Amazing Polly, on Ted Kaczynski and the CIA

To get up to speed, you might want to first pursue this:

AK Reader: MEDITATION ON THE UNABOMBER

Amazing Polly has been digging into the background of Ted Kaczynski, and discovered that as a Harvard student he was the subject of experimentation designed to break his spirit — and failed. She points to his Manifesto‘s predictions of what would happen if leftist ideology ever got control of technology, which, she argues, it now almost has. True?

You might want to read the entire Manifesto: Industrial Society and Its Future. Here’s one tiny excerpt, as or more relevant today than when composed, in 1995.

 

 

BTW: Trump tweets out that he’s monitoring the tightening censorship by leftist social media  very carefully, as even noted by the leftist rag, Politico.

 

 

Trump met with Twitter’s Jack Dorsey on April 23.. Dorsey does not look happy. Would he dare to ban Trump’s tweets?

Please note that I am neither a Capitalist (who “believes” in individualism at the expense of the group) nor a Socialist (who “believes” in the group at the expense of the individual). As usual, while embodied in this 3D world, we are continuously required to work with, and choose between, opposites, by embracing them both as paradox and recognizing that each one defines and enhances the other: dark/light, unconscious/conscious, good/bad, male/female, etc. Each pole of any duality is only valuable when balanced by its opposite, and it’s our job to recognize and embrace both poles of any duality and the continuously shifting dynamics between them. In our little Green Acres Permaculture Village, for example, we continuously encourage and exemplify both individual expression and mutual cooperation. Indeed our sheer aliveness here depends on our ability to constantly integrate the mutual adjusting frisson generated by these two seeming opposites!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Amazing Polly, on Ted Kaczynski and the CIA

  1. Making an evaluation of Ted’s motivation is one thing, his actions are another. Ted may not retain a strong enough grip on reality to not be diagnosed as suffering from debilitating psychosis. These folks need grounding and help to bring them back to shore as they otherwise are drowning in the same ocean in which mystics swim with delight.

    “The psychotic drowns in the same waters in which the mystic swims with delight.”

    ― Joseph Campbell, Psychology of the Future: Lessons from Modern Consciousness Research

    In our little volunteer service Corp. that provides free somnambulistic regression hypnosis services aimed primarily at helping trauma sufferers exhibiting PTSD symptoms, we do not work with psychotics for the very reason that they really need grounding and to be brought back to a safe shore, with patience and understanding. We are not trained medical professionals. The type of person who could help Ted, is someone like Dave McMillin https://youtu.be/2gda18-0i3I

    • ….And if there IS an answer to the question, “Can Ted ever be made whole again, in this lifetime?”, then take heart, as our humanity will find itself redeemed, and polarity gives way to light and love in a new positive direction.

        • Ted to this day, appears to remain unwilling to face his ego’s hold on his actions. I ask, is Ted’s forever contending, that he is not crazy, that instead we fail to understand his higher purpose and it’s justification for what I did, … is this not identical to Vladimir Lenin, “Sometimes history needs a push.”

          Ted remains as dangerous in his state of hibernation of his consciousness today, if not more so, than he was while living in his isolated cabin. Facing your demons does not require you to attempt suicide; suicide does not wash your spiritual slate clean. Instead one needs to see ones own shadow side, and learn to forgive others and yourself, and then change your actions in joy.

          If one wants to give history a push, I humbly submit, push with love as did Charles Dickens: “He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man as the good old City knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough in the good old world.”

          • Ann Kreilkamp says:

            Yes. Facing the shadow is what we all need to do, continuously. And his is obviously huge, given that he killed so many people. He’s STUCK.

  2. Ari Paul says:

    Dr. Theodore Kaczynski is a genius and he’s also a revolutionary freedom fighter like John Brown, or George Washington, or Che Guevara. Eventually he’ll be completely vindicated. The people he popped off were criminals promoting technological growth. The people promoting the growth of the technological system are some of the worst criminals who have ever lived: They are worse than Hitler or Stalin–neither Hitler nor Stalin ever dreamed of the horrors that unpredictable and uncontrollable radical technological growth would unleash on human society and the biosphere. We are only now just at the very tip of the iceberg in terms of disruption.

    Everyone who is concerned about the future of human society and the biosphere in the face of rapid technological growth should absolutely read Kaczynski’s two extraordinary books, “Technological Slavery” (2010) and “Anti-Tech Revolution” (2016).

    “Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How is Kaczynski’s well-reasoned, cohesive composition about how revolutionary groups should approach our mercurial future….. I recommend that you read this compelling perspective on how we can frame our struggles in a technological society.”

    —The Tech, MIT’s oldest and largest newspaper

    “There are more than a few people who feel that society’s rush toward a technological future will lead to disaster. This book presents some pointers for thinking in broad, strategic terms about getting society off that particular road. …The reader will get a lot out of it. This is very highly recommended.”

    —Midwest Book Review

    “Kaczynski understands what those of us more fully participating in the technological system are unable to fully appreciate: that technological society is beyond rational human control and will result in cataclysmic harm. What he presents is a sound moral argument with what should be eye-opening historical social illustrations that are, together, too numerous to refute.”

    —Jai Galliott, Ph.D. School of Engineering and Information Technology, UNSW Canberra

    “Kaczynski’s second book, Anti-Tech Revolution, is a true milestone in thinking about technology. It is a well-researched, well-written, and thoroughly-documented work dedicated to undermining the technological system before its worst consequences become reality. Nothing else like it exists. All those concerned with the future of humanity and the planet would do well to study it carefully.”

    — Prof. David Skrbina, University of Michigan, Dearborn, USA

    “…a rational mind is on display in this book.”

    — Prof. Steve Fuller, University of Warwick, UK

    • Ann Kreilkamp says:

      Thanks for this. I did not know that he was using his jail time to write books — and get them published. Amazing. Prison as a think tank! I will pursue both of his books. However, I don’t appreciate using the phrase “popped off” to refer to the murder of human beings. So amazing, the contradictions we all have to be both aware of and integrate.

      • Ann Kreilkamp says:

        It looks like both books are pdfs on the internet. Good.

      • Ari Paul says:

        Thanks for your response Ann. But “murder” is unjustified killing. Whether or not two people agree on whether certain killings were justified or not will depend on their interpretations of a number of circumstances, including whether and why the people killed were “innocent” and why or why not. This is not to say that morality is relative. Absolutely not! But education and propaganda and emotion have a deep and lasting affect on the way humans perceive and judge the morality of certain actions, quite apart from rational consideration.

        For example, if we were living in Nazi Germany and I were a Warsaw ghetto up-riser who killed a Nazi official because I thought it was the only reasonable chance I had of escape, than under that system of education and propaganda, Nazi society would label me a “murderer” and the people I killed as “innocent.”

        If one comes to understand, on the basis of fact and careful logic, that the people involved with promoting technological growth are not “innocent” but in fact some of the worst criminals that ever lived–despite what the majority consensus education and propaganda insists in our industrial and technological society–than there is no reason to consider their killing as “murder.”

        If you are interested in carrying on this line of inquiry, I have a number of other questions related to morality which I would be very curious to hear your answers on.

        • Ann Kreilkamp says:

          Interesting approach. I do tend to be personally non-violent, and yet am all for the second amendment! (Another contradiction.) Re: “The Unabomber,” As I recall, Ted’s murderous missives were supposedly sent to “random” targets. Not true, then?

          • Ari Paul says:

            Here you’re “begging the question.” Whether the targets were “random” or not is dependent in large part on whether the targets where “unjustified” or not (i.e. whether they were “murdered” or not). In other words, the word “random” is subject the same interpretations and conditions I outlined above re: what constitutes “murder.” So…

            First, I reject your premise and object to your term “murderous” in this context.
            Second, no, they were not “random.” They were specifically selected for their contributions to technological progress or defense of industrial society in some way.

            If people who were not involved in promoting technological progress or defending industrial society were hurt or exposed to danger inadvertently (i.e. collaterally), he has expressed regret. For evidence of this, you will have to access his journals which are stored at the Joseph A Labadie collection at the University of Michigan.

          • Ann Kreilkamp says:

            Have you perused his journals yourself?

          • Ari Paul says:

            Yes to your last question. Interestingly, there is no reply button underneath your last posting.

          • Ann Kreilkamp says:

            Odd that there is no reply button there. Good you didn’t let that stop you!

  3. Some of the things Polly said on the Frankfurt School reminded me hugely of G. Edward Griffin’s interview with Norman Dodd on Tax Exempt Foundations.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYCBfmIcHM

    This little known account of history speaks volumes on precisely how things got so screwed up here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *