anti-civ.net forum
Unabomber: In His Own Words - Printable Version

+- anti-civ.net forum (https://anti-civ.net)
+-- Forum: Discussion (https://anti-civ.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+--- Forum: Culture & Art (https://anti-civ.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=19)
+--- Thread: Unabomber: In His Own Words (/showthread.php?tid=596)



Unabomber: In His Own Words - Odin - Wed, 11 Mar 2020 07:43:38 +0000

A new four part Netflix series documentary about Ted Kaczynski. It is based around the first ever audio interviews done by Theresa Kintz back in 1999. The interviews were published in an abridged form jointly by Green Anarchist magazine in the UK, and by Anarchy: a Journal of Desire Armed, in June 1999. Kintz was an archaeology student at the time and an editorial board member of the Earth First! Journal (which originally turned down publishing her interview).

Theresa Kintz and John Zerzan appear in the Netflix series.

Episode 1.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCBFzbOn9No

Someone posted this on youtube, and usually this kind of thing from a big TV network gets flagged and taken down right away. So you better watch it or download it ASAP.

Episode 2

https://www.bitchute.com/video/MbIUD3GrGH2K/

Episode 3

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Dcc3MxvIpGYV/

Episode 4

https://www.bitchute.com/video/2HyU3cuRUnJw/


RE: Unabomber: In His Own Words - Odin - Thu, 12 Mar 2020 20:32:06 +0000

Okay, after viewing the whole series, I thought it was quite well done. They went into a lot more detail than I thought they would. They interviewed Ted's neighbors in Montana, his classmates at Michigan State University, his brother, CIA agents, FBI agents, his victims, and his lawyers, and many others.

I had no idea Theresa Kintz kept all those audio cassette tapes all these years. She obviously must have had a lot more material from her interview than what was published in Green Anarchist and AJODA.

The first couple of episodes are a little preachy about what an 'evil genius' Ted was, as we are given mostly the FBI's point of view, while they take up the investigative chase to find the 'Unabomber' who is 'terrorizing America'. The journalist from the San Fransisco Chronicle (Kevin Fagan) is especially annoying. There's also a lot of background info about Ted's childhood growing up in Michigan, told by his brother David.

By the 3rd episode, and especially the 4th, things turn towards being more understanding as it finally gets around to talking about the ideas in the manifesto. David Skirbina (Philosophy professor at University of Michigan and collector and publisher of Ted's writings) talks about how Industrial Society and its Future has become prophetic. Even the prison warden at Florence Supermax seems sympathetic to Ted and his ideas.

I thought John Zerzan's interview segment was very strong and poignant. John visited Ted at the trial (I was corresponding with John at the time and he was giving me updates about his visits with Ted) and was more or less the last person from the 'outside' to talk to him. According to John, Ted didn't seem to grasp the anguish he had caused the loved ones of his victims. John says he didn't detect any signs of mental illness in Ted, but you can tell that John was nevertheless bothered by the fact Ted didn't understand why the families of his victims were crying in court, as if even someone as sympathetic to Ted's views as John was, knew there was something a little 'off' about him. The interview with Zerzan ends the series on a somber and somewhat tragic note.

If you haven't seen the series yet, it is definitely worth checking out.


RE: Unabomber: In His Own Words - Hoot - Mon, 23 Mar 2020 18:21:42 +0000

Thanks for the heads up Odin. Watched it in its entirety. Was good. Was a relief to get to Skrbina's take on it.
        
                The worst thing that could happen to the system Ted refers to, besides God's wrath, is the Revolution Ted calls for. The following is from ANTI TECH REVOLUTION WHY & HOW by Ted himself. For those who havn't read it yet:

                     11. To summarize, the expected pattern for a revolution against the technological system will be something like the following: A.)  A small movement, a cohesive cadre of committed, hard-core revolutionaries, will build its internal strength by developing its own organization and discipline. This movement should have branches in several of the world's most important nations or groups of nations; say, the United States, China, Western Europe, and one or more of Russia, Latin America, and India. In each country, the movement will prepare the way for revolution by disseminating ideas-ideas that will be chosen for their soundness and not for their popularity. The movement will take pains to demonstrate the most uncompromising revolutionary integrity, and will strive to prove itself the most effective of all the factions opposed to the existing system. B.) A large minority of the general population will recognize that the revolutionaries' ideas have some merit. But this minority will reject the revolutionaries' solutions, if only through reluctance to change familiar ways of living or as a result of cowardice or apathy. C.)  Eventually there will arrive a crisis, or a failure of the system serious enough to enable the revolutionaries to create a crisis, in which it will no longer be possible to carry on with familiar ways of living, and in which the system's ability to provide for people's physical and psychological needs will be impaired to such an extent that most people will lose all respect for and all confidence in the existing social order, while many individuals will become desperate or angry. Their desperation and anger will soon degenerate into despair and apathy-unless the revolutionaries are able to step in at that point and inspire them with a sense of purpose, organize them, and channel their fear, desperation, and anger into practical action. Because these people will be desperate or angry and because they will have been energized by the revolutionaries, the risk to themselves, however great it may be, will not deter them from striving to bring down the system. D.)  Even so, the revolutionary movement will probably be able to gain the active support only of some fairly small minority of the population. But CHAPTER FouR: SECTION 12 149 the great majority will be either hopeless and apathetic or else motivated merely to save their own skins, so they will not act to defend the system. E.)  The established authorities meanwhile will be disoriented, frightened, or discouraged, and therefore incapable of organizing an effective defense. Consequently, power will be in the hands of the revolutionaries. F.)  By the time revolutionaries have taken power in one nation-for example, the United States-globalization will have proceeded even farther than it has today, and nations will be even more interdependent than they are now.73 Consequently, when revolutionaries have brought the technological system to an abrupt halt in the United States, the economy of the entire world will be severely disrupted and the acute crisis that results will give the anti-tech revolutionaries of all nations the opportunity that they need. G.)  It is extremely important to realize that when the moment far decisive action arrives (as at C, above) the revolutionaries must recognize it, and then must press forward without any hesitation, vacillation, doubts, or scruples to the achievement of their ultimate goal. Hesitation or vacillation would throw the movement into disarray and would confuse and discourage its members. (We will return to this point in a moment.) The pattern we have just outlined is a very broad and general one that can accommodate a wide variety of routes to revolutionary success. Even so, given the unpredictability of historical events, it is impossible to know for certain whether the route that a revolutionary movement will actually take will fit within the pattern we've described. But the pattern is an entirely plausible one, and it provides an answer to those who think the system is too big and strong ever to be overthrown. Moreover, the preparatory work that we have briefly indicated above, at A, will be appropriate for almost any route to revolution that a movement might take in reality. 12. Let's return to point G, above: that the revolutionaries must avoid all hesitation or vacillation when the moment for decisive action arrives. The leaders of the movement must be astute enough to recognize the arrival of that moment. Trotsky claims that in a revolutionary situation there is a particular interval of time, limited to a few weeks or at most a few months, during which a society is primed for insurrection. Any attempt to bring about an insurrection must be undertaken during that interval or the opportunity will be lost.74 So says Trotsky, and we may accept that this 150 ANT I -TECH REV OLUTION is true as a general rule (though of course all such rules have exceptions). Trotsky was speaking only of insurrections, but it should be obvious that a similar rule applies to many other kinds of revolutionary actions: One can hope to carry them out successfully only when circumstances are favorable for them, and since circumstances change rapidly when a society is in crisis one must act at the right time; to act too soon or too late will lead to failure.