In Chicago, Illinois, 22nd of May 1942, a child was born to a recently married Polish couple. That child in question went off to become a mathematical prodigy renowned both in his own neighbourhood and latterly in his field of study as a genius far more capable than his peers. Not only did he graduate from high school at age 15 he went on to acquire a doctorate at 25 and become an assistant lecturer at 26. Prospects looked healthy for our young prodigy, but things were not quite what they seemed. A socially challenging childhood, consisting of older peers who saw him as a brain first and a person second, plus an already socially distant disposition lead to our prodigy rejecting a career in academia, for something he felt was much greater. Maths was by no means his only forté, he took a great interest in literature from a broad selection of subjects and blended this with his appreciation of the natural world. In 1971 he moved “off-grid” to Montana, having only lasted roughly a year as an assistant lecturer, he no longer sought to be known as a scholar or intellectual. Instead he chose to pursue a self-sufficient lifestyle, allowing continued reading and writing down his own thoughts to serve as luxury. His interest in maths waned as he thought more about technology and its relation to man, heavily guided by Jacque Ellul’s work amongst a blend of other thinkers, he began to take action… At which point I must stop and oblige you to continue reading whether you are aware of who I write of, and what actions occurred by his hands or not. I have no interest in retelling tales of domestic direct action, instead I will attempt to show why Theodore John Kaczynski is a right wing thinker that you ignore at your own peril, not only is his perspective on technology something that should be a pillar to modern right wing thought; his tactics, strategic insights and omniscience in identifying political dichotomies years before they even came to the fold of mainstream discourse are indispensable for those who seek genuine change.
There is a clear logical progression to Kaczynski’s thinking, much like say Austrian Economics, he starts with a simple premise such as his definition of freedom.
“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 defence 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”.
While it may not be perfect, it is definitely impactful compared to the idea of freedom one is told to believe within society today. There are also elements to it that reflect dissident thinkers who are being somewhat revived at the time of writing this, it may also go to show the material that influenced Kaczynski during his life. The linking of freedom to the ability to make meaningful choices as an expression of power could be seen as a simpler version of Carl Schmitt’s work on sovereignty. Whilst writing in a very different context, Schmitt basing his work within constitutional law, he focuses on the importance of being able to decide. Not only this but he goes on to show how the ability to decide, especially in times of importance or consequence, is too an expression of power. This is expressed by his statement:
“The sovereign is he who makes the exception”.
Kaczynski’s focus on decision making is a key element to his theory on Man’s relationship to technology; he asserts that technology puts us in a state of learned helplessness, and that post-industrial revolution society has become subject to technology due to its effect on us. Each new development of wide scale systems that exponentially sprung forth developed an ever stronger dependence upon it, eventually this dependence becomes best expressed by our lack of decision making. No longer can we exercise the ability to express our power to make “life-and-death” decisions, or make an exception, so to speak. At some point what we call the techno-structure, man’s intractable relationship with technology, begins to reinforce itself. Our time becomes filled with “surrogate activities” to distract and detract from the way that technology has changed us. One is both restricted in one’s capacity to live, but also to resist. Kaczynski further draws this out by once again focusing on meaningful decision making. “In any technologically advanced society the individual’s fate must depend on decisions that he personally cannot influence to any great extent.” Not only does this statement have a striking similarity to Schmitt when he states that “All tendencies in the development of the modern constitutional state are towards eliminating the sovereign…” but is also identified to be a phenomena of a post-industrial society.
Kaczynski also had little respect for democracy, another growing topic of conversation at this moment, he thought of it as little else than results oriented thinking and that, “If Britain had been economically poor and militarily weak, and if the United States had been a stagnant backwater, would their systems (liberal democracy) have been admired and imitated? Not likely!”. Much like many other thinkers of a similar opinion he goes to assert that “It was the propertied classes, not the labouring classes, who were primarily responsible for the spread of democracy”. In a similar sense to someone like Sam Francis, Kaczynski clearly understands that democratic thinking and action originate within the elite class of society. Whether knowingly or not the elites that spread democracy were just pawns to the techno-structure as it developed, as one ruling elite falls the next arises within the same structure. Pawns are one of the most important parts of the techno-structure’s defence, Kaczynski refers to them collectively as the left or “leftish-types”. Kaczynski understands the left for what it truly functions as, cannon fodder. They exist to do nothing but distract and diffuse the dynamics of industrial society so as to dissuade the populace away from effective action. To Kaczynski the left:
“...constitute(s) a subculture that has been labelled ‘the adversary culture’. Whenever a movement of resistance begins to emerge, these leftists come swarming to it like flies to honey until they outnumber the original members of the movement, take it over, and turn into just another leftist faction…”.
It is a phenomena we have experienced ever more commonly in political circles today, any new or fresh cause is subverted with rhetoric about gay rights, racism, sexism or any other terms within the “social justice” umbrella. While on an individual level each leftist acts independently towards their surrogate causes, which of course have been deemed by techno-structure as the causes of the “true radical”, the group as a whole removes all revolutionary potential from society. Much like Sullivan’s law states, if we are to assume the opponents of industrial society can be considered of the right. “All organizations that are not expressly right-wing will over time become left-wing”.
Kaczynski expands on his view of leftism, even going to the length of suggesting that because “we live in a deeply troubled time” we can see one of the most thorough manifestations of this troubling within leftism, and that “...the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.” The paradoxical nature of modern left wing thought is taken to task by Kaczynski as he picks apart its motivations, showing that leftist mind is one which has an “intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak, defeated, repellent, or otherwise inferior.” Notice the undertones of a last man type, not only do the leftists fall again in line to their designated instructions, they insist that their own actions are towards equality and a virtuous society. However this very style of activism is predicated upon inequality, not only are the leftists acting as the superior of their selected oppressed groups, it too is motivated by their own inferiority. Minorities of any and all varieties must be brought down to their level, so that they and only they may help them back up. It is collectivism in it purest from, you too must be brought into the techno-structure and refusal to do otherwise is cut and dry proof of your prejudices against your fellow man, it is a most twisted utilitarianism that degrades man to a servile flesh pod who has no choice yet is told he is becoming ever more free.
When one views society in such a rigid and structural sense, certain facts become obvious; until there is a total rejection of technology by each strata within society, there will always be those who make use of its dependency to subjugate, there will always be those who either fervently or permissively defend or accept this subjugation under the guise of progress, no literal or figurative beheading of the elite class can help either as the next crop of elites will just be helmsman to the same structure. In the long run no political reformation can bring about a state within which man is not subject to technology, only some unforeseen disaster or a revolution can loosen technology's grip on man. However one and only one style of revolution is appropriate for the job according to Kaczynski, a revolutionary movement that destroys the techno-structure entirely is the only one that can defeat it, each failing attempt only goes on to strengthen it in the long run, ergo the anti-tech revolution “...will take measures to exclude all leftists, as well as the assorted neurotics, lazies, incompetents, charlatans, and persons deficient in self-control who are drawn to resistance movements…”, he does not specify the form per se, but asks that any of those serious about their resistance to technology “...must establish systematic contact with one another and a sense of common purpose; they must strictly separate themselves from the ‘adversary culture’: they must be oriented towards practical action; and they must take as their goal nothing less than the dissolution of technological civilisation.”
Kaczynski touches on the core elements that make a vanguard movement, and an effective one at that. Not only is there a common vision and enemy amongst the members who have been thoroughly vetted for any underlying surrogacy in their motivations, there is too an uncompromising and radical goal which differentiates from the entire political mainstream. Such a movement in modern society would be explicitly right wing, and not just anti-leftist; the rejection of egalitarianism, progressivism and the tools that allow for globalism would cause the propagation of a society that most on the dialectical right could not begin to imagine. Once again we are granted an insight into those who may have influenced Kaczynski and what lessons we too can learn from them, his revolutionary vision is one shared heavily with Lenin “All revolutions which have taken place up to the present have helped to perfect the state machinery, whereas it must be shattered and broken to pieces”. One might even come to the conclusion that Kaczynski really has identified an objective relationship between Man and Technology, one which has been identified in many contexts and time frames and yet has never been truly examined at the source. Monopoly capitalism, the state, the managerial class, the cathedral, the elites, powers that be—or whatever name your chosen ideology has for those above you—are all facilitated by technology. Maybe it’s no wonder that Kaczynski’s hopes for technology are the same for Lenin’s hopes for the state,
“...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.”
Not everyone may deem this to be 100% accurate, yet I doubt anyone could say there is no truth to it.
Referenced works
-Theodore Kaczynski: Technological Slavery
-Carl Schmitt: Sovereign Collection
-Vladimir Lenin: State and Revolution