|The Manifesto of Forbidden Truth:
Ted Kaczynski Tribute Page
|The Manifesto of Forbidden Truth | Introduction to the Forbidden Truths and More about Me | Forbidden Truth on Child Abuse--Child Slavery--Genocide of Children as Practiced by Human Society--Brilliant Proposals to end all Child Victimization | Forbidden Truth on Crime--Violence--Cathartic Vengeance--Complete Elimination of Current Criminal Justice System | Forbidden Truth on The Insane God Myth--Death--The Purpose and Meaning of Life | Forbidden Truth on Sex--The Myth of Love--Friendship--The Toxic, Deranged Institution of Marriage | Forbidden Truth on War--Genocidally Abusive Military Structure--Political Systems--Economic Systems | Forbidden Truth on Self-Abuse/Betrayal--Embrace of Victimhood Status--Courage--Mental Health/Psychiatric System | Forbidden Truth on Racism-- Censorship--Societally Compelled/Coerced Conformity | Forbidden Truth on The Societal Illusion of Personal Freedom--Truth-based Dissection of american Constitution--Use of Language/Definitions as a Brainwashing Tool | Forbidden Truth on Illusion of Societal Morality/Decency--Societal Crutches--Truth-Based Amorality as a Lifestyle Path | Forbidden Truth on Physical Appearance--Fashion--Pop Culture Induced Mannerisms/Behaviors--The Acting Mask--Gender Bias/Feminism | Forbidden Truth on Law Enforcement Structures--Educational Systems--Sports as Toxic Ritual--Environmental Terrorism | Forbidden Truth on Animal Exploitation--Myth of Media/Journalistic Freedom--Celebrity-Based Culture--Age/Maturity Hypocrisy | Forbidden Truth on Ritualistic Guilt Manifestations--Ritualized Personal Sacrifice--Societal Obligations to Individuals--Genetic Perversions of Human Race-- Viability/Entitlement of Human Race to Exist--Doomsday Scenarios for Extinction of Humanity--The Utopian Society | ***Latest Updates--Feedback--Commentary/News Concerning this Web Site and Forbidden Truth--Last Updated January 14, 2011*** | Tribute To and Analysis Of some of Charles Manson's Brilliant Insights of Forbidden Truth--Tribute To and Analysis Of some of Friedrich Nietzsche's Brilliant Insights of Forbidden Truth | ***Financial Support for the Forbidden Truth Project via Donations, Purchases, and Subscriptions*** ||
Warning: If you have accessed this web page without first having read and agreed to this website's Terms of Access which are located at the Main Gateway page, you must immediately stop reading this page, Click Here, read and then agree to all of the Terms of Access. Then you may return to this page and continue exploring this entire website.
Hello. You have reached the Theodore Kaczynski Tribute Page of The Manifesto of Forbidden Truth. Thank you for taking the time to reflect upon the True Reality of Theodore, a tortured victim-creation of 20th century amerikkkan society. If you find that the sentiments and revelations of Truth expressed at this page resonate positively within your core conscious experience of life, you might want to consider immersing yourself in The Manifesto of Forbidden Truth. This 200,000+ word Manifesto is devoted to exposing and dissecting all of the the forbidden truths of humanity, revealing it to be a diseased, devolving, and doomed species, unworthy of infesting planet earth. You may begin your journey here:
This is Theodore Kaczynski, Brilliant, Harvard Educated Philosopher of Truth, Terrorized Under Threat of Murder Into Publically Declaring Himself Insane, by the Most Evil and Diseased Society on Planet Earth. Yes folks, Martyr Ted is absolutely a Seer of Forbidden Truth, and his life story and life path is a pure testament to the brilliance of an individual, and the malicious torment that your evil societies subject each and every brilliant Seer of Truth to. A victim of brutal childhood victimization, both by his Sacred Family Unit owners and by his diseased society as a whole, Martyr Theodore nevertheless found enough benevolence within his True Reality to sincerely try to save humanity by publically revealing Forbidden Truth, within a Manifesto of his own. How did you evil hypocrites react to this display of remarkable generosity by Ted? You terroristically threatened to murder him, via a "death penalty", unless he agreed to publically and officially declare himself to be insane, by accepting/pursuing an insanity defense at trial. The purpose of this outrageous act of governmental blackmail by the leaders of american society, was to discredit Marytr Ted's Manifesto, by labeling it as being clearly invalid and illegitimate, by forcing the author to accept/claim to be mentally ill/insane. Instead of falling to your knees and rejoicing that one of your tortured victim-creations possessed the brilliance, courage, and benevolence to grace you with profound Truth, which is what you should have done, you flee in terror from your Seer, demonizing and inflicting additional punitive punishment upon him. Pathetic!
If you creatures were sane, you would have stormed the prison where Charles Manson has been tortured for the past 3+ decades, and the prison where Martyr Ted has been tortured for the past half decade+, not only rescuing and freeing these two brilliant Seers of Forbidden Truth, but overthrowing the existing societal regime and installing Martyr Charles as the new "president", and Martyr Ted as the new "vice president". You could not sit by and allow the most evil humans in your society to rule over you, and to inflict additional, lifelong torment upon these two Superior, brilliant, courageous Martyrs, torture victims of your society, if you possessed even the tiniest shred of moral, ethical, emotional, or intellectual integrity. Let it be clear, I certainly do not agree with all of the philosophical insights that Martyr Ted graces us with, but I do find at least some genuine Truth within most of Ted's philosophies, and many of his insights are absolutely brilliant and represent genuine, top-level Forbidden Truth. I highly recommend that all of you obtain a copy of Ted's Manifesto, which has been published as a print book and is also currently available in it's entirety online, as well as research and study his other writings, as they reveal the remarkable strength and brilliance of an independent, courageous mind, unbroken by a lifetime of societally inflicted torture and victimization that you creatures perversely continue to allow, encourage, and celebrate the infliction of, by your evil societies, against Seers of Truth such as Ted and Charles. Sadly, a second book that Ted has already written, brilliantly titled "Truth And Lies", has not yet been published due to a dispute that Ted had with his publisher. Hopefully this biographical book will be published at some point, and meanwhile all of us Superiors must make sure we have savored Ted's original Manifesto, which was available from "mainstream" companies such as amazon.com in printed book form for only a short period of time, before being yanked out of publication under pressure from the leaders of american society. In fact I cannot find this book listed on amazon.com at all, not even as an "out of print" book, looks like your fascist government did a nice job of getting this Manifesto of Truth yanked from all mainstream public access, so all I can do is direct you to a website which does appear to contain the entire content of Ted's unique, courageous, and brilliant Manifesto:
Please note that only some of the below quotes are from Ted's actual Manifesto, other quotes come from a variety of other sources, but all are Brilliant and worthwhile expressions of Truth, realized and shared with the world by Martyr Theodore Kaczynski. Note that my replies to each quote will appear in red print, and will not be italicized, for ease of reading.
"You can have all the freedom that you want as long as the authorities consider it unimportant."
For a single sentence, this might well be one of the most brilliant of all of Ted's insights of Truth. Very simple sentence, but so incredibly profound and right on target: Your diseased societies brainwash you into embracing and celebrating your "freedoms", even though the Truth is that all of the freedoms that your evil societies allow you to claim, and whether or not they even deserve to be called "freedoms" is debatable, are unimportant and useless in terms of providing you with any type of legitimate, valuable freedom.
"My occupation now, I suppose, is jail inmate."
"I believe in nothing. I don't even believe in the cult of nature-worshipers or wilderness-worshipers. (I am perfectly ready to litter in parts of the woods that are of no use to me -- I often throw cans in logged-over areas.)"
"My motive for doing what I am going to do is simply personal revenge. I do not expect to accomplish anything by it. Of course, if my crime (and my reasons for committing it) gets any public attention, it may help to stimulate public interest in the technology question and thereby improve the chances of stopping technology before it is too late; but on the other hand most people will probably be repelled by my crime, and the opponents of freedom may use it as a weapon to support their arguments for control over human behavior. I have no way of knowing whether my action will do more good than harm. I certainly don't claim to be an altruist or to be acting for the 'good' (whatever that is) of the human race. I act merely from a desire for revenge."
"By discrediting me personally, they hope to discredit my political ideas."
"I have got to know, I have GOT TO, GOT TO, GOT TO know that every last tie joining me to this stinking family has been cut FOREVER and that I will never NEVER have to communicate with any of you again. I've got to do it NOW. I can't tell you how desperate I am. It is killing me."
"My brother is another Judas Iscariot, except that, unlike the original Judas, he doesn't even have enough courage to go hang himself." Great quote! Ted loved and valued himself, hopefully still does. I believe he still does. Your evil societies hate this, their primary goal is to destroy the ego, the narcissistic self-love that is so precious and irreplaceable, from each and every child, to "break" every citizen-slave, turn them into a broken, self-hating slave, by the time they reach adolescence. Here you see the eternal danger that comes with trusting any human. All it takes is one human, to destroy you. The Superior individual recognizes this Truth and never trusts any human being in his entire lifetime. When I say never, I mean never, and when I say trust, I refer to all forms of trust, even regarding things which may seem fairly trivial. Ted never gave his brother any type of "hint" that he might be doing anything illegal, and yet the simple fact of maintaining a tiny bit of contact with his brother, nothing more than a few letters per year at most, eventually resulted in catastrophic consequences. Could Ted have foreseen the danger of catastrophic consequences resulting from the "harmless" maintaining of contact with his brother? In my opinion, the answer is clearly yes. If you train your mind to correctly analyze all situation, life choices, and circumstances from a 100% tactically airtight position, you can properly recognize all potential dangers, in advance, regardless of how obscure or unlikely they may seem to the typical, shallow, narrow-minded, uninsightful thinker.
"It is not surprising that government officials do not live up to their promises, because they are either stupid and incompetent, or they are liars who twist the law to be able to commit any injustice."
"Perhaps a better solution would be to change the structure of society so that it becomes possible to allow people some of the freedom and independence that they seem to crave."
"A happily married man does not daydream about romantic love. Similarly, a man does not romanticize frontier freedom unless he is suffering from a lack of personal autonomy. Most of the problems are direct or indirect results of the activity of large organizations - large corporations and governments. It is these organizations, after all, that control the structure and development of society. Perhaps the most unfortunate thing that has ever happened to individual liberty was its being used as an excuse for the misdeeds of huge corporations."
"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."
"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."
"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 a POLITICAL REVOLUTION. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society."
"Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. 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 nonmoral origin. We use the term ''oversocialized'' to describe such people. 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 running 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."
"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. 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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"It is said that we live in a free society because we have a certain number of constitutionally guaranteed 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. Most of the Indian nations of 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 out 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."
"Constitutional rights are useful up to a point, but they do not serve to guarantee much more than what could be called the bourgeois conception of freedom. According to the bourgeois conception, a "free" man is essentially an element of a social machine and has only a certain set 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 rights 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 of the nation." And on page 259 Tan states that according to Carsum 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."
"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 control 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."
"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 the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity. 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 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.
"A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out 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 than the 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 and 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 the important point we have 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.)"
"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, 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 -- short of the overthrow of the whole technological system."
"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 reasons it would be much easier to overthrow the whole technological system than to put effective, permanent restraints on the development of application of any one segment of technology, such as 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 limite certain aspects of technology would be working to avoid a negative outcome. But revolutionaries work to gain a powerful reward -- fulfillment of their revolutionary vision -- and therefore work harder and more persistently than reformers do."
"Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy, then gives them the 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 had been greatly increasing in recent decades. We believe that this is due to disruption fo 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.)"
"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 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 of the system."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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. 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."
"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."
"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 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."
"People vary in their susceptibility to advertising and marketing techniques. Some people 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."
"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 these 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). 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. 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."
"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."
"Until the industrial system has been thoroughly wrecked, the destruction of that system must be the revolutionaries' ONLY goal."
"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."
Click Here to send me E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org