. But since technological control will be introduced through a long sequence of small advances, there will be no rational and effective public resistance. (See paragraphs 127,132,153.)

160. To those who think that all this sounds like science fiction, we point out that yesterday’s science fiction is today’s fact. The industrial revolution has radically altered man’s environment and way of life, and it is only to be expected that as technology is increasingly applied to the human body and mind, man himself will be altered as radically as his environment and way of life have been.

HUMAN RACE AT A CROSSROADS

161. But we have gotten ahead of our story. It is one thing to develop in the laboratory a series of psychological or biological techniques for manipulating human behavior and quite another to integrate these techniques into a functioning social system. The latter problem is the more difficult of the two. For example, while the techniques of educational psychology doubtless work quite well in the “lab schools” where they are developed, it is not necessarily easy to apply them effectively throughout our educational system. We all know what many of our schools are like. The teachers are too busy taking knives and guns away from the kids to subject them to the latest techniques for making them into computer nerds. Thus, in spite of all its technical advances relating to human behavior, the system to date has not been impressively successful in controlling human beings. The people whose behavior is fairly well under the control of the system are those of the type that might be called “bourgeois.” But there are growing numbers of people who in one way or another are rebels against the system: welfare leaches, youth gangs, cultists, satanists, nazis, radical environmentalists, militiamen etc.

162. The system is currently engaged in a desperate struggle to overcome certain problems that threaten its survival, among which the problems of human behavior are the most important. If the system succeeds in acquiring sufficient control over human behavior quickly enough, it will probably survive. Otherwise it will break down. We think the issue will most likely be resolved within the next several decades, say 40 to 100 years.

163. Suppose the system survives the crisis of the next several decades. By that time it will have to have solved, or at least brought under control, the principal problems that confront it, in particular that of “socializing” human beings; that is, making people sufficiently docile so that their behavior no longer threatens the system. That being accomplished, it does not appear that there would be any further obstacle to the development of technology, and it would presumably advance toward its logical conclusion, which is complete control over everything on earth, including human beings and all other important organisms. The system may become a unitary, monolithic organization, or it may be more or less fragmented and consist of a number of organizations coexisting in a relationship that includes elements of both cooperation and competition, just as today the government, the corporations and other large organizations both cooperate and compete with one another. Human freedom mostly will have vanished, because individuals and small groups will be impotent vis-a-vis large organizations armed with supertechnology and an arsenal of advanced psychological and biological tools for manipulating human beings, besides instruments of surveillance and physical coercion. Only a small number of people will have any real power, and even these probably will have only very limited freedom, because their behavior too will be regulated; just as today our politicians and corporation executives can retain their positions of power only as long as their behavior remains within certain fairly narrow limits.

164. Don’t imagine that the system will stop developing further techniques for controlling human beings and nature once the crisis of the next few decades is over and increasing control is no longer necessary for the system’s survival. On the contrary, once the hard times are over the system will increase its control over people and nature more rapidly, because it will no longer be hampered by difficulties of the kind that it is currently experiencing. Survival is not the principal motive for extending control. As we explained in paragraphs 87–90, technicians and scientists carry on their work largely as a surrogate activity; that is they satisfy their need for power by solving technical problems. They will continue to do this with unabated enthusiasm, and among the most interesting and challenging problems for them to solve will be those of understanding the human body and mind and intervening in their development. For the “good of humanity,” of course.

165. But suppose on the other hand that the stresses of the coming decades prove to be too much for the system. If the system breaks down there may be a period of chaos, a “time of troubles” such as those that history has recorded at various epochs in the past. It is impossible to predict what would emerge from such a time of troubles, but at any rate the human race would be given a new chance. The greatest danger is that industrial society may begin to reconstitute itself within the first few years after the breakdown. Certainly there will be many people (power-hungry types especially) who will be anxious to get the factories running again.

166. Therefore two tasks confront those who hate the servitude to which the industrial system is reducing the human race. First, we must work to heighten the social stresses within the system so as to increase the likelihood that it will break down or be weakened sufficiently so that a revolution against it becomes possible. Second, it is necessary to develop and propagate an ideology that opposes technology and the industrial system. Such an ideology can become the basis for a revolution against industrial society if and when the system becomes sufficiently weakened. And such an ideology will help to assure that, if and when industrial society breaks down, its remnants will be smashed beyond repair, so that the system cannot be reconstituted. The factories should be destroyed, technical books burned etc.

HUMAN SUFFERING

167. The industrial system will not break down purely as a result of revolutionary action. It will not be vulnerable to revolutionary attack unless its own internal problems of development lead it into very serious difficulties. So if the system breaks down it will do so either spontaneously, or through a process that is in part spontaneous but helped along by revolutionaries. If the breakdown is sudden, many people will die, since the world’s population has become so overblown that it cannot even feed itself any longer without advanced technology. Even if the breakdown is gradual enough so that reduction of the population can occur more through lowering of the birth rate than through elevation of the death rate, the process of de-industrialization probably will be very chaotic and involve much suffering. It is naive to think it likely that technology can be phased out in a smoothly-managed, orderly way, especially since the technophiles will fight stubbornly at every step. Is it therefore cruel to work for the breakdown of the system? Maybe, but maybe not. In the first place, revolutionaries will not be able to break the system down unless it is already in enough trouble so that there would be a good chance of its eventually breaking down by itself anyway; and the bigger the system grows, the more disastrous the consequences of its breakdown will be; so it may be that revolutionaries, by hastening the onset of the breakdown, will be reducing the extent of the disaster.

168. In the second place, one has to balance struggle and death against the loss of freedom and dignity. To many of us, freedom and dignity are more important than a long life or avoidance of physical pain. Besides, we all have to die some time, and it may be better to die fighting for survival, or for a cause, than to live a long but empty and purposeless life.

169. In the third place, it is not at all certain that survival of the system will lead to less suffering than breakdown of the system would. The system has already caused, and is continuing to cause, immense suffering all over the world. Ancient cultures, that for hundreds or thousands of years gave people a satisfactory relationship with each other and with their environment, have been shattered by contact with industrial society, and the result has been a whole catalog of economic, environmental, social and psychological problems. One of the effects of the intrusion of industrial society has been that over much of the world traditional controls on population have been thrown out of balance. Hence the population explosion, with all that that implies. Then there is a psychological suffering that is widespread throughout the supposedly fortunate countries of the West (see paragraphs 44,45). No one knows what will happen as a result of ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect and other environmental problems that cannot yet be foreseen. And, as nuclear proliferation has shown, new technology cannot be kept out of the hands of dictators and irresponsible third-world nations. Would you like to speculate about what Iraq or North Korea will do with genetic engineering.

170. “Oh!” say the technophiles, “Science is going to fix all that! We will conquer famine, eliminate psychological suffering, make everybody healthy and happy!” Yeah, sure. That’s what they said 200 years ago. The industrial revolution was supposed to eliminate poverty, make everybody happy, etc. The actual result has been quite different. The technophiles are hopelessly naive (or self-deceiving) in their understanding of social problems. They are unaware of (or choose to ignore) the fact that when large changes, even seemingly beneficial ones, are introduced into a society, they lead to a long sequence of other changes, most of which are impossible to predict (paragraph 103). The result is disruption of the society. So it is very probable that in their attempts to end poverty and disease, engineer docile, happy personalities and so forth, the technophiles will create social systems that are terribly troubled, even more so than the present one. For example, the scientists boast that they will end famine by creating new, genetically engineered food plants. But this will allow the human population to keep expanding indefinitely, and it is well known that crowding leads to increased stress and aggression. This is merely one example of the PREDICTABLE problems that will arise. We emphasize that, as past experience has shown, technical progress will lead to other new problems that CANNOT be predicted in advance (paragraph 103). In fact, ever since the industrial revolution technology has been creating new problems for society far more rapidly than it has been solving old ones. Thus it will take a long and difficult period of trial and error for the technophiles to work the bugs out of their Brave New World (if they ever do). In the mean time there will be great suffering. So it is not at all clear that the survival of industrial society would involve less suffering than the breakdown of that society would. Technology has gotten the human race into a fix from which there is not likely to be any easy escape.

THE FUTURE

171. But suppose now that industrial society does survive the next several decades and that the bugs do eventually get worked out of the system, so that it functions smoothly. What kind of system will it be? We will consider several possibilities.

172. First let us postulate that the computer scientists succeed in developing intelligent machines that can do all things better than human beings can do them. In that case presumably all work will be done by vast, highly organized systems of machines and no human effort will be necessary. Either of two cases might occur. The machines might be permitted to make all of their own decisions without human oversight, or else human control over the machines might be retained.

173. If the machines are permitted to make all their own decisions we can’t make any conjecture as to the results, because it is impossible to guess how such machines might behave. We only point out that the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the machines. It might be argued that the human race would never be foolish enough to hand over all power to the machines. But we are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines nor that the machines would wilfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines’ decisions. As society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and as machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more and more of their decisions for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better results than man-made ones. Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines will be in effective control. People won’t be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide.

174. On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite — just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Or, if the elite consists of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone’s physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes “treatment” to cure his “problem”. Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or to make them “sublimate” their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they most certainly will not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals.

175. But suppose now that the computer scientists do not succeed in developing artificial intelligence, so that human work remains necessary. Even so, machines will be an increasing surplus of human workers at the lower levels of ability. (We see this happening already. There are many people who find it difficult or impossible to get work, because for intellectual or psychological reasons they cannot acquire the level of training necessary to make themselves useful in the present system.) On those who are employed, ever-increasing demands will be placed: They will need more and more training, more and more ability, and will have to be ever more reliable, conforming and docile, because they will be more and more like cells of a giant organism. Their tasks will be increasingly specialized, so that their work will be, in a sense, out of touch with the real world, being concentrated on one tiny slice of reality. The system will have to use any means that it can, whether psychological or biological, to engineer people to be docile, to have the abilities that the system requires and to “sublimate” their drive for power into some specialized task. But the statement that the people of such a society will have to be docile may require qualification. The society may find competitiveness useful, provided that ways are found of directing competitiveness into channels that serve the needs of the system. We can imagine a future society in which there is endless competition for positions of prestige and power. But no more than a very few people will ever reach the top, where the only real power is (see end of paragraph 163). Very repellent is a society in which a person can satisfy his need for power only by pushing large numbers of other people out of the way and depriving them of THEIR opportunity for power.

176. One can envision scenarios that incorporate aspects of more than one of the possibilities that we have just discussed. For instance, it may be that machines will take over most of the work that is of real, practical importance, but that human beings will be kept busy by being given relatively unimportant work. It has been suggested, for example, that a great development of the service industries might provide work for human beings. Thus people would spent their time shining each other’s shoes, driving each other around in taxicabs, making handicrafts for one another, waiting on each other’s tables, etc. This seems to us a thoroughly contemptible way for the human race to end up, and we doubt that many people would find fulfilling lives in such pointless busy-work. They would seek other, dangerous outlets (drugs, crime, “cults,” hate-groups) unless they were biologically or psychologically engineered to adapt them to such a way of life.

177. Needless to say, the scenarios outlined above do not exhaust all the possibilities. They only indicate the kinds of outcomes that seem to us most likely. But we can envision no plausible scenarios that are any more palatable than the ones we’ve just described. It is overwhelmingly probable that if the industrial-technological system survives the next 40 to 100 years, it will by that time have developed certain general characteristics: Individuals (at least those of the “bourgeois” type, who are integrated into the system and make it run, and who therefore have all the power) will be more dependent than ever on large organizations; they will be more “socialized” than ever and their physical and mental qualities to a significant extent (possibly to a very great extent) will be those that are engineered into them rather than being the results of chance (or of God’s will, or whatever); and whatever may be left of wild nature will be reduced to remnants preserved for scientific study and kept under the supervision and management of scientists (hence it will no longer be truly wild). In the long run (say a few centuries from now) it is likely that neither the human race nor any other important organisms will exist as we know them today, because once you start modifying organisms through genetic engineering there is no reason to stop at any particular point, so that the modifications will probably continue until man and other organisms have been utterly transformed.

178. Whatever else may be the case, it is certain that technology is creating for human beings a new physical and social environment radically different from the spectrum of environments to which natural selection has adapted the human race physically and psychologically. If man is not adjusted to this new environment by being artificially re-engineered, then he will be adapted to it through a long and painful process of natural selection. The former is far more likely than the latter.

179. It would be better to dump the whole stinking system and take the consequences.

STRATEGY

180. The technophiles are taking us all on an utterly reckless ride into the unknown. Many people understand something of what technological progress is doing to us yet take a passive attitude toward it because they think it is inevitable. But we (FC) don’t think it is inevitable. We think it can be stopped, and we will give here some indications of how to go about stopping it.

181. As we stated in paragraph 166, the two main tasks for the present are to promote social stress and instability in industrial society and to develop and propagate an ideology that opposes technology and the industrial system. When the system becomes sufficiently stressed and unstable, a revolution against technology may be possible. The pattern would be similar to that of the French and Russian Revolutions. French society and Russian society, for several decades prior to their respective revolutions, showed increasing signs of stress and weakness. Meanwhile, ideologies were being developed that offered a new world-view that was quite different from the old one. In the Russian case revolutionaries were actively working to undermine the old order. Then, when the old system was put under sufficient additional stress (by financial crisis in France, by military defeat in Russia) it was swept away by revolution. What we propose is something along the same lines.

182. It will be objected that the French and Russian Revolutions have two goals. One is to destroy an old form of society and the other is to set up the new form of society envisioned by the revolutionaries. The French and Russian revolutionaries failed (fortunately) to create the new kind of society of which they dreamed, but they were quite successful in destroying the old society. We have no illusions about the feasibility of creating a new, ideal form of society. Our goal is only to destroy the existing form of society.

183. But an ideology, in order to gain enthusiastic support, must have a positive ideal as well as a negative one; it must be FOR something as well as AGAINST something. The positive ideal that we propose is Nature. That is, WILD nature: those aspects of the functioning of the earth and its living things that are independent of human management and free of human interference and control. And with wild nature we include human nature, by which we mean those aspects of the functioning of the human individual that are not subject to regulation by organized society but are products of chance, or free will, or God (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions).

184. Nature makes a perfect counter-ideal to technology for several reasons. Nature (that which is outside the power of the system) is the opposite of technology (which seeks to expand indefinitely the power of the system). Most people will agree that nature is beautiful; certainly it has tremendous popular appeal. The radical environmentalists ALREADY hold an ideology that exalts nature and opposes technology[36]. It is not necessary for the sake of nature to set up some chimerical utopia or any new kind of social order. Nature takes care of itself; it was a spontaneous creation that existed long before any human society, and for countless centuries many different kinds of human societies coexisted with nature without doing it an excessive amount of damage. Only with the industrial revolution did the effect of human society on nature become really devastating. To relieve the pressure on nature it is not necessary to create a special kind of social system, it is only necessary to get rid of industrial society. Granted, this will not solve all problems. Industrial society has already done tremendous damage to nature and it will take a very long time for the scars to heal. Besides, even pre-industrial societies can do significant damage to nature. Nevertheless, getting rid of industrial society will accomplish a great deal. It will relieve the worst of the pressure on nature so that the scars can begin to heal. It will remove the capacity of organized society to keep increasing its control over nature (including human nature). Whatever kind of society may exist after the demise of the industrial system, it is certain that most people will live close to nature, because in the absence of advanced technology there is no other way that people can live. To feed themselves they must be peasants or herdsmen or fishermen or hunters etc. And, generally speaking, local autonomy should tend to increase, because lack of advanced technology and rapid communications will limit the capacity of governments or other large organizations to control local communities.

185. As for the negative consequences of eliminating industrial society — well, you can’t eat your cake and have it too. To gain one thing you have to sacrifice another.

186. Most people hate psychological conflict. For this reason they avoid any serious thinking about difficult social issues, and they like to have such issues presented to them in simple, black-and-white terms: THIS is all good and THAT is all bad. The revolutionary ideology should therefore be developed on two levels.

187. On the more sophisticated level the ideology should address itself to people who are intelligent, thoughtful and rational. The object should be to create a core of people who will be opposed to the industrial system on a rational, thought-out basis, with full appreciation of the problems and ambiguities involved, and of the price that has to be paid for getting rid of the system. It is particularly important to attract people of this type, as they are capable people and will be instrumental in influencing others. These people should be addressed on as rational a level as possible. Facts should never intentionally be distorted and intemperate language should be avoided. This does not mean that no appeal can be made to the emotions, but in making such appeal care should be taken to avoid misrepresenting the truth or doing anything else that would destroy the intellectual respectability of the ideology.

188. On a second level, the ideology should be propagated in a simplified form that will enable the unthinking majority to see the conflict of technology vs nature in unambiguous terms. But even on this second level the ideology should not be expressed in language that is so cheap, intemperate or irrational that it alienates people of the thoughtful and rational type. Cheap, intemperate propaganda sometimes achieves impressive short-term gains, but it will be more advantageous in the long run to keep the loyalty of a small number of intelligently committed people than to arouse the passions of an unthinking, fickle mob who will change their attitude as soon as someone comes along with a better propaganda gimmick. However, propaganda of the rabble-rousing type may be necessary when the system is nearing the point of collapse and there is a final struggle between rival ideologies to determine which will become dominant when the old world-view goes under.

189. Prior to that final struggle, the revolutionaries should not expect to have a majority of people on their side. History is made by active, determined minorities, not by the majority, which seldom has a clear and consistent idea of what it really wants. Until the time comes for the final push toward revolution[37], the task of revolutionaries will be less to win the shallow support of the majority than to build a small core of deeply-committed people. As for the majority, it will be enough to make them aware of the existence of the new ideology and remind them of it frequently; though of course it will be desirable to get majority support to the extent that this can be done without weakening the core of seriously committed people.

190. Any kind of social conflict helps to destabilize the system, but one should be careful about what kind of conflict one encourages. The line of conflict should be drawn between the mass of the people and the power-holding elite of industrial society (politicians, scientists, upper-level business executives, government officials, etc.). It should NOT be drawn between the revolutionaries and the mass of the people. For example, it would be bad strategy for the revolutionaries to condemn Americans for their habits of consumption. Instead, the average American should be portrayed as a victim of the advertising and marketing industry, which has suckered him into buying a lot of junk that he doesn’t need and that is very poor compensation for his lost freedom. Either approach is consistent with the facts. It is merely a matter of attitude whether you blame the advertising industry for manipulating the public or blame the public for allowing itself to be manipulated. As a matter of strategy one should generally avoid blaming the public.

191. One should think twice before encouraging any other social conflict than that between the power-holding elite (which wields technology) and the general public (over which technology exerts its power). For one thing, other conflicts tend to distract attention from the important conflicts (between power-elite and ordinary people, between technology and nature); for another thing, other conflicts may actually tend to encourage technologization, because each side in such a conflict wants to use technological power to gain advantages over its adversary. This is clearly seen in rivalries between nations. It also appears in ethnic conflicts within nations. For example, in America many black leaders are anxious to gain power for African-Americans by placing black individuals in the technological power-elite. They want there to be many black government officials, scientists, corporation executives and so forth. In this way they are helping to absorb the African-American subculture into the technological system. Generally speaking, one should encourage only those social conflicts that can be fitted into the framework of the conflicts of power-elite vs ordinary people, technology vs nature.

192. But the way to discourage ethnic conflict is NOT through militant advocacy of minority rights (see paragraphs 21,29). Instead, the revolutionaries should emphasize that although minorities do suffer more or less disadvantage, this disadvantage is of peripheral significance. Our real enemy is the industrial-technological system, and in the struggle against the system ethnic distinctions are of no importance.

193. The kind of revolution we have in mind will not necessarily involve an armed uprising against any government. It may or may not involve physical violence, but it will not be a POLITICAL revolution. Its focus will be on technology and economics, not politics[38].

194. Probably the revolutionaries should even AVOID assuming political power, whether by legal or illegal means, until the industrial system is stressed to the danger point and has proved itself to be a failure in the eyes of most people. Suppose for example that some “green” party should win control of the United States Congress in an election. In order to avoid betraying or watering down their own ideology they would have to take vigorous measures to turn economic growth into economic shrinkage. To the average man the results would appear disastrous: There would be massive unemployment, shortages of commodities, etc. Even if the grosser ill effects could be avoided through superhumanly skilful management, still people would have to begin giving up the luxuries to which they have become addicted. Dissatisfaction would grow, the “green” party would be voted out of office and the revolutionaries would have suffered a severe setback. For this reason the revolutionaries should not try to acquire political power until the system has gotten itself into such a mess that any hardships will be seen as resulting from the failures of the industrial system itself and not from the policies of the revolutionaries. The revolution against technology will probably have to be a revolution by outsiders, a revolution from below and not from above.

195. The revolution must be international and worldwide. It cannot be carried out on a nation-by-nation basis. Whenever it is suggested that the United States, for example, should cut back on technological progress or economic growth, people get hysterical and start screaming that if we fall behind in technology the Japanese will get ahead of us. Holy robots! The world will fly off its orbit if the Japanese ever sell more cars than we do! (Nationalism is a great promoter of technology.) More reasonably, it is argued that if the relatively democratic nations of the world fall behind in technology while nasty, dictatorial nations like China, Vietnam and North Korea continue to progress, eventually the dictators may come to dominate the world. That is why the industrial system should be attacked in all nations simultaneously, to the extent that this may be possible. True, there is no assurance that the industrial system can be destroyed at approximately the same time all over the world, and it is even conceivable that the attempt to overthrow the system could lead instead to the domination of the system by dictators. That is a risk that has to be taken. And it is worth taking, since the difference between a “democratic” industrial system and one controlled by dictators is small compared with the difference between an industrial system and a non-industrial one[39]. It might even be argued that an industrial system controlled by dictators would be preferable, because dictator-controlled systems usually have proved inefficient, hence they are presumably more likely to break down. Look at Cuba.

196. Revolutionaries might consider favoring measures that tend to bind the world economy into a unified whole. Free trade agreements like NAFTA and GATT are probably harmful to the environment in the short run, but in the long run they may perhaps be advantageous because they foster economic interdependence between nations. It will be easier to destroy the industrial system on a worldwide basis if the world economy is so unified that its breakdown in any one major nation will lead to its breakdown in all industrialized nations.

197. Some people take the line that modern man has too much power, too much control over nature; they argue for a more passive attitude on the part of the human race. At best these people are expressing themselves unclearly, because they fail to distinguish between power for LARGE ORGANIZATIONS and power for INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS. It is a mistake to argue for powerlessness and passivity, because people NEED power. Modern man as a collective entity — that is, the industrial system — has immense power over nature, and we (FC) regard this as evil. But modern INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS OF INDIVIDUALS have far less power than primitive man ever did. Generally speaking, the vast power of “modern man” over nature is exercised not by individuals or small groups but by large organizations. To the extent that the average modern INDIVIDUAL can wield the power of technology, he is permitted to do so only within narrow limits and only under the supervision and control of the system. (You need a licence for everything and with the licence come rules and regulations.) The individual has only those technological powers with which the system chooses to provide him. His PERSONAL power over nature is slight.

198. Primitive INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS actually had considerable power over nature; or maybe it would be better to say power WITHIN nature. When primitive man needed food he knew how to find and prepare edible roots, how to track game and take it with home-made weapons. He knew how to protect himself from heat, cold, rain, dangerous animals etc. But primitive man did relatively little damage to nature because the COLLECTIVE power of primitive society was negligible compared to the COLLECTIVE power of industrial society.

199. Instead of arguing for powerlessness and passivity, one should argue that the power of the INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM should be broken, and that this will greatly INCREASE the power and freedom of INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS.

200. Until the industrial system has been thoroughly wrecked, the destruction of that system must be the revolutionaries’ ONLY goal. Other goals would distract attention and energy from the main goal. More importantly, if the revolutionaries permit themselves to have any other goal than the destruction of technology, they will be tempted to use technology as a tool for reaching that other goal. If they give in to that temptation, they will fall right back into the technological trap, because modern technology is a unified, tightly organized system, so that, in order to retain SOME technology, one finds oneself obliged to retain MOST technology, hence one ends up sacrificing only token amounts of technology.

201. Suppose for example that the revolutionaries took “social justice” as a goal. Human nature being what it is, social justice would not come about spontaneously; it would have to be enforced. In order to enforce it the revolutionaries would have to retain central organization and control. For that they would need rapid long-distance transportation and communication, and therefore all the technology needed to support the transportation and communication systems. To feed and clothe poor people they would have to use agricultural and manufacturing technology. And so forth. So that the attempt to insure social justice would force them to retain most parts of the technological system. Not that we have anything against social justice, but it must not be allowed to interfere with the effort to get rid of the technological system.

202. It would be hopeless for revolutionaries to try to attack the system without using SOME modern technology. If nothing else they must use the communications media to spread their message. But they should use modern technology for only ONE purpose: to attack the technological system.

203. Imagine an alcoholic sitting with a barrel of wine in front of him. Suppose he starts saying to himself, “Wine isn’t bad for you if used in moderation. Why, they say small amounts of wine are even good for you! It won’t do me any harm if I take just one little drink ...” Well you know what is going to happen. Never forget that the human race with technology is just like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine.

204. Revolutionaries should have as many children as they can. There is strong scientific evidence that social attitudes are to a significant extent inherited. No one suggests that a social attitude is a direct outcome of a person’s genetic constitution, but it appears that personality traits are partly inherited and that certain personality traits tend, within the context of our society, to make a person more likely to hold this or that social attitude. Objections to these findings have been raised, but the objections are feeble and seem to be ideologically motivated. In any event, no one denies that children tend on the average to hold social attitudes similar to those of their parents. From our point of view it doesn’t matter all that much whether the attitudes are passed on genetically or through childhood training. In either case they ARE passed on.

205. The trouble is that many of the people who are inclined to rebel against the industrial system are also concerned about the population problem, hence they are apt to have few or no children. In this way they may be handing the world over to the sort of people who support or at least accept the industrial system. To insure the strength of the next generation of revolutionaries the present generation should reproduce itself abundantly. In doing so they will be worsening the population problem only slightly. And the important problem is to get rid of the industrial system, because once the industrial system is gone the world’s population necessarily will decrease (see paragraph 167); whereas, if the industrial system survives, it will continue developing new techniques of food production that may enable the world’s population to keep increasing almost indefinitely.

206. With regard to revolutionary strategy, the only points on which we absolutely insist are that the single overriding goal must be the elimination of modern technology, and that no other goal can be allowed to compete with this one. For the rest, revolutionaries should take an empirical approach. If experience indicates that some of the recommendations made in the foregoing paragraphs are not going to give good results, then those recommendations should be discarded.

TWO KINDS OF TECHNOLOGY

207. An argument likely to be raised against our proposed revolution is that it is bound to fail, because (it is claimed) throughout history technology has always progressed, never regressed, hence technological regression is impossible. But this claim is false.

208. We distinguish between two kinds of technology, which we call small-scale technology and organization-dependent technology. Small scale technology is technology that can be used by small-scale communities without outside assistance. Organization-dependent technology is technology that depends on large-scale social organization. We are aware of no significant cases of regression in small-scale technology. But organization-dependent technology does regress when the social organization on which it depends breaks down. Example: When the Roman Empire fell apart the Romans’ small-scale technology survived because any clever village craftsman could build, for instance, a water wheel, any skilled smith could make steel by Roman methods, and so forth. But the Romans’ organization-dependent technology DID regress. Their aqueducts fell into disrepair and were never rebuilt. Their techniques of road construction were lost. The Roman system of urban sanitation was forgotten, so that not until rather recent times did the sanitation of European cities equal that of ancient Rome.

209. The reason why technology has seemed always to progress is that, until perhaps a century or two before the industrial revolution, most technology was small-scale technology. But most of the technology developed since the industrial revolution is organization-dependent technology. Take the refrigerator for example. Without factory-made parts or the facilities of a post-industrial machine shop it would be virtually impossible for a handful of local craftsmen to build a refrigerator. If by some miracle they did succeed in building one it would be useless to them without a reliable source of electric power. So they would have to dam a stream and build a generator. Generators require large amounts of copper wire. Imagine trying to make that wire without modern machinery. And where would they get a gas suitable for refrigeration? It would be much easier to build an ice-house or preserve food by drying or picking, as was done before the invention of the refrigerator.

210. So it is clear that if the industrial system were once thoroughly broken down, refrigeration technology would quickly be lost. The same is true of other organization-dependent technology. And once this technology had been lost for a generation or so it would take centuries to rebuild it, just as it took centuries to build it the first time around. Surviving technical books would be few and scattered. An industrial society, if built from scratch without outside help, can only be built in a series of stages: you need tools to make tools to make tools to make tools ... A long process of economic development and progress in social organization is required. And, even in the absence of an ideology opposed to technology, there is no reason to believe that anyone would be interested in rebuilding industrial society. The enthusiasm for “progress” is a phenomenon peculiar to the modern form of society, and it seems not to have existed prior to the 17^th century or thereabouts.

211. In the late middle ages there were four main civilizations that were about equally “advanced”: Europe, the Islamic world, India, and the Far East (China, Japan, Korea). Three of these civilizations remained more or less stable and only Europe became dynamic. No one knows why Europe became dynamic at that time; historians have their theories but these are only speculation. At any rate it is clear that rapid development toward a technological form of society occurs only under special conditions. So there is no reason to assume that a long lasting technological regression cannot be brought about.

212. Would society EVENTUALLY develop again toward an industrial-technological form? Maybe, but there is no use in worrying about it, since we can’t predict or control events 500 or 1,000 years in the future. Those problems must be dealt with by the people who will live at that time.

THE DANGER OF LEFTISM

213. Because of their need for rebellion and for membership in a movement, leftists or persons of similar psychological type often are attracted to a rebellious or activist movement whose goals and membership are not initially leftist. The resulting influx of leftish types can easily turn a non-leftist movement into a leftist one, so that leftist goals replace or distort the original goals of the movement.

214. To avoid this, a movement that exalts nature and opposes technology must take a resolutely anti-leftist stance and must avoid all collaboration with leftists. Leftism is in the long run inconsistent with wild nature, with human freedom and with the elimination of technology. Leftism is collectivist; it seeks to bind together the entire world (both nature and the human race) into a unified whole. But this implies management of nature and of human life by organized society, and it requires advanced technology. You can’t have a united world without rapid transportation and communication, you can’t make all people love one another without sophisticated psychological techniques, you can’t have a “planned society” without the necessary technological base. Above all, leftism is driven by the need for power, and the leftist seeks power on a collective basis, through identification with a mass movement or an organization. Leftism is unlikely ever to give up technology, because technology is too valuable a source of collective power.

215. The anarchist[40] too seeks power, but he seeks it on an individual or small-group basis; he wants individuals and small groups to be able to control the circumstances of their own lives. He opposes technology because it makes small groups depend on large organizations.

216. Some leftists may seem to oppose technology, but they will oppose it only so long as they are outsiders and the technological system is controlled by non-leftists. If leftism ever becomes dominant in society, so that the technological system becomes a tool in the hands of leftists, they will enthusiastically use it and promote its growth. In doing this they will be repeating a pattern that leftism has shown again and again in the past. When the Bolsheviks in Russia were outsiders, they vigorously opposed censorship and the secret police, they advocated self-determination for ethnic minorities, and so forth; but as soon as they came into power themselves, they imposed a tighter censorship and created a more ruthless secret police than any that had existed under the tsars, and they oppressed ethnic minorities at least as much as the tsars had done. In the United States, a couple of decades ago when leftists were a minority in our universities, leftist professors were vigorous proponents of academic freedom, but today, in those of our universities where leftists have become dominant, they have shown themselves ready to take away everyone else’s academic freedom. (This is “political correctness.”) The same will happen with leftists and technology: They will use it to oppress everyone else if they ever get it under their own control.

217. In earlier revolutions, leftists of the most power-hungry type, repeatedly, have first cooperated with non-leftist revolutionaries, as well as with leftists of a more libertarian inclination, and later have double-crossed them to seize power for themselves. Robespierre did this in the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks did it in the Russian Revolution, the communists did it in Spain in 1938 and Castro and his followers did it in Cuba. Given the past history of leftism, it would be utterly foolish for non-leftist revolutionaries today to collaborate with leftists.

218. Various thinkers have pointed out that leftism is a kind of religion. Leftism is not a religion in the strict sense because leftist doctrine does not postulate the existence of any supernatural being. But, for the leftist, leftism plays a psychological role much like that which religion plays for some people. The leftist NEEDS to believe in leftism; it plays a vital role in his psychological economy. His beliefs are not easily modified by logic or facts. He has a deep conviction that leftism is morally Right with a capital R, and that he has not only a right but a duty to impose leftist morality on everyone. (However, many of the people we are referring to as “leftists” do not think of themselves as leftists and would not describe their system of beliefs as leftism. We use the term “leftism” because we don’t know any better word to designate the spectrum of related creeds that includes the feminist, gay rights, political correctness etc. movements, and because these movements have a strong affinity with the old left. See paragraphs 227–230).

219. Leftism is a totalitarian force. Wherever leftism is in a position of power it tends to invade every private corner and force every thought into a leftist mold. In part this is because of the quasi-religious character of leftism: everything contrary to leftist beliefs represents Sin. More importantly, leftism is a totalitarian force because of the leftists’ drive for power. The leftist seeks to satisfy his need for power through identification with a social movement and he tries to go through the power process by helping to pursue and attain the goals of the movement (see paragraph 83). But no matter how far the movement has gone in attaining its goals the leftist is never satisfied, because his activism is a surrogate activity (see paragraph 41). That is, the leftist’s real motive is not to attain the ostensible goals of leftism; in reality he is motivated by the sense of power he gets from struggling for and then reaching a social goal[41]. Consequently the leftist is never satisfied with the goals he has already attained; his need for the power process leads him always to pursue some new goal. The leftist wants equal opportunities for minorities. When that is attained he insists on statistical equality of achievement by minorities. And as long as anyone harbors in some corner of his mind a negative attitude toward some minority, the leftist has to re-educate him. And ethnic minorities are not enough; no one can be allowed to have a negative attitude toward homosexuals, disabled people, fat people, old people, ugly people and on and on and on. It’s not enough that the public should be informed about the hazards of smoking; a warning has to be stamped on every package of cigarettes. Then cigarette advertising has to be restricted if not banned. The activists will never be satisfied until tobacco is outlawed, and after that it will be alcohol, then junk food etc. Activists have fought gross child abuse, which is reasonable. But now they want to stop all spanking. When they have done that they will want to ban something else they consider unwholesome, then another thing and then another. They will never be satisfied until they have complete control over all child rearing practices. And then they will move on to another cause.

220. Suppose you asked leftists to make a list of ALL the things that were wrong with society, and then suppose you instituted EVERY social change that they demanded. It is safe to say that within a couple of years the majority of leftists would find something new to complain about, some new social “evil” to correct; because, once again, the leftist is motivated less by distress at society’s ills than by the need to satisfy his drive for power by imposing his solutions on society.

221. Because of the restrictions placed on their thought and behavior by their high level of socialization, many leftists of the oversocialized type cannot pursue power in the ways that other people do. For them the drive for power has only one morally acceptable outlet, and that is in the struggle to impose their morality on everyone.

222. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, are True Believers in the sense of Eric Hoffer’s book, The True Believer. But not all True Believers are of the same psychological type as leftists. Presumably a true-believing nazi, for instance, is very different psychologically from a true-believing leftist. Because of their capacity for single-minded devotion to a cause, True Believers are a useful, perhaps a necessary, ingredient of any revolutionary movement. This presents a problem with which we must admit we don’t know how to deal. We aren’t sure how to harness the energies of the True Believer to a revolution against technology. At present all we can say is that no True Believer will make a safe recruit to revolution unless his commitment is exclusively to the destruction of technology. If he is committed also to another ideal, he may want to use technology as a tool for pursuing that other ideal. See paragraphs 200, 201.

223. Some readers may say, “This stuff about leftism is a lot of crap. I know John and Jane who are leftish types and they don’t have all these totalitarian tendencies.” It’s quite true that many leftists, possibly even a numerical majority, are decent people who sincerely believe in tolerating others’ values (up to a point) and wouldn’t want to use high-handed methods to reach their social goals. Our remarks about leftism are not meant to apply to every individual leftist but to describe the general character of leftism as a movement. And the general character of a movement is not necessarily determined by the numerical proportions of the various kinds of people involved in the movement.

224. The people who rise to positions of power in leftist movements tend to be leftist of the most power-hungry type, because power-hungry people are those who strive hardest to get into positions of power. Once the power-hungry types have captured control of the movement, there are many leftists of a gentler breed who inwardly disapprove of many of the actions of the leaders, but cannot bring themselves to oppose them. They NEED their faith in the movement, and because they cannot give up this faith they go along with the leaders. True, SOME leftists do have the guts to oppose the totalitarian tendencies that emerge, but they generally lose, because the power-hungry types are better organized, are more ruthless and machiavellian and have taken care to build themselves a strong power-base.

225. These phenomena appeared clearly in Russia and other countries that were taken over by leftists. Similarly, before the breakdown of communism in the USSR, leftish types in the West would seldom criticize that country. If prodded they would admit that the USSR did many wrong things, but then they would try to find excuses for the communists and begin talking about the faults of the West. They always opposed Western military resistance to communist aggression. Leftish types all over the world vigorously protested the US military action in Vietnam, but when the USSR invaded Afghanistan they did nothing. Not that they approved of the Soviet actions; but, because of their leftist faith, they just couldn’t bear to put themselves in opposition to communism. Today, in those of our universities where “political correctness” has become dominant, there are probably many leftish types who privately disapprove of the suppression of academic freedom, but they go along with it anyway.

226. Thus the fact that many individual leftists are personally mild and fairly tolerant people by no means prevents leftism as a whole from having a totalitarian tendency.

227. Our discussion of leftism has a serious weakness. It is still far from clear what we mean by the word “leftist.” There doesn’t seem to be much we can do about this. Today leftism is fragmented into a whole spectrum of activist movements. Yet not all activist movements are leftist, and some activist movements (e.g. radical environmentalism) seem to include both personalities of the leftist type and personalities of thoroughly un-leftist types who ought to know better than to collaborate with leftists. Varieties of leftists fade out gradually in varieties of non-leftists and we ourselves would often be hard-pressed to decide whether a given individual is or is not a leftist. To the extent that it is defined at all, our conception of leftism is defined by the discussion of it that we have given in this article, and we can only advise the reader to use his own judgement in deciding who is a leftist.

228. But it will be helpful to list some criteria for diagnosing leftism. These criteria cannot be applied in a cut and dried manner. Some individuals may meet some of the criteria without being leftists, some leftists may not meet any of the criteria. Again, you just have to use your judgement.

229. The leftist is oriented toward large-scale collectivism. He emphasizes the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. He has a negative attitude toward individualism. He often takes a moralistic tone. He tends to be for gun control, for sex education and other psychologically “enlightened” educational methods, for social planning, for affirmative action, for multiculturalism. He tends to identify with victims. He tends to be against competition and against violence, but he often finds excuses for those leftists who do commit violence. He is fond of using the common catch-phrases of the left, like “racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia,” “capitalism,” “imperialism,” “neocolonialism,” “genocide”; “social change,” “social justice,” “social responsibility.” Maybe the best diagnostic trait of the leftist is his tendency to sympathize with the following movements: feminism, gay right, ethnic rights, disability rights, animal rights, political correctness. Anyone who strongly sympathizes with ALL of these movements is almost certainly a leftist[42].

230. The more dangerous leftists, that is, those who are most power-hungry, are often characterized by arrogance or by a dogmatic approach to ideology. However, the most dangerous leftists of all may be certain oversocialized types who avoid irritating displays of aggressiveness and refrain from advertising their leftism, but work quietly and unobtrusively to promote collectivist values, “enlightened” psychological techniques for socializing children, dependence of the individual on the system, and so forth. These crypto-leftists (as we may call them) approximate certain bourgeois types as far as practical action is concerned, but differ from them in psychology, ideology and motivation. The ordinary bourgeois tries to bring people under control of the system in order to protect his way of life, or he does so simply because his attitudes are conventional. The crypto-leftist tries to bring people under control of the system because he is a True Believer in a collectivistic ideology. The crypto-leftist is differentiated from the average leftist of the oversocialized type by the fact that his rebellious impulse is weaker and he is more securely socialized. He is differentiated from the ordinary well-socialized bourgeois by the fact that there is some deep lack within him that makes it necessary for him to devote himself to a cause and immerse himself in a collectivity. And maybe his (well-sublimated) drive for power is stronger than that of the average bourgeois.

FINAL NOTE

231. Throughout this article we’ve made imprecise statements and statements that ought to have had all sorts of qualifications and reservations attached to them; and some of our statements may be flatly false. Lack of sufficient information and the need for brevity made it impossible for us to formulate our assertions more precisely or add all the necessary qualifications. And of course in a discussion of this kind one must rely heavily on intuitive judgement, and that can sometimes be wrong. So we don’t claim that this article expresses more than a crude approximation to the truth.

232. All the same, we are reasonably confident that the general outlines of the picture we have painted here are roughly correct. Just one possible weak point needs to be mentioned. We have portrayed leftism in its modern form as a phenomenon peculiar to our time and as a symptom of the disruption of the power process. But we might possibly be wrong about this. Oversocialized types who try to satisfy their drive for power by imposing their morality on everyone have certainly been around for a long time. But we THINK that the decisive role played by feelings of inferiority, low self-esteem, powerlessness, identification with victims by people who are not themselves victims, is a peculiarity of modern leftism.

Identification with victims by people not themselves victims can be seen to some extent in 19^th century leftism and early Christianity, but as far as we can make out, symptoms of low self-esteem etc. were not nearly so evident in these movements, or in any other movements, as they are in modern leftism. But we are not in a position to assert confidently that no such movements have existed prior to modern leftism. This is a significant question to which historians ought to give their attention.

The contradiction between modernization and freedom

(Translator’s Afterword to “Industrial Society and Its Future”)

Wang Xiaodong

A man, over an 18-year period, carried out 16 bombings, killing 3 and injuring 23, all for the purpose of publishing an article. This lends the article a legendary quality. Whatever the article, since its author, with such immense determination and perseverance (albeit in a somewhat sinister way), decided to present it to us, it certainly deserves our attention. And as the killer author predicted, the article, titled “Industrial Society and Its Future,” was published in The New York Times and The Washington Post and made available on countless computer servers across the United States, reaching hundreds of thousands of people worldwide through print and the internet.

Since the author, with such immense determination, perseverance, and sacrifice—he has devoted 18 years of his life to the project and now faces the death penalty—wants us to read his work. Since so many people around the world have already read it, we Chinese should also read it, to understand its content, and to know what so many others around the world have read. Chinese people should not only have the opportunity to read it, but also the full text, not just the summary. The content of a summary often depends on the summarizer’s perspective, viewpoint, interests, and knowledge; therefore, only the original full text allows us to understand, analyze, and appreciate the essence of the article, and to study it from our own unique perspectives. Therefore, I have translated the full text of the article.

So, what exactly did this article say? Some say it’s not worth reading at all, that publishing it is tantamount to surrendering to terrorism, and that the article itself is full of arbitrary and false statements, therefore decent people should refuse to read it. Others cheered, and in the United States, there was even a “Unapack” movement to campaign for the author’s president. Still others believe that some of the points in the article are reasonable, but nothing new, such as...

Kirk-patrick Sale published in “The Nation” on September 25, 1995.

The article in the daily issue listed a large number of names: Jerry Mander, Chellis Glendinning, Jeremy Rifkin, Bill McKibben, Wendell Berry, Dave Foreman, Langdon Winner, Stephanie Mills, and John Zerzan, all of whom have expressed similar views. I agree that most of the points in “Industrial Society and Its Future” are not new, but I still believe the article is worth reading for two reasons. First, although the aforementioned scholars have expressed similar views, and may even be more profound and insightful than those of this killer author, how many people are aware of their perspectives? Not many in the United States, and even fewer in China. As the killer author cynically points out, while modern society is rich in information, valuable information is mostly buried under junk information; only when some sensational stories break out will the news media hype it up, and only then will the public notice it. Many people died or were injured for the publication of this article; society paid a huge price. The price already paid cannot be undone, but it cannot be wasted. We should take this opportunity to let the public know some important viewpoints on modern critique and leave a deep impression, which can be considered a “turning bad things into good things.” Secondly, the author of *Killer* often expresses his views very bluntly in his writing. Although, as some scholars have pointed out, he often wastes a lot of space on the kind of pretentious formalism of concepts, definitions, principles, etc., typical of sociological and psychological academic papers, the author is not like those scholars he despises who are “overly socialized,” always saying half a sentence, hiding half a sentence, dodging and weaving, just wanting to appear “refined,” wanting no one to find fault, resulting in articles that are impossible to understand. The author’s writing style can be lengthy and rambling, but when expressing his views, he disregards any moral constraints, speaking directly, which makes for a clear and enjoyable reading experience. Therefore, the impact of the article “Industrial Society and Its Future” will be far from insignificant; it will influence people’s views more broadly and profoundly than other articles expressing similar opinions. The means to obtain its publication were evil, but the purpose was achieved. Below, I will select a few points that I consider important and explain them, so that readers can both read the full text and make their own judgments, and also refer to what I consider to be the key points.

First, technological advancements will enable a minority to control all aspects of the world, while the majority will lose their freedom.

What will technological progress bring to humanity’s future? Humanity was once very optimistic about this question: technological progress would free us from material scarcity, cure previously incurable diseases, enable rapid travel across the globe and even to other planets, and allow people separated by vast distances to meet and hear each other, and so on. As the 20^th century draws to a close, many of these idyllic scenarios have already been realized or partially realized. However, humanity has also come to recognize another side of technological progress: environmental destruction, weapons capable of annihilating humanity, population explosion, and strange new infectious diseases that seem to appear out of nowhere, such as AIDS and mad cow disease, etc. These new problems, on the surface, seem to be solvable through technological progress (whether they truly can be solved remains an open question), but people often overlook another intractable problem: technological progress makes the systems upon which humanity depends for survival increasingly larger and more complex. This increasingly larger and more complex system inevitably has two characteristics: first, it becomes increasingly fragile; second, it becomes increasingly controlled by a small elite, thus causing the vast majority of people to increasingly lose their freedom, autonomy, and the ability to control their own destiny.

China is relatively in the early stages of technological development, so Chinese people often don’t fully appreciate the problems brought about by technological progress. Therefore, it’s beneficial to look at the perspectives of Americans, who are at the forefront of technological advancement. The author of *Killer* described the future in his article as follows.

“First, let’s assume that computer scientists have successfully developed intelligent machines that are superior to humans in everything they do. In this scenario, almost all work would be done by massive, highly organized machine systems, eliminating the need for any human effort. Two scenarios are possible. One is that machines are allowed to make all decisions on their own without human supervision, and the other is that humans retain control over the machines.”

“If machines are allowed to make all decisions on their own, we cannot predict the outcomes because it is impossible to guess the behavior of such machines. We simply want to point out that humanity’s fate would then be entirely in the hands of machines. One might argue that humans would never be foolish enough to relinquish all power to machines. But we are not saying that humans would intentionally hand over power to machines, nor that machines would deliberately seize power. What we are actually saying is that humans could easily slip into a position of complete dependence on machines, to the point where they cannot make any real choices and can only accept all the decisions made by machines. As society and its problems become increasingly complex, and machines become increasingly intelligent, people will allow machines to make more decisions for them, simply because the machine-made decisions will yield better results than human decisions. Finally, a stage will come where the decisions necessary to maintain the system have become so complex that humans are no longer capable of making wise decisions. At this stage, machines are essentially in control. People can no longer turn off the machines because they are so dependent on them that turning them off would be tantamount to suicide. On the other hand, it is also possible that humans can maintain control over the machines.” In this scenario, the average person might still control their own private machine, such as their car or personal computer, but control of large-scale systems would fall into the hands of a small elite group—just as it is today, but with two key differences. Due to technological advancements, the elites would have greater control over the masses; and because human work would no longer be necessary, the masses would become superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite group lost all compassion, they could simply decide to exterminate the human population. If they possessed some humanity, they could use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to lower the birth rate until the human population withered away, leaving the world to the elites alone. Alternatively, if the elite group consisted of soft-hearted liberals, they could act as good shepherds for the rest of humanity. They would ensure that everyone’s physical needs were met, that every child was raised in a psychologically healthy environment, that everyone had a healthy hobby to pursue, and that everyone who might become dissatisfied received “treatment” to cure their “illness.” Of course, life is so aimless that people have to undergo biological or psychological redesign to remove their need for power or to “sublimate” their lust for power into a harmless addiction. These redesigned individuals may live happily in such a society, but they will never be free. They will be reduced to the level of livestock.

In my view, the major trends in the world today are indeed as described by the author of the killer novel. The development of computer networks is the most obvious example. Some people may disagree, arguing that in the past, few people knew how to use computers, but today computers are so ubiquitous, many people own their own powerful personal computers, and computer use has become so simple that almost everyone can master it in a short time. How can you say that due to technological progress, society is becoming increasingly controlled by elites? We see the opposite: individual autonomy is increasing. In reality, this rebuttal is an illusion. Regarding computers, knowing how to use a computer is completely different from understanding and controlling one. Just 20 years ago, learning to use a computer required a certain level of understanding. However, with technological advancements, hardware has become increasingly powerful, and software has become increasingly sophisticated. Today, using a computer has become so easy that no understanding of computers is required at all. And a lack of understanding means a lack of control. For example, a software developer might add a little gadget to your software that allows them to control the flow of information you receive, without you understanding the intricacies or even being aware of its existence. Yet, your understanding of the real world is transformed as a result.

I’ve told some friends that in the 21^st century, perhaps only one form of entertainment will remain: video games. Movies and television will disappear. They exist today because video game graphics aren’t realistic or perfect enough, but this problem will soon be solved with further improvements in software and hardware. At that time, movie stars and singers probably won’t be as popular as they are today. Their beauty, physique, movements, and even their voices can be artificially synthesized, and synthesized better and more attractive than the originals. Outdoor activities and travel will likely be unnecessary. People will simply wear a helmet with a surround-view screen, and all the mountains, water, sunshine, beaches, animals, plants, and the underwater world can appear in the form of “virtual reality.” Anything that exists in nature can be perfectly replicated in “virtual reality,” and things that don’t exist in nature can be created in a way that’s indistinguishable from reality. Moreover, the audience most suited to “virtual reality” is ready: today’s children who spend all their time playing video games and have never caught grasshoppers in the grass or fished for frogs in a pond. By then, for the vast majority of people—whether you’re a worker, a farmer (if farmers still exist), a soldier, a student, a businessman, a teacher, a scholar, a civil servant, or even a president—the so-called real world will primarily be “virtual reality.” What’s in this “virtual reality” will be determined by a small elite group, or by the elite group and machines, or by the machines themselves. At first glance, this might seem harmless; people will be quite happy. I once joked that if anyone was politically dissatisfied, it would be easy to resolve: no beatings, no imprisonment, just two game discs to play at home, and they’d be completely satisfied. It would be incredibly cheap and convenient. However, by then, the power of life and death over humanity will be in the hands of a small elite group or machines. “Virtual reality” can kill, and it can kill on a massive scale, like an atomic bomb. Here, we can introduce some knowledge of information warfare. Although many people are discussing “information warfare” now, the general Chinese understanding of information warfare is either that it’s a “soft” weapon, such as traditional propaganda or psychological warfare, or that it involves electronic guidance, electronic countermeasures, and other tactical methods. In fact, information warfare can be used for large-scale strategic sabotage. Take a simple example: the current banking system relies entirely on computers. If an enemy, terrorist, or even an elite group gets impatient and uses a computer virus to completely destroy the bank’s computer network, what do you think would happen? You’d wake up to find you can’t withdraw money from the bank. Credit cards wouldn’t work, inter-company transactions would cease, all trading would stop, and society would descend into chaos! Could it lead to complete disorder, total collapse, and even mass deaths? Absolutely. In fact, some computer hackers exploit this vulnerability in the banking system for extortion. In the past three years, London financial institutions have paid out as much as 300 million pounds to computer extortion groups. This is one method of blocking information; another is providing false information. For example, during the Gulf War, the US planned to broadcast, using high-tech methods, fabricated footage of Saddam Hussein eating pork on Iraqi television networks (quite malicious!). Anyone who has seen the movie *Forrest Gump* would have no doubt that this was easily achievable. With technological advancements, we increasingly live in virtual reality. Although we know nothing in this virtual reality is reliable, we are forced to rely on it, eventually forgetting it’s fake. Those who control computer networks can manipulate us at will, even leaders. If the computer network says an earthquake occurred in California, the US president has to believe it. If the computer network says a virus is circulating that will cause excruciating pain for anyone who gives birth, we have to believe it, and no one dares to have children. The killer author’s warnings are not entirely unfounded. In fact, some information warfare experts in the US believe that the destructive power of information warfare is no less than that of a full-scale nuclear or biological war. Therefore, a report by the renowned RAND Corporation recommended establishing a dedicated agency within the US presidential office to coordinate information warfare and developing a “minimum critical information infrastructure” to ensure the nation’s continued operation under advanced information warfare attacks. However, will all this provide freedom and security for ordinary people? Of course not. On the one hand, the “minimum critical information infrastructure” is still controlled by a small elite group, and ordinary people have no access to it. Therefore, the more of this stuff there is, the less power ordinary people have. On the other hand, as mentioned earlier, there is the vulnerability of complex systems. In reality, no matter how intelligent this elite group is, or how sophisticated their system design, it’s impossible to completely withstand an attack from another equally intelligent elite group. A characteristic of the massive systems required by modern technology is that if you disrupt even a tiny link, the entire system will collapse due to its interconnectedness. For example, a single bullet can kill a person, but it can’t kill a bunch of bacteria the same weight as a person. Therefore, on the one hand, a small group of elites can control everything, holding the power of life and death over the masses entirely in their hands; on the other hand, these elites are powerless against other elites, even from the sabotage of a single individual. This is a typical manifestation of humanity’s loss of freedom and security under the conditions of modern technological advancement.

Admittedly, the situation isn’t that bad yet. This is because, firstly, there are still several powerful elite groups in the world—the major powers—competing, so none dare to act too badly; secondly, most of these elite groups still aspire to be good shepherds. But from the perspective of these elite groups, the general public is indeed in a position of being both powerless and useless. So, what freedom and security do the general public have? In some ways, they’re even worse off than livestock. At least livestock are useful.

Here, I use relatable examples to highlight the author’s point of view. His views on this matter are expressed much more systematically in the original text than I have here, and are worth reading carefully.

Second, the degree of freedom is determined by technology, not ideology; the higher the technology, the less freedom there is.

When freedom is discussed, people immediately think of autocracy versus democracy, feudalism, capitalism versus socialism, Eastern versus Western cultures, and so on. But are these truly the most fundamental factors determining whether a society is free? The author of *The Killer* offers a perspective on this question that is worth reflecting upon. He writes, “Institutions are not guided by ideology; they are guided by technological necessities.” He also writes, “The degree of individual freedom in a society is determined more by its economic and technological structure than by its legal or political system. Most Native American tribes in New England were monarchies, and many city-states during the Italian Renaissance were controlled by dictators. However, reading about these societies gives the impression that they allowed far more individual freedom than our societies. This is partly because these societies lacked effective mechanisms for enforcing the rulers’ will: no modern, highly organized police forces, no rapid long-distance communication capabilities, no surveillance cameras, and no personal files on ordinary citizens. Therefore, evading control was relatively easy.”

When discussing ancient societies, people often think of cruel punishments, the lack of legal protection for human rights, and so on. For example, Chinese scholars often grit their teeth and write countless books describing how “despotic” and “inhumane” ancient China was. But they forget that while despotism and inhumanity certainly existed in ancient societies, in many ways, ancient societies had neither the ability nor the need to restrict people’s freedom; while modern societies have both the ability and the necessity to do so. The author of *The Killer* writes: “Modern man is trapped by rules and regulations; his fate is determined by the actions of those far removed from him, whose decisions he cannot influence. This is not accidental, nor the result of the arbitrary actions of arrogant bureaucrats, but a necessity of technologically advanced societies, unavoidable. For a system to function, it must tightly regulate people’s behavior. At work, people must do what they are ordered to do, or production will fall into chaos. Bureaucracy must operate according to rigid rules. Granting lower-level bureaucrats substantial personal discretionary power would disrupt the system and lead to unfair complaints, as different bureaucrats would exercise this power in different ways. Some restrictions on our freedom can be removed. But generally speaking, the regulation of our lives by large organizations is necessary for the functioning of industrial-technological societies.” The author’s views are corroborated by other American political scientists. He cited an article by American political scientist Roger Lane, explaining that although the American colonies under British rule had fewer and less effective legal protections for freedom compared to after the implementation of the U.S. Constitution, individual freedom was greater in pre-industrial America than in post-industrial America; this was because industrialization changed people’s living and housing conditions, and under the new conditions, it was necessary to deprive people of many freedoms and independence.

Can the above theories be verified in our real lives? Yes. For example, there are many examples of how more modernized countries tend to control individual actions and restrict individual freedom. The simplest example is in many Western countries, such as the United States, where individuals must provide a Social Security number (equivalent to a national ID number) to deposit money in a bank. Therefore, regardless of how many accounts you have, the government can easily monitor your deposits through a computer network. Some countries have tried to follow suit, but their banking systems are not yet networked, so they cannot. In terms of personal deposits, Chinese people are relatively less monitored and have more freedom. Furthermore, there was a saying that China has personal files while Western countries are free and don’t. However, you only need to watch American movies to see that they not only have personal files, but their ability to verify these files is far superior to China’s due to their advanced methods. Additionally, according to an article in Time magazine on April 8, 1996, Britain installed cameras throughout its city streets to monitor the activities of its citizens; some of these cameras were night-vision type and could read newspapers from a distance of 100 meters. Miniature cameras are also hidden in the heads and chests of police dogs. These government-installed cameras have captured scenes of couples courting and women naked in their bedrooms. Most interestingly, they even filmed Princess Diana from above, taking pictures of her breasts and thighs from below, while she was having coffee with friends in a shop. The British central government plans to spend $22.5 million this year to buy another 10,000 cameras, and local governments are also planning to purchase more. Banks and businesses are also adding to their fleets. There are already 14,000 cameras in the London Underground. The constant presence of electronic eyes watching you is truly chilling, reminiscent of the famous science fiction novel *1984*. Even if they’re only using these photos to satisfy their voyeuristic desires now and haven’t done anything to you, these could be deadly weapons if they wanted to. On the other hand, it’s an undeniable fact that modern industrial society inevitably deprives people of many freedoms. For example, as depicted by the author of *The Killer*, due to technological requirements, people must strictly adhere to discipline at work, with every gesture and movement governed by rules. This same habit must be maintained even when not working; freedom is absolutely unacceptable. In China, why are the products produced in factories of low quality? Why do installers always cause problems when installing air conditioners and other household appliances? It’s because China is still relatively underdeveloped; people have too much freedom and haven’t developed the habit of following rules and being meticulous in everything they do. To give another very practical example, which strongly supports the author’s view that “bureaucratic politics must operate according to rigid rules,” at the beginning of reform and opening up, people complained that the bureaucratic system was too rigid, requiring numerous stamps for every task. Now, the system is more flexible; the same task might require only one stamp instead of a hundred. What was the result? Corruption reappeared, and it became very serious. Corruption certainly has many causes, but one very important reason is indeed technical: to eliminate corruption, you must strengthen the rigidity of the bureaucratic system; to eliminate the rigidity of the bureaucratic system, corruption will inevitably emerge.

Modern industrial society is very unfree. Chinese people often think that freedom is limited in China, but becomes more apparent abroad. However, as the author of *The Killer* points out, freedom is not absolute; developed industrial societies are perhaps even less free. Freedom isn’t limited to work, but also to leisure. At the beginning of China’s reform and opening up, there was a famous slogan supposedly derived from the “advanced” lifestyle of the West: “Work like crazy, play like crazy.” Even leisure requires intense effort, is all about tasks, and there’s no time for idleness—a perfect depiction of modern industrial society.

III. Human evolution cannot keep up with technological changes: a mismatch between theory and reality.

A key argument of the author of *Killer* is supported by some theories of modern science: he believes that human evolution cannot keep up with technological changes, thus leading to profound problems. He writes, “We attribute the social and psychological problems of modern society to the fact that it requires people to live under conditions vastly different from those during human evolution, and to act in ways that contradict those of human development under those conditions.” “In primitive societies, the natural world (which tended to change very slowly) provided a stable framework, which in itself meant a sense of security. In the modern world, human society dominates nature, not the other way around, and due to rapid technological advancements, modern society changes extremely quickly. Therefore, the stable framework is lost.” He lists some abnormal living conditions in modern industrial society, including “disruptions in the power process” (this concept requires some explanation; please refer to the original text), excessive population density, isolation from nature, rapid social change, and the disintegration of naturally formed small communities such as extended families, villages, or tribes. He acknowledges that primitive societies also had problems, but “we have ample reason to believe that primitive people experienced less stress and frustration and were more satisfied with their way of life than modern people.”

A cover story in the August 28, 1995 issue of Time magazine, titled “The Evolution of Despair,” by Robert Wright, begins with a quote from the author of the killer article we quoted at the beginning of this section. This article introduces the novel “mismatch theory.” Some scholars, known as “evolutionary psychologists,” attempt to scientifically outline the contours of human thought, designed by natural selection. The “mismatch theory,” proposed by some of them, aims to study diseases caused by the differences between the modern environment and our “ancestral environment.” We Chinese often believe that people in Western countries are very happy and carefree, but this article states that the incidence of depression in some industrialized countries roughly doubles every 10 years. In North America, suicide is the third leading cause of death among young adults, after traffic accidents and homicides. Fifteen percent of Americans suffer from clinically diagnosable anxiety disorders.

Evolutionary psychology cannot yet accurately explain all of this, but it has challenged some traditional views. For example, it argues that the modern nuclear family, consisting of a husband, wife, and children, is less in line with human nature than the extended family of primitive societies, especially for housewives. In particular, evolutionary psychology suggests that “civilization,” rather than suppressing animalistic instincts as Freud and many subsequent thinkers imagined, suppresses “civilized” qualities—the friendly and gentlemanly aspects of humanity—through continuous repression.

Of course, some argue against this, pointing out the bloody struggles among primitive humans for mates and food. However, according to evolutionary psychology, primitive societies also exhibited cooperation and gentlemanly conduct in dealing with mates and food. Naturally, competition and defense were also essential for survival. But one key difference between primitive and modern societies is that primitive humans did not experience the prolonged, relentless, and paralyzing depression or anxiety that modern humans do.

Evolutionary psychology suggests that these modern ailments may be caused by the isolation that arises from urbanization. Certain forms of modern entertainment, such as television, also contribute to this isolation. Primitive forms of entertainment involved participation in group activities.

People might ask, how were these conclusions reached? How do we know if primitive people were happy or unhappy? Evolutionary psychologists reached these conclusions by studying surviving primitive tribes: they found that cortisol, a biochemical byproduct of anxiety, was significantly lower in Samoan villagers than in Westerners. Furthermore, cultural anthropologists, using their methods, found that indigenous people in New Guinea showed almost no signs of depression. Simply put, genetic evolution is slow, often taking millions or hundreds of thousands of years to produce noticeable changes. Therefore, human genetic makeup is a product of natural selection based on the environment hundreds of thousands of years ago, regardless of whether that environment was good or bad; human genetic makeup is better adapted to that environment than to the conditions of modern industrial society. However, evolutionary psychologists believe that these modern diseases can be solved through technological progress and a deeper understanding of the mysteries of humanity itself. The author of the killer novel, however, argues with his own logic that these problems are impossible to solve.

Fourth, however, for the sake of its current survival, China still has to develop science and technology; there’s no other way.

I believe “Industrial Society and Its Future” is worth reading because it contains many profound insights into the industrial-technological society—even if these insights weren’t first proposed by the author, they are still profound. However, I do have a slight concern: will readers who read this article, which so strongly opposes the industrial-technological society, develop the idea that China shouldn’t pursue industrialization or develop high technology? In fact, many intellectuals in China who lack scientific knowledge (unlike the author of “Killer,” who does understand science) have long been parroting opposition to industrialized society and science and technology. What I want to say here is that industrialized society does indeed have many problems, brings much suffering, and may indeed, as the author of “Killer” suggests, ultimately collapse in a very painful way; however, the collapse of industrialized society is a matter for tomorrow, while a society that doesn’t industrialize and doesn’t catch up in technology cannot survive today. The author of “Killer” clearly understands this; he believes that technology actually forces you to accept it. At first, it seems like you have a choice—to accept it or not—but in reality, you have no choice but to accept it. The author of the killer game was well aware that if this world wanted to regress in terms of technology, they had to regress together. If only one or a few countries regressed, they would only face annihilation.

As we discussed earlier, people in primitive societies lived quite happily, and there’s a biochemical basis for this. However, primitive peoples have been largely exterminated, with very few surviving. Moreover, the process of their extermination by Western civilization was extremely cruel and bloody—it certainly couldn’t have been happy! The point is, without the invasion of technologically advanced Western civilization, other civilizations might have fared quite well (of course, we are taught from a young age that backward civilizations, including our own, are terrible and inhumane, but this is a Western interpretation, even though Chinese textbooks consistently present this view). However, the fact remains that Western technological civilization has permeated the entire globe—this is a reality. Any civilization that wants to survive must also master technology. This is why, after the Opium War, those insightful individuals who still genuinely admired Chinese civilization, such as Zeng Guofan, Zuo Zongtang, Li Hongzhang, and Hu Linyi, immediately advocated learning from the West and building powerful ships and cannons first. This is a point we must never forget. Therefore, as Chinese people, we must continue to forge ahead on the path of modernization until we master technologies that are on par with the West, and our survival is no longer threatened by technologically advanced countries. Only then can we sit down with other powerful nations in the world and discuss how we can avoid our shared fate, stop competing excessively in technology, and instead focus our efforts on building a more enjoyable world for all.

Fifth, there is still hope; we will not regress to a primitive society.

The author of *The Killer* sharply points out the ills of industrialized society and the danger of humanity sliding down this path. As a solution, he invites all of humanity to return to primitive society. I believe most people, including myself, would not accept this invitation, even though we think his arguments are valid. I believe modern technology remains a very effective tool. If humanity weren’t so greedy, so distrustful, and so competitive, then with the help of modern technology, humanity could have lived a more leisurely, freer, and less destructive life than primitive humans. The problem is that humanity is far too greedy. Having a car isn’t enough; they insist on monopolizing one, or even multiple cars. Exploring the nearby green hills and clear waters isn’t enough; they insist on traveling the world in jet planes. Being well-fed isn’t enough; they insist on throwing lavish banquets and wasting resources. The problem is that humanity is far too distrustful of one another. We’ve wasted so many resources and developed so many weapons—enough to destroy humanity dozens of times over—and it’s still not enough. We spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build a single stealth aircraft. Computer networks work perfectly well, yet we insist on using them for “information warfare.” If we changed all of this (the author of *Killer* disagrees, arguing it’s a complete redesign of humanity, violating human nature, but I disagree; if there’s a way to change it, then it’s good, regardless of whether it goes against human “nature”!), humanity could live quite comfortably. Is there hope for change? I believe there is, but only the strongest have the right to lead the change. Like China now, it cannot change yet; it still needs to develop high technology and advanced weaponry, otherwise, it cannot survive—it becomes a reverse selection process where good people cannot survive, while bad people thrive. Therefore, just as there is a Buddha, there must also be protectors; that’s the principle.

[1] The feedback was, of course, varied widely.

[2] Refers to the mass suicide of 918 members of the People’s Temple on November 18, 1987.

[3] The name of a textile worker in early 19^th-century Britain, one of the members of a workers’ organization who destroyed machines out of fear that the advent of machines would lead to unemployment.

[4] This is a letter the bomber sent to one of his victims, David Gallente, a Yale University PhD. Gallente suffered severe injuries to his abdomen, chest, face, and hands in the June 1993 bombing.

[5] An executive in the New York City advertising industry. He was killed in a bombing at his home in December 1994. He had been promoted to senior planner at a New York advertising agency shortly before his death, having previously worked at the agency’s subsidiary, Burson-Marsteller Public Relations.

[6] On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez supertanker, owned by the U.S. Oil Company, suffered an oil spill in the Prince William Sound in Alaska. One-fifth of the tanker’s capacity, or 108 million gallons of oil, leaked from the rupture. According to scientists, the damage to the ecological environment of the south-central Alaskan waters caused by this serious incident was “unprecedented.” To name just one example, the pollution had a devastating impact on local animals, with approximately 500,000 birds dying. According to unverified information circulating within some environmental organizations at the time, the Burson-Marsteller Company was implicated in the scandal, and the bombers were therefore furious with the company’s executives.

[7] (Paragraph 19) We are not asserting that ALL, or even most, bullies and ruthless competitors suffer from feelings of inferiority.

[8] (Paragraph 25) During the Victorian period many oversocialized people suffered from serious psychological problems as a result of repressing or trying to repress their sexual feelings.

Freud apparently based his theories on people of this type. Today the focus of socialization has shifted from sex to aggression.

[9] (Paragraph 27) Not necessarily including specialists in engineering or the “hard” sciences.

[10] (Paragraph 28) There are many individuals of the middle and upper classes who resist some of these values, but usually their resistance is more or less covert. Such resistance appears in the mass media only to a very limited extent. The main thrust of propaganda in our society is in favor of the stated values.

The main reason why these values have become, so to speak, the official values of our society is that they are useful to the industrial system. Violence is discouraged because it disrupts the functioning of the system. Racism is discouraged because ethnic conflicts also disrupt the system, and discrimination wastes the talents of minority-group members who could be useful to the system.

Poverty must be “cured” because the underclass causes problems for the system and contact with the underclass lowers the morale of the other classes. Women are encouraged to have careers because their talents are useful to the system and, more importantly, because by having regular jobs women become better integrated into the system and tied directly to it rather than to their families. This helps to weaken family solidarity. (The leaders of the system say they want to strengthen the family, but what they really mean is that they want the family to serve as an effective tool for socializing children in accord with the need of the system. We argue in paragraphs 51,52 that the system cannot afford to let the family or other small-scale social groups be strong or autonomous.)

[11] (Paragraph 42) It may be argued that the majority of people don’t want to make their own decision but want leaders to do their thinking for them. There is an element of truth in this. People like to make their own decisions in small matters, but making decision on difficult, fundamental questions requires facing up to psychological conflict, and most people hate psychological conflict.

Hence they tend to lean on others in making difficult decisions. But it does not follow that they like to have decisions imposed on them without having any opportunity to influence those decisions.

The majority of people are natural followers, not leaders, but they like to have direct personal access to their leaders, they want to be able to influence the leaders and participate to some extent in making even the difficult decisions. At least to that degree they need autonomy.

[12] (Paragraph 44) Some of the symptoms listed are similar to those shown by caged animals.

To explain how these symptoms arise from deprivation with respect to the power process:

Common-sense understanding of human nature tells one that lack of goals whose attainment requires effort leads to boredom and that boredom, long continued, often leads eventually to depression. Failure to attain goals leads to frustration and lowering of self-esteem. Frustration leads to anger, anger to aggression, often in the form of spouse or child abuse. It has been shown that long-continued frustration commonly leads to depression and that depression tends to cause anxiety, guilt, sleep disorders, eating disorders and bad feelings about oneself. Those who are tending toward depression seek pleasure as an antidote; hence insatiable hedonism and excessive sex, with perversions as a means of getting new kicks. Boredom too tends to cause excessive pleasure-seeking since, lacking other goals, people often use pleasure as a goal. See accompanying diagram.

The foregoing is a simplification. Reality is more complex, and of course deprivation with respect to the power process is not the ONLY cause of the symptoms described.

By the way, when we mention depression we do not necessarily mean depression that is severe enough to be treated by a psychiatrist.

Often only mild forms of depression are involved. And when we speak of goals we do not necessarily mean long-term, thought-out goals.

For many or most people through much of human history, the goals of a hand-to-mouth existence (merely providing oneself and one’s family with food from day to day) have been quite sufficient.

[13] (Paragraph 52) A partial exception may be made for a few passive, inward-looking groups, such as the Amish, which have little effect on the wider society. Apart from these, some genuine small-scale communities do exist in America today. For instance, youth gangs and “cults.” Everyone regards them as dangerous, and so they are, because the members of these groups are loyal primarily to one another rather than to the system, hence the system cannot control them.

Or take the gypsies. The gypsies commonly get away with theft and fraud because their loyalties are such that they can always get other gypsies to give testimony that “proves” their innocence. Obviously the system would be in serious trouble if too many people belonged to such groups.

Some of the early-twentieth century Chinese thinkers who were concerned with modernizing China recognized the necessity of breaking down small-scale social groups such as the family: “(According to Sun Yat-sen) the Chinese people needed a new surge of patriotism, which would lead to a transfer of loyalty from the family to the state...(According to Li Huang) traditional attachments, particularly to the family, had to be abandoned if nationalism were to develop in China.” (Chester C. Tan, Chinese Political Thought in the Twentieth Century, page 125, page 297.)

[14] (Paragraph 56) Yes, we know that 19^th century America had its problems, and serious ones, but for the sake of brevity we have to express ourselves in simplified terms.

[15] (Paragraph 61) We leave aside the “underclass.” We are speaking of the mainstream.

[16] (Paragraph 62) Some social scientists, educators, “mental health” professionals and the like are doing their best to push the social drives into group 1 by trying to see to it that everyone has a satisfactory social life.

[17] (Paragraphs 63,82) Is the drive for endless material acquisition really an artificial creation of the advertising and marketing industry? Certainly there is no innate human drive for material acquisition. There have been many cultures in which people have desired little material wealth beyond what was necessary to satisfy their basic physical needs. (Australian aborigines, traditional Mexican peasant culture, some African cultures.) On the other hand there have also been many pre-industrial cultures in which material acquisition has played an important role. So we can’t claim that today’s acquisition-oriented culture is exclusively a creation of the advertising and marketing industry. But it is clear that the advertising and marketing industry has had an important part in creating that culture. The big corporations that spend millions on advertising wouldn’t be spending that kind of money without solid proof that they were getting it back in increased sales. One member of FC met a sales manager a couple of years ago who was frank enough to tell him, “Our job is to make people buy things they don’t want and don’t need.” He then described how an untrained novice could present people with the facts about a product and make no sales at all, while a trained and experienced professional salesman would make lots of sales to the same people. This shows that people are manipulated into buying things they don’t really want.

[18] (Paragraph 64) The problem of purposelessness seems to have become less serious during the last fifteen years or so, because people now feel less secure physically and economically than they did earlier, and the need for security provides them with a goal. But purposelessness has been replaced by frustration over the difficulty of attaining security. We emphasize the problem of purposelessness because the liberals and leftists would wish to solve our social problems by having society guaranty everyone’s security; but if that could be done it would only bring back the problem of purposelessness. The real issue is not whether society provides well or poorly for people’s security; the trouble is that people are dependent on the system for their security rather than having it in their own hands. This, by the way, is part of the reason why some people get worked up about the right to bear arms; possession of a gun puts that aspect of their security in their own hands.

[19] (Paragraph 66) Conservatives’ efforts to decrease the amount of government regulation are of little benefit to the average man.

For one thing, only a fraction of the regulations can be eliminated because most regulations are necessary. For another thing, most of the deregulation affects business rather than the average individual, so that its main effect is to take power from the government and give it to private corporations. What this means for the average man is that government interference in his life is replaced by interference from big corporations, which may be permitted, for example, to dump more chemicals that get into his water supply and give him cancer. The conservatives are just taking the average man for a sucker, exploiting his resentment of Big Government to promote the power of Big Business.

[20] (Paragraph 73) When someone approves of the purpose for which propaganda is being used in a given case, he generally calls it “education” or applies to it some similar euphemism. But propaganda is propaganda regardless of the purpose for which it is used.

[21] (Paragraph 83) We are not expressing approval or disapproval of the Panama invasion. We only use it to illustrate a point.

[22] (Paragraph 95) When the American colonies were under British rule there were fewer and less effective legal guarantees of freedom than there were after the American Constitution went into effect, yet there was more personal freedom in pre-industrial America, both before and after the War of Independence, than there was after the industrial revolution took hold in this country. We quote from Violence in AAmerica: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, edited by Hugh Davis Graham and Ted Robert Gurr, Chapter 12 by Roger Lane, pages 476–478:

“The progressive heightening of standards of propriety, and with it the increasing reliance on official law enforcement (in 19^th century America)... were common to the whole society...(T)he change in social behavior is so long term and so wide-spread as to suggest a connection with the most fundamental of contemporary social processes, that of industrial urbanization itself...

“Massachusetts in 1835 had a population of some 660,940, 81 percent rural, overwhelmingly preindustrial and native born. Its citizens were used to considerable personal freedom. Whether teamsters, farmers or artisans, they were all accustomed to setting their own schedules, and the nature of their work made them physically independent of each other ...Individual problems, sins or even crimes, were not generally cause for wider social concern...

“But the impact of the twin movements to the city and to the factory, both just gathering force in 1835, had a progressive effect on personal behavior throughout the 19^th century and into the 20^th.

The factory demanded regularity of behavior, a life governed by obedience to the rhythms of clock and calendar, the demands of foreman and supervisor. In the city or town, the needs of living in closely packed neighborhoods inhibited many actions previously unobjectionable. Both blue-and white-collar employees in larger establishments were mutually dependent on their fellows; as one man’s work fit into another’s, so one man’s business was no longer his own.

“The results of the new organization of life and work were apparent by 1900”, when some 76 percent of the 2,805,346 inhabitants of Massachusetts were classified as urbanites. Much violent or irregular behavior which had been tolerable in a casual, independent society was no longer acceptable in the more formalized, cooperative atmosphere of the later period...The move to the cities had, in short, produced a more tractable, more socialized, more ‘civilized’ generation than its predecessors.”

[23] (Paragraph 117) Apologists for the system are fond of citing cases in which elections have been decided by one or two votes, but such cases are rare.

[24] (Paragraph 119) “Today, in technologically advanced lands, men live very similar lives in spite of geographical, religious, and political differences. The daily lives of a Christian bank clerk in Chicago, a Buddhist bank clerk in Tokyo, and a Communist bank clerk in Moscow are far more alike than the life of any one of them is like that of any single man who lived a thousand years ago. These similarities are the result of a common technology...” L. Sprague de Camp, The Ancient Engineers, Ballantine edition, page 17.

The lives of the three bank clerks are not IDENTICAL. Ideology does have SOME effect. But all technological societies, in order to survive, must evolve along APPROXIMATELY the same trajectory.

[25] (Paragraph 123) Just think, an irresponsible genetic engineer might create a lot of terrorists.

[26] (Paragraph 124) For a further example of undesirable consequences of medical progress, suppose a reliable cure for cancer is discovered. Even if the treatment is too expensive to be available to any but the elite, it will greatly reduce their incentive to stop the escape of carcinogens into the environment.

[27] (Paragraph 128) Since many people may find paradoxical the notion that a large number of good things can add up to a bad thing, we illustrate with an analogy. Suppose Mr. A is playing chess with Mr. B. Mr. C, a Grand Master, is looking over Mr. A’s shoulder. Mr. A of course wants to win his game, so if Mr. C points out a good move for him to make, he is doing Mr. A a favor. But suppose now that Mr. C tells Mr. A how to make ALL of his moves. In each particular instance he does Mr. A a favor by showing him his best move, but by making ALL of his moves for him he spoils his game, since there is no point in Mr. A’s playing the game at all if someone else makes all his moves.

The situation of modern man is analogous to that of Mr. A. The system makes an individual’s life easier for him in innumerable ways, but in doing so it deprives him of control over his own fate.

[28] (Paragraph 137) Here we are considering only the conflict of values within the mainstream. For the sake of simplicity we leave out of the picture “outsider” values like the idea that wild nature is more important than human economic welfare.

[29] (Paragraph 137) Self-interest is not necessarily MATERIAL self-interest. It can consist in fulfilment of some psychological need, for example, by promoting one’s own ideology or religion.

[30] (Paragraph 139) A qualification: It is in the interest of the system to permit a certain prescribed degree of freedom in some areas. For example, economic freedom (with suitable limitations and restraints) has proved effective in promoting economic growth. But only planned, circumscribed, limited freedom is in the interest of the system. The individual must always be kept on a leash, even if the leash is sometimes long. See paragraphs 94,97.

[31] (Paragraph 143) We don’t mean to suggest that the efficiency or the potential for survival of a society has always been inversely proportional to the amount of pressure or discomfort to which the society subjects people. That certainly is not the case. There is good reason to believe that many primitive societies subjected people to less pressure than European society proved far more efficient than any primitive society and always won out in conflicts with such societies because of the advantages conferred by technology.

[32] (Paragraph 147) If you think that more-effective law-enforcement is unequivocally good because it suppresses crime, then remember that crime as defined by the system is not necessarily what you would call crime. Today, smoking marijuana is a “crime,” and, in some places in the U.S., so is possession of an unregistered handgun. Tomorrow, possession of ANY firearm, registered or not, may be made a crime, and the same thing may happen with disapproved methods of child-rearing, such as spanking. In some countries, expression of dissident political opinions is a crime, and there is no certainty that this will never happen in the U.S., since no constitution or political system lasts forever.

If a society needs a large, powerful law-enforcement establishment, then there is something gravely wrong with that society; it must be subjecting people to severe pressures if so many refuse to follow the rules, or follow them only because forced. Many societies in the past have gotten by with little or no formal law-enforcement.

[33] (Paragraph 151) To be sure, past societies have had means of influencing human behavior, but these have been primitive and of low effectiveness compared with the technological means that are now being developed.

[34] (Paragraph 152) However, some psychologists have publicly expressed opinions indicating their contempt for human freedom. And the mathematician Claude Shannon was quoted in Omni (August, 1987) as saying, “I visualize a time when we will be to robots what dogs are to humans, and I’m rooting for the machines.”

[35] (Paragraph 154) This is no science fiction! After writing paragraph 154 we came across an article in Scientific American according to which scientists are actively developing techniques for identifying possible future criminals and for treating them by a combination of biological and psychological means. Some scientists advocate compulsory application of the treatment, which may be available in the near future. (See “Seeking the Criminal Element” by W. Wayt Gibbs, Scientific American, March, 1995.) Maybe you think this is OK because the treatment would be applied to those who might become violent criminals. But of course it won’t stop there. Next, a treatment will be applied to those who might become drunk drivers (they endanger human life too), then perhaps to people who spank their children, then to environmentalists who sabotage logging equipment, eventually to anyone whose behavior is inconvenient for the system.

[36] (Paragraph 184) A further advantage of nature as a counter-ideal to technology is that, in many people, nature inspires the kind of reverence that is associated with religion, so that nature could perhaps be idealized on a religious basis. It is true that in many societies religion has served as a support and justification for the established order, but it is also true that religion has often provided a basis for rebellion. Thus it may be useful to introduce a religious element into the rebellion against technology, the more so because western society today has no strong religious foundation. Religion nowadays either is used as a cheap and transparent support for narrow, short-sighted selfishness (some conservatives use it this way), or even is cynically exploited to make easy money (by many evangelists), or has degenerated into crude irrationalism (fundamentalist protestant sects, “cults”), or is simply stagnant (Catholicism, main-line Protestantism). The nearest thing to a strong, widespread, dynamic religion that the West has seen in recent times has been the quasi-religion of leftism, but leftism today is fragmented and has no clear, unified, inspiring goal.

Thus there is a religious vacuum in our society that could perhaps be filled by a religion focussed on nature in opposition to technology. But it would be a mistake to try to concoct artificially a religion to fill this role. Such an invented religion would probably be a failure. Take the “Gaia” religion for example. Do its adherents REALLY believe in it or are they just play-acting? If they are just play-acting their religion will be a flop in the end.

It is probably best not to try to introduce religion into the conflict of nature vs technology unless you REALLY believe in that religion yourself and find that it arouses a deep, strong, genuine response in many other people.

[37] (Paragraph 189) Assuming that such a final push occurs. Conceivably the industrial system might be eliminated in a somewhat gradual or piecemeal fashion. See paragraphs 4, 167 and Note 32.

[38] (Paragraph 193) It is even conceivable (remotely) that the revolution might consist only of a massive change of attitudes toward technology resulting in a relatively gradual and painless disintegration of the industrial system. But if this happens we’ll be very lucky. It’s far more probable that the transition to a nontechnological society will be very difficult and full of conflicts and disasters.

[39] (Paragraph 195) The economic and technological structure of a society are far more important that its political structure in determining the way the average man lives. See paragraphs 95, 119 and Notes 16, 18.

[40] (Paragraph 215) This statement refers to our own particular brand of anarchism. A wide variety of social attitudes have been called “anarchist,” and it may be that many who consider themselves anarchists would not accept our statement of paragraph 215. It should be noted, by the way, that there is a nonviolent anarchist movement whose members probably would not accept FC as anarchist and certainly would not approve of FC’s violent methods.

[41] (Paragraph 219) Many leftists are motivated also by hostility, but the hostility probably results in part from a frustrated need for power.

[42] (Paragraph 229) It is important to understand that we mean someone who sympathizes with these MOVEMENTS as they exist today in our society. One who believes that women, homosexuals etc. should have equal rights is not necessarily a leftist. The feminist, gay rights etc. movements that exist in our society have the particular ideological tone that characterizes leftism, and if one believes, for example, that women should have equal rights it does not necessarily follow that one must sympathize with the feminist movement as it exists today.

{1} FC is a self-designed symbol by the campus-based airline bomber: it likely stands for Freedom Club or Freedom Collective. —Translator