#title Hippies may end up preserving liberty through the reaction they provoke
#author Ted Kaczynski
#date Jan. 22, 1970
#lang en
#pubdate 2026-01-09T18:30:49
#source Ted Kaczynski’s 1969–70 Journal (Series I, Journal #1), Folder 1, Box 82, Ted Kaczynski Papers, University of Michigan Library (Special Collections Library). <[[https://findingaids.lib.umich.edu/catalog/umich-scl-kaczynski_al_480cab27a77ebf823a933fe9701362612ce562d0][findingaids.lib.umich.edu/catalog/umich-scl-kaczynski]]> & <[[https://archive.org/details/ae.-teds-journals_202303/Ted%20Kaczynski%20Papers%20_%20Box%2082%20_%20Journal%20from%201969%20K2046F%20-%20cropped][archive.org]]>
#topics Ted’s essays
#notes The essay was untitled in the journal, feel free to edit this text with your own suggested title.<br>For related reading see Ted's letter to the editor discussing [[https://thetedkarchive.com/library/henry-s-resnik-the-groovy-revolution][The Groovy Revolution]].

Probably the only hope of preserving individual liberty lies in rebellious youth. By this I do not mean to say it would be good for individual liberty if today’s hippies and student rebels ever got control of this country. On the contrary, they are so intolerant of other people’s opinions that they would probably destroy what liberty we have now. However, it is possible that they may shake up the country so much, without getting control of it, that the direction in which society is developing may be changed considerably. I would not attempt to guess what the new-direction of development would be, but it is possible — though I think quite unlikely — that it might be such as to increase the freedom and independence of the individual. It appears that the rebels have already wrought some major changes. Miniskirts, sideburns, and bushy moustaches, originally introduced by junior nonconformists, have now been more or less accepted by what is vulgarly termed the establishment. Even family-type national magazines have become surprisingly daring with regard to sex. In the last few years “socialism” (that term means different things to different people) has become more and more widely accepted as both inevitable and desirable in this country. I see no reason for optimism in these trends. Rather the contrary. There seems to be more and more emphasis on “togetherness” and the individuals supposed obligation to the group. (Sensitivity training; the we-all-gotta-kiss-and-hod-hands-or-the-world-will-blow-up attitude; etc.) The student and minority group rebels keep asking society to *do things for them*, rather than asking for a situation in which they can be independent and do things for themselves. I see no sign of any movement asking to let each man be his own master in a thorough sense. It should also be noted that economic socialism involving nationalization of industries doesn’t eliminate the power that corporations exercise over individuals — it merely constitutes all the power in the hands of the government. Thus there is no longer even the partially effective system checks and balances that exist in the present half-capitalist society.

The growing tendency to assume Communist countries are benign and harmless as long as we treat them right is dangerous. It is time that neither the Russians nor the Chinese are about to send their armies goose-stepping across Asia. Neither are they likely to make an unprovoked atomic attack on the U.S. Nevertheless, certain facts should be clear to any reasonably objective observer. The first is that Communist values are strictly materialistic. Individual liberty has no place in their ideology, as is made clear by the invasion of Czechoslovakia (despite the Czechs repeated prostrations of loyalty to socialism and to the Soviet Union), and by the repression of intellectuals and artists.

Secondly, it seems nearly certain that the Russians, and absolutely certain that the Chinese, will not hesitate to use mind-control techniques as they become available. Indeed, they have already demonstrated this by their use of propaganda, and of brainwashing in the strict sense of the word (as described in A. Huxley’s “Brave New World Revisited).

Third, even if expansionism were not a part of Communist ideology, we would still expect the Communist leaders to do their best to enlarge their sphere of influence, simply because that is the way national leaders behave. (especially when they are not hampered by Western examples). They would do this by economic and political means, with military presence applied where convenient and reasonably safe. Let’s be extremely optimistic for a moment and assume the U.S. forswears the use of mind-control techniques and the misuse of technology. How could it then expect to compete indefinitely with nations having no such scruples? Once sufficiently effective mind control techniques become established in Communist countries these countries would stay that way.