The sources of Theodore Kaczynski's anti-tech radicalism

This item by Sean Fleming, researcher at the University of Cambridge (United Kingdom), sheds a saving light on what sets Kaczynski apart from his inspirers. Because of its relative impartiality, we saw fit to write a translation into French. The text can be downloaded in PDF format.

Illustrative image: from left to right, Jacques Ellul (historian and philosopher), Desmond Morris (zoologist) and Martin Seligman (psychology researcher). Three academics who influenced Theodore Kaczynski's radical analysis of the technological system.

In a sense, Theodore Kaczynski is the most academic terrorist America has ever known. He graduated from Harvard in 1962, received a PhD from the University of Michigan in 1967, and was then an assistant professor of mathematics at Berkeley. After resigning in 1969, he decided to live surrounded by nature and build his own cabin in a remote area of Montana. From there, he launched a series of bomb attacks, which left three dead and twenty-three injured, until he was arrested in 1996. Although much has been written about Kaczynski's life and crimes, much less has been written about his manifesto, Industrial society and its future, published in the Washington Post In 1995^[1]. Therefore, political theorists, historians of ideas, and even specialists in terrorism have given this manifesto very little attention.^[2].

Kaczynski is of particular interest to specialists in ideology in that he has succeeded in influencing a number of radical actors and movements. The day after his arrest, he won the favor of the most radical fringes of the ecological movement, including the anarcho-primitivist John Zerzan as well as the co-founder of Deep Green Resistance, Derrick Jensen.^[3]. More recently, Kaczynski's contempt for “leftism” has earned him a few fans on the far right. In this respect, it should be noted that the terrorist Anders Breivik greatly plagiarized his manifesto, and that the Greek neofascist party “Golden Dawn” published a translation of it in 2018.^[4]. In reality, Kaczynski is similar to Nietzche in one quality: not being able to be put in a box, he attracts radicals of all types.

But Kaczynski is much more than a mine of ideas for radical groups that already exist. It is also behind its own type of radicalism, which pervades a range of anti-tech groups^[5]. The most important of these, the Mexican terrorist group Individualidades Tendiendo a lo Salvaje (ITS — Individualists tending towards the wild), took up Kaczynski's torch by sending bombs to scientists in April 2011. ITS and its offshoots have since claimed attacks in Argentina, Brazil, Brazil, Chile, and Greece, as well as a number of others in Mexico. Also, the Kaczynski bombing campaign may have been just a harbinger of events to come, considering that ITS may be in its early stages.

This article aims to reveal the origin of Kaczynski thought. However, this task will not be easy. Although Kaczynski cites numerous sources in his manifesto, he does not cite the most important ones. He, who had, in the past, written to authors he admired (in his own name, without bombs), was indeed afraid that quoting them would give leads to the FBI.^[6]. Therefore, it can be said that anyone who has ever sought to discern Kaczynski's influences has only been speculating.

My method is based on the approach that Michael Freeden describes as “genetic.^[7] ”. By means of solid, “scientific” evidence on Kaczynski's readings, complemented by textual comparisons, I will work to reveal the sources he sought to hide. I will rely on archival documents held in the Joseph A. Labadie Fund at the Special Collections Research Center at the University of Michigan, which contain copies of most of the documents found in his cabin and confiscated by the FBI in 1996.^[8]. The crucial piece of evidence is based on a set of “private” notes on the manifest.^[9]. Kaczynski's diaries, notes, drafts, and correspondence also contain evidence of his reading and those who influenced him. The main ideas of the manifesto derive from the works of three well-known academics: the French philosopher Jacques Ellul, the English zoologist Desmond Morris, and the American psychologist Martin Seligman^[10].

My excavation of Kaczynski's sources will demonstrate the unique (and even original) character of his ideology, which has hitherto been underestimated. The two explanations we hear the most about the manifesto are both incomplete and exaggerated: it is neither an eco-terrorist tract, nor a compilation of authors critical of technology that Kaczynski could have read at Harvard. Its revolutionary anti-tech ideology is distinct from radical ecology, eco-anarchism, and even neo-Luddism. I will show that it is necessary to understand the unique arrangement of ideas operated by Kaczysnki in order to draw the contours of the new form of anti-tech radicalism that he is the inspiration for. On examination, some “eco-terrorists” will in fact turn out to be anti-tech terrorists of Kaczynskian inspiration.

This article consists of five sections. The first will focus on the two main explanations for Kaczynski's ideological training: first, that he derived his ideas from reading radical environmentalists; second, that he imbued himself with the concepts found in the general curriculum at Harvard. The next three sections will probe archival documents and reveal Kaczysnki's three major influences: Ellul, Morris, and Seligman. The fifth section will focus on determining Kaczynski's influence on contemporary anti-tech radicalism, of which ITS is a part.

“Industrial society” and its past

In a letter dated April 1995 to New York Times, written in the name of the “terrorist group FC” (Freedom Club), Kaczynski promised that he would end his series of parcel bombs if his “article”, containing between 29,000 and 37,000 words, was published in the Times or “any other periodical widely read and distributed at the national level^[11] ”. At that time, it was more of a threat than a promise: publish it or others will pass by. The Washington Post therefore agreed to publish it (without revisions) in a “special section” on September 19, 1995.

The manifesto puts forward the following five arguments: 1) modern technology forms an indivisible, self-perpetuating “system”, not subject to human control; 2) human beings are, biologically and psychologically, unsuited to living in a technological society; 3) the perpetual development of the technological system will inevitably lead to disaster (either the disappearance of humanity or its complete submission to the system); 4) since the technological system cannot To be controlled, and therefore to be reformed, a revolution is necessary in order to avoid disaster; and 5) leftist activism is a form of pseudo-rebellion used to divert attention from the technological problem^[12].

There are two popular interpretations of the manifesto, each linked to its own vision of Kaczynski's ideological formation. According to the interpretation ecologist, Kaczynski is in essence an “eco-terrorist”^[13] ”. The manifesto would adopt a form of radical ecology, similar to that of Earth First! and the Earth Liberation Front. Also, defenders of the ecological interpretation point out two things. The first, that Kaczynski read radical ecology publications, including Earth First! and Live Wild or Die!, and that he would have used it to select his targets. The second, that the counter-ideal he opposes to technology is that of “wilderness” — a trope of radical ecology. As Ron Arnold states, “The Unabomber was nothing but an isolated symptom of years spent hating industrial civilization, and initiated by the powerful environmental lobby.^[14] ”.

According to the interpretation Harvardian, put forward by Alston Chase, Kaczysnki's ecology would be hypocritical and rhetorical^[15]. In reality, the “core of his philosophy [...] lies in a species of cultural primitivism” or neo-Luddism^[16]. The manifesto would therefore be just a compilation of the criticisms of technology that Kaczynski extracted from the general education program at Harvard between 1958 and 1962, when he was not a graduate. He would have “borrowed, or partially embodied, the ideas of a long list of political thinkers and sociologists”:

“Aristotle, Jefferson, Marx; the socio-critical thinkers Lewis Mumford, Erich Fromm, Erich Fromm, Paul Goodman, and Eric Hoffer; the economists Thorsten Vebler, E.F. Schumacher, and Leopold Kohr; the philosophers Oswald Spengler, Arthur Schengler, Arthur Schopenhauer, Arthur Schopenhauer, Erich Fromm, Paul Goodman, and Eric Hoffer; the psychologists Sigmund Freud, E.F. Schumacher, and Leopold Kohr; the philosophers Oswald Spengler, Arthur Schopenhauer, Arthur Schopenhauer, Arthur Schopenhauer, and Hannah Arendt; the psychologists Sigmund Freud, E.F. Schumacher, and Leopold Kohr; the philosophers Oswald Spengler sociologists Theodor W. Adorno and Talcott Parsons; as well as a number of other thinkers including, of course, Ellul^[17].”

Chase's thesis builds on the previous work of Scott Corey, who lists several other thinkers as Kaczysnki's influences: John Dollard, Leon Festinger, Ted Gurr, Chalmers Johnson, Chalmers Johnson, Barrigton Johnson, Barrigton Johnson, Barrigton Moore, Barrigton Moore, Mancur Olson, and John Zerzan.^[18]. The core of Harvardian interpretation therefore consists in making Kaczynski a neo-Luddite who “would have painted his message green [...] to give more popularity to his treachery.^[19] ”.

In reality, these two interpretations each contain some truth, while being both incomplete and often exaggerated. The ecological interpretation is accurate when it recalls that Kaczynski's link to ecology was both genuine and ancient. As early as 1969, he wrote to the Wilderness Society (not without some critics) and showed interest in Earth First! (if not actively involved) around 1987 at least^[20]. Contrary to what Chase suggests, the ideal of “wilderness” in the manifesto did not come about after the fact or to serve his rhetoric. This same idea of the “wild state” appears in his 1979 essay, “Progress versus Nature,” inspired by the environmental historian Roderick Nash: “The savage is the state of that which is not subject to the control of an organized society.^[21]Moreover, Chase went blithely off topic when he disqualified the environmental portion of Kaczysnki's manifesto as a “cynical attempt to attract more support for his cause.”^[22] ”.

However, the ecological interpretation easily reaches the point of exaggeration. Indeed, the manifesto is resolutely anthropocentric, thus contrasting sharply with the biocentrism of Earth First! or other radical environmentalists^[23]. Kaczynski is opposed to modern technology, first of all, not because it was a disaster for the planet but, as he put it from the first sentence, because it “was a disaster. For the human species^[24] ”. His ideal of wilderness includes “human nature,” nature Human Wild, forming the central concern of the manifesto^[25]. In his late writings, Kaczysnki advised anti-tech revolutionaries “to clearly differentiate themselves from other radical groups,” including radical environmentalists and eco-anarchists.^[26]. Its relationship with ecology suggests more complexity and ambivalence than the two interpretations mentioned above suggest. Although his devotion to nature is genuine, his concerns differ significantly from those of radical environmentalists.

The Harvardian interpretation is aimed at just one point. Kaczynski did not write the manifesto at the time of its ideological formation. The political events, ideas and movements of the 1980s and 1990s — the end of the Cold War, the militia movement, Earth First! — had only a secondary influence on him. The majority of Kaczynski's ideas were born well in advance, in a context intellectual. In order to understand his ideological formation, it is crucial to determine what his readings were.

However, the details provided by the Harvardian interpretation do not stand up to close observation. Indeed, there is no evidence that Kaczynski read the majority of the authors cited as his influences by Chase and Corey; there is even evidence to suggest that he did not have any. Not read some. In May 2001, Corey sent a copy of his article to Kaczynski asking for feedback. Her response was unhelpful and even dismissive, but her private notes about this article are revealing. There he wrote that he had “never read anything from many” authors cited by Corey and Chase as sources of the manifesto: Alfred Adler, Hannah Arendt, John Dollard, Leon Festinger, Chalmers Johnson, Barrington Moore, Chalmers Johnson, Barrington Moore, Barrington Moore, Barrington Moore, Lewis Mumford, Moore, Barrington Moore, Lewis Mumford, Mancur Olson, John Dollard, Leon Festinger, Chalmers Johnson, Barrington Moore, Barrington Moore, Barrington Moore, Lewis Mumford, Moore, Barrington Moore, Lewis Mumford, Mancur Olson, and E.F. Schumacher.^[27] Kaczynski confirms that he has read B.F. Skinner, as well as three books by Jacques Ellul, The technique or the challenge of the century, Autopsy of the Revolution and Propaganda. But from the authors read, he refutes the influence of a certain number on the manifesto. In particular, he writes that he “read a small part of Studies on authoritarian personality [Adorno et al.] but without going beyond the point where it falls into psychoanalytic crap.” He read Growing Up Absurd, by Paul Goodman, “but not before sending the manifesto to N.Y. Times et al.” Kaczysnki's notes also cast a little more doubt on the environmental interpretation. He claims “to have never corresponded or heard of John Zerzan [the anarcho-primitivist] before [his] arrest”; the same goes for Arne Naess and George Sessions, pioneers of deep ecology^[28]. Of course, it is possible that Kaczynski absorbed ideas from sources that he may have forgotten to read, or that he may have encountered these ideas second-hand, from other authors. But Kaczysnki's notes seem quite credible, since no other archives contradict them.

In short, the two usual hypotheses about Kaczysnki's ideological formation are incomplete at best. While the ecological interpretation exaggerates its connection to radical ecology, the Harvardian interpretation refers to a number of sources that he has not read. In the following sections, I will attempt to excavate Kaczysnki's sources in order to propose another hypothesis about his ideological formation. Like Chase, I say that Kaczynski's primary commitments are anti-technological and not pro-environmental. But unlike Chase, I say that his criticism of technology, as a work of evolutionary psychology, differs significantly from the cultural and economic criticisms of technology encountered during his student years. In this regard, let us recall that Technology or the challenge of the century was only translated into English in 1964, two years after graduation. Likewise, the crucial works of Morris and Seligman did not appear until 1969 and 1975.

Certainly, Ellul, Morris, and Seligman are not the only intellectual influences on Kaczysnki. His private notes to the manifesto also cite anthropological works, such as The Forest People by Colin Turnbull and The Harmless People by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas; political science works such as Roots of Radicalism by Rothman & Lichter; as well as a dozen historical works^[29]. Kaczynski has also read a large number of works of fiction, which are not in his notes, private or public^[30]. I say that Ellul, Morris, and Seligman are—in that order—the major influences of the manifesto. From there, Kaczynski formed his main theses (cited above) as well as most of his concepts (such as “alternative activities” and the “power process”).

Cell: Technology or the challenge of the century

Jacques Ellul is a philosopher and technology critic. His main idea is that “technique” (i.e., rational efficiency) has become an end in itself as well as an autonomous force beyond human control. Although he is recognized as an influence of Kaczynski, this influence has never been examined in detail. In this section, I will rely on a photocopy of Technology or the challenge of the century, annotated by Kaczynski, including cross-references to the manifest in order to determine exactly what he owes Ellul^[31].

Kaczynski's main debt to Ellul is reflected in the idea that modern technology is an indivisible and self-maintaining system. This idea is mainly the subject of the first two chapters of Technology or the challenge of the century, which are not included in Kaczynski's photocopy. However, the parallels are so clear that references to the manifest are hardly necessary. While Kaczynski writes that “you can't separate the 'bad' parts of technology from the 'good' ones,” Ellul writes: “So it's an illusion (perfectly understandable, by the way) that this hope to remove the 'bad' side of technology, while keeping the 'good'^[32].” Ellul calls this “uniqueness”: “these techniques combine to form a whole, each part supporting, reinforcing the other.^[33]For his part, Kaczynski argues that “modern technology forms a unified system in which all parts are interdependent.^[34] ”.

Kaczynski's argument about the maladjustment of humans to life in a technological society is also taken from Ellul. In a passage cross-checked and annotated by Kaczynski, Ellul writes:

“But man is not yet at ease in this strange environment, and the tension that is required of him here weighs heavily on his being and his life. He tries to flee, and falls into the traps of the dream. He seeks to respond and falls into organizations. He feels inadequate and becomes hypochondriac [...]^[35].”

Since many people are unable to adapt to technological society, Ellul argues that techniques are designed to adapt them to it — “not by changing anything, of course, but by acting on humans.^[36] ”. Kaczynski illustrates this point by crossing a paragraph with the manifesto: “These substances make it possible to modify an individual's psyche in order to make him tolerate social conditions that are otherwise intolerable.^[37].” It echoes Ellul's argument that humanity is incompatible with modern technology, as well as his fear that humanity will be modified to adapt to the technological system.

Kaczynski's least obvious debt to Ellul is the idea that social activism is a form of pseudo-rebellion. In a sentence that Kaczynski intersected with his criticism of leftism, Ellul writes that all revolutionary movements are a “parody.”^[38] ”. He says that the social or intellectual movements of the 20th century — communism, pacifism, surrealism, anarchism, or existentialism — “did not recreate the conditions of freedom or justice.” However, they “succeeded perfectly from another point of view” — “they succeed in extracting from this power its aggressiveness in order to better locate it within technical civilization.”^[40] ”. Likewise, Kaczynski says that leftists “are many who are less rebellious than they seem.^[41] ”. Social activism takes attention away from the real problem — technology — and disperses revolutionary energy that might otherwise be directed against the technological system. For Kaczynski, the leftists' rebellion attempt is what Ellul calls a “sterile revolt.”^[41] ”.

Kaczynski's annotations also reveal that Ellul inspired his strategy for publishing the manifesto. As prolific as Ellul was, he doubted that publishing books through traditional channels could change the world.

“Are we writing a groundbreaking book? But he immediately entered the circuit of the technical organization of publishing. What does that mean? Or it is a question of capitalist technique and therefore the book will be published if it is likely to make money for the publisher, so if it can find an audience; therefore if it does not attack the real taboos of the public for which it is intended. [Nobody] will edit the book that attacks the religion of our time, the dominant social powers^[42].”

Even if “we can write everything, make everything heard”, including “inflamed revolutionary declarations”, “as soon as this effectively calls into question the universal social order that is in the process of being constituted [...}, then it has no chance of going through the channel of broadcast techniques^[43] ”. The paragraph associated by Kaczynski explains the use of violence that led to the publication of the manifesto:

“If we [F.C.] had sent this text to a publisher without resorting to violence, it would probably never have been accepted. [...] To publicly deliver our message with the hope of producing a lasting effect, we had to kill people^[44].”

So Kaczynski seems to have taken Ellul's cynical remark about the publishing industry to heart.

Despite the narrowness of many parallels, it would be wrong to think of Kaczynski as an Ellul parrot. Because he does not simply repeat the arguments; he adapts them, supports them and, at certain important moments, rejects them.

By defending violence, Kaczynski breaks sharply with Ellul. Despite the apparent ambivalence of the manifesto with regard to violence, the revolution envisaged by Kaczynski is indeed violent. As he reveals in an unpublished text, “In defense of violence,” if he abstained from “advocating all violence” in the manifesto, it was because he believed that the “mainstream media would refuse to publish” a text favorable to violence.^[45]. For his part, Ellul condemns “terrorists” as “dreamers and scientists” who fall into “trivialized revolutionary ideology.”^[46] ”. He advocates “contemplation” and “dialogue” but without intending to oppose violence; “the truly revolutionary attitude would be the attitude of contemplation instead of frenzied turmoil.^[47] ”. Furthermore, while Kaczynski believes that an anti-tech revolution should be led by a vanguard, because “history is made by active and determined minorities,” Ellul says that a revolution cannot be trusted to a handful of leaders, to a governing body, or to an active minority.^[48].

The subject of the means and mechanics of revolution is symptomatic of a deeper discrepancy between Kaczynski and Ellul. One of Ellul's main arguments in Autopsy of the Revolution is to say that past revolutions cannot be used as models for an anti-technology revolution. The technological system would in fact be too global and too entrenched to be overthrown like a simple government.^[49]. In contrast, Kaczynski relies heavily on the history of revolutions and societal changes. His private notes refer to books on the struggle for independence from Argentina, the Mexican Revolution of 1910, colonialism in North America, Simón Bolívar, and the revolutions of 1848^[50]. The library in his cabin contained books on the French Revolution, the Spanish conquest of Central and South America, the secessionist South, and the First World War.^[51]. Ignoring Ellul's warning against historical extrapolation, Kaczynski says that his type of revolution could follow “the model of the French and Russian revolutions.^[52] ”. Thus, anti-tech revolutionaries would spread their ideology, build a movement, wait for a crisis to destabilize the system, and then come out of the shadows to deliver the coup de grace.

Kaczynski's concept of maladjustment also differs greatly from Ellul's. For Ellul, the maladjustment of human beings to modern technology is sociocultural. The problem with “technology” is that it “dissociates sociological forms, destroys moral frameworks, explodes social or religious taboos, desacralizes men and things, reduces the social body to the collection of individuals.^[53] ”. Chase also sees Kaczynski as a “cultural primitivist,” comparing him to “countless contemporary writers, from the Harvard social philosopher Lewis Mumford to Ellul himself, [who] warned that technological progress threatened the future of culture.^[54] ”. However, contrary to the cultural and economic critics of technology that he read at Harvard, Kaczynski is not particularly concerned about the collapse of traditional communities or lifestyles. While he acknowledges that “the rapid changes and disintegration of small communities have been widely recognized as causes of social problems,” he does not think “that they alone are responsible for the problems currently being experienced.”^[55] ”.

While Ellul and Mumford are cultural primitivists, Kaczynski is a “bioprimitivist.” He states that human beings are biologically unadapted to life in a technological society: “We [FC] blame the psychological and social problems of modern society on the fact that it imposes living conditions radically different from those in which the human species evolved.^[56].” “It is in any case certain that technology is creating a new physical and social environment, radically different from those to which humanity had, through natural selection, adapted physically and psychologically^[57].” But the industrial revolution has radically changed these environments in the space of a few generations. Kaczynski believes that the mismatch between our hunter-gatherer genes and our technological environments is responsible for many common conditions, including “depression with its attendant anxiety, guilt, sleep and eating disorders, and other negative feelings about self. People who slide into depression take pleasure for an antidote; this leads them to insatiable hedonism, unbridled sexuality, and perversions that are supposed to provide new arousals.^[58] ”. While Ellul conceives maladjustment in a sociocultural way, Kaczynski does it in an evolutionary and psychological way. The difference between Ellul and Kaczynski therefore illustrates the distinction between cultural primitivism and bioprimitivism.

Kaczynski frequently formulates his conception of maladjustment using his own psychological terms, without any parallel with Ellul's thinking. He states that human beings have an innate need to satisfy their “power processes”: “Thus, in order to avoid serious psychological problems, a human being needs goals that require effort to achieve, and must have a minimum of success in achieving those goals.^[59].” The goals mentioned by Kaczynski are basic biological goals, linked to survival and reproduction. The power process therefore refers to the process of using one's own physical and mental power to satisfy one's own biological needs.^[60].

Since many people in modern society can satisfy their vital needs without making a serious effort, they attempt to satisfy their need for power through “surrogate activities,” that is, activities directed “toward an artificial goal, invented only to motivate an individual's action and to provide him with the resulting “accomplishment.”^[61] ”. These include hobbies, sports, art, and, most importantly according to Kaczynski, activism, and science. However: “For many, if not the majority, alternative development is less satisfactory than the pursuit of real goals.^[63].” Our unsuitability to the technological society therefore results from the fact that this form of society cannot satisfy our biologically rooted psychological needs.

Ultimately, Ellul's ideas form the core of the manifesto, but by no means all of it. Kaczynski's systemic understanding of technology, his concept of maladjustment, his criticism of leftism, and many of his finer points stem from Technology or the challenge of the century. But Kaczynski changes and complements Ellul's ideas under the dual influence of evolutionary theory and modern psychology. In particular, the ideas of biological maladjustment, power processes, and surrogate activity did not come from Ellul. One of the main enigmas of the manifesto lies in the origin of these ideas.

Morris: The Human Zoo

The changes and additions to Ellul made by Kaczynski come from several sources. The most important of these is The human zoo, by the zoologist Desmond Morris, following in 1969 his 1967 best seller, The Naked Monkey. Building on his experience as a mammal curator at the London Zoo, Morris observes that modern city dwellers are victims of a large number of psychological problems found in other mammals in captivity. He attributes these problems to the fact that: “The modern human animal no longer lives in conditions that are natural for its species.^[63].” Human beings, having evolved to become tribal hunter-gatherers, pay a heavy psychological price to live in the relative safety of their urban “zoos.”

Kaczynski's debt to Morris is very well hidden. The version of the manifesto published by the Washington Post does not quote Morris and only contains subtle allusions to Human zoo. After listing the various psychological problems caused by the disruption of the power process, Kaczynski adds that “[some] of the symptoms listed are similar to those presented by animals in captivity.^[64] ”. In his own copy of the manifest, he followed this sentence with a private footnote referring to Human zoo^[65].

It is from this book that Kaczynski's Darwino-Elulian turn comes from. His 1978-1979 essay, “Reflections on Purposeful Work,” closely echoed Morris and anticipated the idea of biological maladjustment present in the manifesto: “The reasons that make modern man so prone to frustration and other emotional problems are that, in the technological society, he leads a completely abnormal life — at least, in relation to the type of life for which evolution adapted him, namely that of the dog Gatherer^[66].”. After this sentence there is an endnote, but the notes in question are still missing. In this case, a reference to Human zoo would have been perfect.

Kaczynski's concept of power processes comes largely from Morris. In a 1996 letter, written three months after his arrest, Kaczynski recommended “two books that seem to lend some support to the manifesto's assertion about the power process: Desmond Morris, The Human Zoo, and Martin E. P. Seligman, Helplelessness: On Depression, Development, and Death^[67] ”. Note that this vague answer allowed him not to admit that he was the author of the manifesto and, therefore, to self-incriminate himself.

The power process is based on Morris' concept of the “struggle for stimulus”. “The object of the struggle is to obtain the optimal amount of stimulation from the environment.^[68].” This fight involves “opportunistic” species, such as dogs and monkeys, when kept in zoos. These species have “acquired nervous systems that hate inactivity,” so they need to find ways to maintain a certain level of stimulation, even when all their other needs have been met by the zookeepers. Otherwise, they “will sink into boredom, into nervousness, and finally, into neurosis.^[69] ”. Likewise, Kaczynski says that people who can get anything they want without “putting in any effort” often give in “to boredom and demoralization.”^[70] ”. Since “modern society”, like a zookeeper, “tends to ensure the minimum subsistence for every individual in exchange for minimal effort,” modern humans are constantly striving to find stimulation through “surrogate activities.”^[71]”.

The Kaczynskian concept of surrogacy derives from that of “surrogate activities” in Morris. Morris notes that many zoo animals engage in distractions, such as excessive grooming or harassing spectators, in order to keep their stimulation at an optimal level. He says that hobbies and activities—"changing furniture, collecting postage stamps,” or doing “art, philosophy, and pure science"—essentially serve the same function as a “survival substitute” for human beings.^[72]. However, for zoo animals as well as for modern humans, these artificial forms of stimulation may be inadequate: “Substitutes for real activity to survive remain substitutes, no matter how you look at them. Disillusionment can easily set in^[73]Likewise, Kaczynski claims that modern society suffers from a “lack of real goals” and, like Morris, he uses stamp collecting and scientific activities as paradigmatic examples of “surrogate” activities.^[74]. In a handwritten draft of the manifesto found by the FBI in his cabin, Kaczynski uses “substitution” instead of “substitute.” The note he sent to himself at the top of the first page reads as follows: “Throughout this document, replace the term “surrogate activity” with “surrogate activity”^[75].” Kaczynski may have been working to change Morris' terminology so as not to give clues to the FBI.

The concept of surrogate activity plays a clear role in Kaczynski's idea of maladjustment: if humans evolved it was in order to hunt and gather, and not to solve equations or collect stamps. At the same time, Kaczynski found reasons for his own disillusionment with mathematics. In addition, alternative development plays an important role in his understanding of technology. The central idea that modern technology is a self-perpetuating system came from Ellul, but “self-perpetuation” seemed too vague for Kaczynski. Ellul describes “technique” as an autonomous force “with its body, its particular entity, its life independent of our decision.^[76] ”. Kaczynski uses surrogate activity to provide a more detailed explanation of how the technological system is perpetuated.

Scientific research is the surrogate activity that fuels the development of the system. According to Kaczynski, the main motivation of scientists is “neither curiosity nor the good of humanity, but the need to complete their power process: to set a goal (a scientific problem to be solved), to make an effort (scientific research), and to achieve that goal (to find the solution to the problem)^[77] ”. Surrogate scientific activities are a consequence of the disruption of the power process. For most people, achieving survival goals requires less effort. As a result, some people turn to scientific research to make sense of their lives. This leads to a vicious cycle. The more people dive into alternative scientific activities, the more the technological system grows. Conversely, the development of the system is increasingly disrupting the power process, causing an increasing number of people to engage in alternative scientific activities.^[78].

For Kaczynski, it follows that the technological system is not a product of reason, much less the fruit of a diabolical project; there is no conspiracy by scientists or technocrats^[79]. Combining two visions of the world, the systemic vision of Ellul and the — Darwinian — vision of Morris, Kaczynski sees the development of the technological system as an evolutionary process.^[80]. Scientists' surrogate activities produce constant changes in technology, which are then filtered by competition between “big organizations” such as states and businesses. Technological progress is promoted by “natural selection,” because “organizations that use technology effectively are more successful than those that don't.^[81] ”. There is an invisible hand of technology, which is not unlike the invisible hand of the market.

In summary, Kaczynski is inspired by Morris to bring an evolutionary perspective to his Ellulian sociological arguments. The manifesto's ideas about biological maladjustment, the power process, and surrogate activity derive from Human zoo. However, Kaczynski is opposed to Morris about the origins of widespread psychological problems in modern society. For his part, Morris believes that human beings are above all unsuited to a world overpopulated by strangers: “It was this change, this transition from personal to impersonal society, that would cause the human animal its greatest anxieties in the millennia to come.^[82]Although Kaczynski admits that “promiscuity increases stress and aggression,” he denies that it is “a decisive factor”: “Some pre-industrial cities were very large and populated, but their inhabitants do not seem to have suffered psychological problems comparable to those of modern humans.”^[83].” But it was in the work of one of the most influential psychologists of the 20th century that he found an alternative diagnosis.

Seligman: Helplelessness

Martin Seligman's best known concept, among Kaczynski's influences, is that of “learned helplessness.” Simply put, an animal is powerless when it thinks that its behavior is having no effect on a given set of outcomes — when it thinks it can't control its own destiny. In Seligman's famous experiments, dogs were subjected to series of unavoidable electroshocks. When these same dogs were later subjected to shocks to which they could have To escape, two-thirds of them showed acquired helplessness. Instead of trying to escape, they preferred to “lie down and moan feverishly.^[84] ”.

Seligman's influence on the manifesto was carefully hidden. The version of Washington Post don't quote him; and the word “powerlessness” only appears twice^[85]. However, Kaczynski includes a private note at the end of his analysis of the power process: “In connection with paragraphs 33—44, and just as importantly, see Martin E. P. Seligman, On Depression, Development, and Death^[86].” He also quotes Seligman (and Morris) in support of his concept of a power process in a letter written three months after his arrest^[87].

Let's remember the four elements of the power process: purpose, effort, success, and autonomy^[88]. While the first two include Morris' “struggle for stimulus,” the latter two stem from learned helplessness as formulated by Seligman. Kaczynski argues that human beings need more than the simple “stimulation” offered by the pursuit of a goal marked by effort. If their efforts are repeatedly confronted with failure, powerlessness will appear: “Spending a lifetime without being able to reach your goals leads to defeat, self-deprecation, and depression.^[89].” Moreover, human beings need autonomy in achieving their goals, “under their direction and control.” It is only by making “an effort standalone ” that a person can gain “self-esteem, self-confidence, and a sense of power^[91] ”. As he wrote in a 2004 letter: “Anyone who has not experienced the power process enough is not “immune” to learned helplessness.^[91].”

In this 2004 letter, Kaczysnki recalls reading Helplelessness “at the end of the 1980s^[92] ”. But he actually seems to have been aware of this theory long before the publication of Seligman's work. In his diary, he wrote in 1969 that “the most important things in an individual's life are mostly under the control of large organizations; the individual is powerless to influence them.” On the other hand, primitive man shows more control over his existence: “His choices matter, he is not powerless^[93].” Later, this argument became an important part of the manifesto.

Kaczynski uses the concept of learned helplessness in order to give a psychological mechanism to his maladjustment argument. While human beings have evolved by adapting to threats that were more or less under their control, many of the threats are now completely out of their reach.

“Primitive man, threatened by a ferocious animal or plagued by hunger, can defend himself or go in search of food. He is not sure if his efforts will pay off, but he is not unarmed in the face of adversity. On the other hand, the modern individual is powerless in the face of a number of threats: nuclear accidents, carcinogenic substances in his food, environmental pollution, war, tax increases, intrusions by large organizations into his private life, national socio-economic phenomena that can upset his way of life, etc.^[94].”

For Kaczynski, today's humans are similar to Seligman's electrocuted dogs. Faced with so many forces that they can't control, many people let it flow, take drugs, watch TV, and accept their destiny.^[95]. Psychological problems that are widespread in modern society are in fact the result of an epidemic of learned helplessness.

Furthermore, Kaczynski sees leftism as a political manifestation of powerlessness. The typical leftist intellectual is “oversocialized,” in the sense that he has deeply integrated the norms of technological society — such as equality, politeness, and nonviolence^[96]. Therefore, every time he transgresses them, even in thought, he endures a feeling of “shame and self-hate.” Oversocialization keeps leftists by “their psychological leash”, “which generates in many oversocialized people a feeling of constraint and powerlessness.^[97] ”. (In this respect, Kaczynski tends to use the term “powerless” in place of “helpless,” as noted above in connection with “substitution.” It is likely that he thus tried to hide Seligman's influence so as not to give the FBI any clues.) Because the leftist feels powerless as an individual, he tries to acquire a sense of power by proxy “as a member of a large organization or mass movement with which he identifies.^[98] ”. In doing so, social movements confer an artificial sense of power, just as alternative activities provide artificial goals.

Among the documents confiscated by the FBI from Kaczynski's cabin were handwritten notes on Seligman's book, which consist mostly of long quotations describing the results of experiments.^[99]. For the most part, these notes confirm what appears when reading his private notes: the concept of learned helplessness allowed him to shape his concept of power processes. But these notes also show how Kaczynski appropriated the concept of learned helplessness. Although he was fascinated by the experiments on impotence, psychologists' interpretations of the results did not elicit the same reaction. As he wrote in a 2010 letter, Seligman's book “is of paramount importance for understanding the psychology of modern man”; “However, Seligman is too conformist to draw the conclusions about modern society that can and should be drawn from his work.^[100] ”. In Kaczynski's hands, the concept of learned helplessness therefore became a mass psychological diagnosis.

The new anti-tech radicalism

In thought and in action, Kaczynski is a lone wolf. His manifesto articulates a theory of his own (or a vision of the world), itself the result of a unique combination of the ideas of Ellul, Morris, and Seligman. Terrorism experts have recently questioned “whether it is not time to end the category of “lone wolves”””, since so-called lone-wolves are rarely as independent as they seem: “links with radical circles, online and offline, are crucial^[101].” However, Kaczynski is unusual that most of his training took place in a library, far from any radical environment. His association with radical environmentalists, who shared his disdain for modern technology, was therefore more a consequence of his radicalization than a cause. The Unabomber case shows that terrorists can emerge from a relative ideological vacuum, even if this is rare, and that the concept of a lone wolf would benefit from being retained.

Although Kaczynski started his anti-tech attack campaign as a lone wolf, he has since become the leader of a pack. As he hoped, his manifesto gave birth to an ideology — an anti-technology public discourse — and inspired an array of radical anti-tech groups. Kaczynski is not only an extreme example of an anti-tech radical, but also the founder and pillar of a new form of anti-tech radicalism.

In the wake of his arrest, numerous supporters emerged from the most marginal fringes of the environmental movement. Among his first correspondents and confidantes were John Zerzan, an eminent anarcho-primitivist, but also Derick Jensen, co-founder of the radical environmental group Deep Green Resistance^[102]. However, Kaczynski's alliances with eco-anarchists and radical ecologists were tenuous and short lived. He eventually fell out with Zerzan, Jensen, and their respective movements for the same reason: because they were involved in numerous “leftist” causes, synonymous with dangerous distractions.^[103]. While Kaczynski's opposition to technology is stubbornly narrow-minded, Zerzan and Jensen see technology as just one facet of “civilization,” along with patriarchy, racism, and animal exploitation. It wasn't until years later that Kaczynski started attracting followers who adhered to his anti-tech radicalism. As he notes in his 2016 book: “I've only been getting help since 2011, from people who put a lot of time and effort into doing research on my behalf, while being forced to simultaneously manage other aspects of their lives, such as earning a living.^[104].” Coincidence or not, 2011 is also the year in which the Mexican terrorist group ITS was born.

John Jacobi, a follower of Kaczynski, identifies three groups of anti-tech radicals inspired by Kaczynski^[105]. First there are Kaczynski's “apostles”, the Indomitistas, directed by its Spanish correspondent under a pseudonym, Último Reducto. Les Indomitistas are mainly dedicated to the translation and analysis of Kaczynski's writings. They are part of his “inner circle,” which also researches on his behalf and manages the Fitch & Madison publishing house, which prints his books.^[106]. The other two groups are the “heretics”, who are inspired by Kaczynski's writings but diverge from him and the Indomitistas on the finest points of doctrine, strategy and tactics. One of them is Jacobi's group, that of the “wildists”, having separated from Indomitistas the most orthodox to form a larger coalition of “anti-civilization” radicals^[107]. The other group of heretics, which I am focusing on in this article, includes ITS and its offshoots. While the Indomitistas and wildists focus on developing and spreading anti-technological ideas, ITS craves spectacular and violent actions.

Journalists and terrorism experts have called ITS an “eco-terrorist” and sometimes an “eco-anarchist” group, comparing the group to Deep Green Resistance and the Earth Liberation Front.^[108]. For its part, ITS uses the term “eco-extremist”, which seems to invite such comparisons.^[109]. However, ITS is not only a more belligerent variant of radical ecology or eco-anarchism. After analysis, the group's press releases show that its ideology follows a clearly Kaczynski form of anti-tech radicalism.

Although ITS has been influenced by radical ecology, the “eco” present in “eco-extremism” is proven to be misleading. This is not a “deep ecology”; in fact, ITS rejects the “sentimentalism, irrationalism, and biocentrism” that it sees in many radical environmental groups.^[110]. The “eco” in question refers more to the ideal of the group, that of “wild nature”, which places human nature at the center. The main concern of ITS, like Kaczynski, is that “human beings are moving more and more dangerously away from their natural instincts.^[111].” Adopting Kaczynski's “bioprimitivism,” as I called it, ITS affirms that “the human being is biologically programmed [...] by evolution” for a life of “hunter-gatherer-nomad”.^[112] ”.

Despite this hunter-gatherer ideal in common with eco-anarchists, ITS vehemently rejects any label of this type: “we are not “eco-anarchists” or “anarcho-ecologists”^[113].” The group describes as “delusional” those who “romanticize Wild Nature” and “believe that everything will be rosy when Civilization falls, and that a new world will flourish without social inequality, without hunger, without repression, etc.”^[114] This thinly veiled attack on Zerzan's anarcho-primitivism echoes Kaczynski's essay, “The Truth About Primitive Life,” in which he seeks to “challenge the anarcho-primitivist myth that depicts the life of hunter-gatherers as a kind of politically correct Garden of Eden.”^[115] ”. ITS follows Kaczynski in condemning eco-anarchism as “leftist.”

The Kaczynski influence of ITS is hard to miss. Many parts of the group's press releases are only paraphrases of the Manifesto: “The essence of the power process consists of four parts: goal definition, effort, goal achievement, and autonomy^[116].” But it would be difficult to appreciate the extent of Kaczynski's influence on ITS without knowing where the former's ideas came from. ITS quotes The Human Zoo by Morris, affirming that “the wild nature of human beings in general was perverted when they began to become civilized.^[117] ”. The same press release then repeats Morris without quoting him: “It is totally abnormal to live with hundreds of strangers around you.^[118].”

ITS explicitly admits that it owes certain things to Kaczynski. But that was not enough to avoid misunderstandings — Kaczynski himself was equated with radical environmentalists and eco-anarchists.^[119]. In order to appreciate the ideological specificity of ITS, it is necessary to see the constellation apart that Kaczynski's concepts form. Indeed, the group uses its very characteristic vocabulary: technological system, power processes, power processes, substitution activities, leftism, feelings of inferiority, oversocialization, etc. However, this is not the jargon of radical ecology or eco-anarchism. Except for the terms “civilization” and “domination,” ITS explicitly rejects all of the “leftist” vocabulary of anarchism: oppression, solidarity, mutual aid, class struggle, hierarchy, inequality, injustice, and imperialism^[120]. Moreover, as I have already shown, even the “green” parts of ITS press releases go through a Kaczynskian filter. ITS is not an eco-terrorist or eco-anarchist group, but a new type of anti-technology terrorist group. The group's ideology is clearly Kaczynski, in its genealogy and morphology.

Likewise, the Modus operandi of ITS is not typical of radical ecologists or eco-anarchists, who tend more towards sabotage or the “wrench”. Radical environmentalists almost exclusively target property rather than people.^[121]. ITS, on the other hand, claims to be “not a group of saboteurs (we do not share the strategy of sabotage, damage or destruction of property).^[122] ”. Instead, and like Kaczynski, ITS seeks to kill or maim individuals, such as scientists, whose surrogate activities serve as a driver for the development of the technological system^[123].

Anti-tech radicals and environmental radicals don't have the same relationship to violence, in large part because their ideals differ. As Bron Taylor states, radical environmentalists experience “generally religious feelings — placing the earth and all life sacred — that reduce the possibility of [environmental] movement activists engaging in terrorist violence.^[124] ”. As he rightly points out, there is no evidence that Kaczynski shared the feeling, so prevalent in radical environmental subcultures, of living worthy of reverence and sacred land.^[125]. On the contrary, Kaczynski is committed to the ideal of wilderness that serves to naturalize violence. He states, and ITS agrees on this point, “that a significant level of violence is a natural part of human life.^[126] ”. Violence is a part of the life of a savage human being who cannot be encumbered by the shackles of civilized morality.

The ideal of wild nature explains the choice of targets of anti-tech radicals. For Kaczynski and ITS, living beings are only valuable insofar as they are wild. The wild being is “[outside] the power of the system^[127] ”. When human beings become instruments of the system, they lose all the value or dignity they could have claimed. Scientists and technicians are authorized targets of violence because they have betrayed their wilderness, and they are desirable targets because they symbolize the technological system.^[128]. While the reverence of environmental radicals towards life tends to steer them away from violence, towards the destruction of property, the ideal of the wilderness of anti-tech radicals serves to justify their violence.

However, ITS diverges from Kaczynski when it comes to the objective of the violence. For Kaczynski, violence is above all a means of overthrowing the technological system. ITS, on the other hand, equates Kaczynski's revolution with something “idealistic and irrational”.^[129] ”. For the group, this revolution is not only doomed to failure, but Kaczynski also falls into the trap of leftism when he based his model on the French and Russian revolutions.^[130]. In the eyes of ITS members, violence is not a way to make a revolution, but a way to assert or recover their own savagery: “the attack on the system [...] is an instinct for survival, since man is violent by nature^[131] ”. Kaczynski condemns ITS and accuses the group of having diverted its ideas. He returns the charge of leftism, as well as a diagnosis of learned helplessness: “The most important mistake made by ITS is that they express, and therefore encourage, an attitude of despair about the possibility of eliminating the technological system.^[132].” This attitude of despair makes ITS more vindictive and nihilistic than that of Kaczynski himself.

Conclusion

Here I have shown that the main concepts of Industrial society and its future stem from three academic thinkers, neither cited nor mentioned in the 1995 version of Washington Post. Kaczynski's revolutionary anti-tech ideology combines Ellul's philosophy on technology, Morris' sociobiology, and Seligman's cognitive psychology. If the manifesto is a barrier to easy categorization, it is because it is an absolutely new synthesis of ideas drawn from various disciplines and intellectual traditions.

My analysis of Kaczynski's ideology highlights the new threat posed by anti-tech radicalism. Assimilated as it was to radical ecology and eco-anarchism, because it could not be named, this threat went under the radar. As I've shown, anti-tech radicals are an ideologically distinct group whose propensity for violence is much greater than that of radical environmentalists. The renewed interest in Kaczynski and the emergence of groups such as ITS are due to growing concerns about the harmful effects of modern technology. Also, anti-tech radicalism is likely to grow over the coming decades, in line with increasing fears about the consequences of automation, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and nanotechnology. Moreover, some terrorism specialists and futurologists are already predicting a wave of “technophobic” terrorism during this century.^[133]. Opposition to technology derives its ideological power, they say, from the fact that it brings together a number of disparate issues and concerns: climate change and pollution; automation, unemployment, and inequality; alienation and community disruption; mass surveillance and social control; and moral concerns about biotechnology. As the most infamous radical anti-tech of today, but also the author of the most detailed revolutionary projects, Kaczynski could well become the anti-tech “Marx.”

‍