A text dump on Patrick Barriot

Introduction

There are 5 folders worth of letters between Ted & Patrick archived at the Uni. of Michigan.

Patrick published Ted's first non-anonymous book, and here's how he described himself:

Patrick Barriot (born 1955) is a doctor specialized in anaesthesia, reanimation and emergency toxicology. He served in the French Army with the rank of colonel and was Head Physician of the French Civil Defense. As an expert on nuclear, radiological. biological and chemical hazards. he is currently carrying out research on the risks related to emerging bioand nanotechnologies. He is the main author of the important book Treating Victims Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction: Medical, Legal And Strategic Aspects (John Wiley and Sons).

Quoting Ted Kaczynski:

I was completely unaware of the content of Dr. Barriot's epilogue before the publication of the book. When the book came out I was stunned to see that part of Dr. Barriot's afterword (the top half of page 360) repeated the same leftist ideas that I have always tried to stay away from, and the other part I was linked to the “Red Brigades”, the “Red Army Faction”, the “Animal Liberation Front” and other extreme leftist groups that I disdain.

Quoting Ultimo Reducto:

[Ted] tends to trust too much and too quickly those who contact with him and even to invite others to collaborate with these new contacts, without minimally checking out them before (and then too often he ends up being cheated by them). ...

A good example of this is the following: In the publication of the edition of The Road to Revolution by the Swiss publishing house Xenia (actually the first edition of what in later editions by other publishing houses would be Technological Slavery), Kaczynski was in fact deceived by Patrick Barriot, a Marxist-Leninist who kept his real ideological stance hidden from Kaczynski until after the book was published, and wrote a crazy epilogue for this book connecting Kaczynski with some communist terrorist groups, rejecting Darwinism, defending leftist ideas, etc.

And this case, though remarkable because of its effects, is not actually an exception but almost the rule. Among all the people Kaczynski put in contact with me, many of them turned out to be undesirable or unreliable people. And a person very close to him, once said to me the same: many of the people that contacted her via Kaczynski were leftists and kooks.

Why the Future Needs Ted Kaczynski

Source: Road to Revolution

---

By Dr. Patrick Barriot

“As for us, we must take care that this spectacle of suffering for which no one answers does not reproduce itself” ERNST JÜNGER[1].

Theodore John Kaczynski, named the “Unabomber” by the FBI, has been imprisoned in the ‘(Alcatraz of the Rockies” (a Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado) since 1996, and remains the N° 1 enemy of the industrial world. For Ted Kaczynski, resorting to violent action had a precise goal: to alert the public to the industrial world’s increasingly harmful global activities with his publication Industrial Society and its Future[2][3]. The techno-industrial world is the result of a process which began in the Neolithic era, ten thousand years ago, when the nomadic tribes of hunter-gatherers became more sedentary, concentrating on the development of agriculture and livestockbreeding. It was the beginning of the domestication of nature and of deforestation. The accumulation of material goods and wealth permitted by this more stationary life was accompanied by the appearance of hierarchical systems, making it possible for an elite few to exert an illegitimate power over the rest of the population. This process quickly accelerated in the 19th century with the Industrial Revolution, and then again in the 20th century with the Technological Revolution. At the same time, the progressive values of the Enlightenment and the work of Charles Darwin provided an ideology and “values” to the capitalist and technical system, ideology and values which are actually vectors of propagation, “Trojan horses”. Sociobiology and social Darwinism, which are based on the theories of evolution, reaffirm today that social behaviors have a biological basis and a genetic origin. The power of the elites would be thus founded in nature, and society should be careful not to distort the free play of competition by penalising the best to help the worst. The “natural right” of the elite groups (industrial, military and governmental) to lead the masses was indisputable. Competition, rivalry and profit must not be held back by co-operation, mutual aid and sharing. All these “Promethean” revolutions have led to the creation of the capitalist market order or expert system whose devastating power threatens human society, the natural environment and humanity itself. For the revolutionaries, this brutal and violent system must be fought, if need be, with weapons in hand.

The Violent Action of the Militant Left

Ted Kaczynski is one of these revolutionaries, convinced that industrial society cannot be improved by reforms. It is not a question of reforming the industrial system of production but of supporting its collapse. Ted Kaczynski poses the problem of violent action from the first page of this book by quoting the Gospel according to St. Luke (22:36): “And he who does not have a sword, must sell his cloak to buy one”. The violence of Ted Kaczynski is a reaction of self-defence towards a threatening techno-industrialist system. The activists in favour of direct and violent action (here and now) against the system, are generally claimed to be from the extreme militant left or the radical ecologists (deep ecology, anarchoprimitivism, neoluddism). In the wake of student protests in the western world at the end of the 1960/s, militant communist groups carried out urban guerrilla warfare against the state: The Red Brigade (BR) in Italy, The Red Army Faction (RAF) in Germany, and Direct Action (AD) in France. These movements claimed to have a Marxist-Leninist ideology, anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist[4][5][6]. The toughest confrontations between the militant left and the state occurred in countries where Fascism had played an important role: Germany, Italy, Spain.

“The politico-military offensive” of the German Red Army Faction against capitalism began in 1970. The “Baader-Meinhof Group”, firmly anchored in the heart of the student extreme left, violently expressed its hatred for the old Nazi elite, which they saw as so perfectly integrated into the new state. The group also expressed their condemnation of the Vietnam War and the occupation of Palestinian territories. Between 1970 and 1998, the dates of the creation and the official dissolution of the movement, the RAF numbered between 60 and 80 members and had killed 34 people. With others’ help, on 7 April1977 the group executed the Federal Prosecutor, Siegfried Buback, and on 19 October 1977, the President of the Employers’ Federation, Hanns Martin Schleyer. To the German extreme left, Hanns Martin Schleyer, a former member of the Nazi party and the SS, symbolised a despised capitalism.

The Italian Red Brigade, firmly entrenched in the midst of the working classes and the trade unionist movement, carried out their engagements during the I’lead years’l (1970 and 1980) which resulted in more than 400 deaths. The Red Brigade was founded in 1973 by Renato Curcio and Alberto Franceschini as the extreme Italian left wing radicalised and advocated recourse to arms as a political and social solution. In March 1978, the Red Brigade removed Aldo Moro, president of the Christian Democracy, from power, who was subsequently executed after 55 days of imprisonment.

A “politico-military coordination” was set up in France in 1977, linked with the German and Italian urban guerrilla militant movements. AD launched its first armed propaganda campaign in 1979. The emergence ofAD is closely related to the anti-Franco resistance in Spain: the Iberian Liberation Movement (MIL), International Revolutionary Action Groups (GARI), the militancy of Puig Antich (brother-in-arms of Jean-Marc Rouillan). AD also supported Palestinian resistance against the Zionist occupation as well as the Lebanese Revolutionary Armed Fractions (FARL), created in 1980 by George Ibrahim Abdallah. On January 15, 1985, the German RAF and AD signed a joint declaration, and a few months later launched an attack against the American air base in Frankfurt. During a period of eight years (1979-1986), the extreme left militant group AD carried out, in total, almost 80 attacks plus two assassinations. From 1979 to 1985, the fighting caused no fatalities. It was comprised mainly of attacks aimed at French-owned businesses, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Industry and banks. On January 25, 1985, the General Engineer of Armaments, René Audran, was killed by the commando Elisabeth Van Dyck. On November 17, 1986, the chairman of Renault, Georges Besse, former owner of Péchiney (whose structural reorganisation of the company resulted in 34,000 lay-offs), was carried out by the commando Pierre Overney. The four founding members of AD, Jean-Marc Rouillan, Nathalie Ménigon, Joelle Aubron and George Cipriani, were arrested on February 21, 1987 in an isolated farm in Vitry-aux-Loges (Loiret). These extreme left militant groups were almost completely dismantled at the end of the 1980’s. The non-violent left and extreme left groups kept their distance with respect to these militant groups, which did not have popular support ( except for the Italian BR). The progressive and liberal left quickly united with the system and the capitalist market order. The militant communist groups were classified as “terrorist” groups, with the reasoning that political violence is illegitimate when it is directed against a democratic regime where the citizens have the means of peaceful resistance. However, this argument does not hold up. On the one hand, the violence of democratic regimes is a quite real violence, masked by “organisational screens” (a wolf in sheep’s clothing) or justified by state propaganda. In addition, peaceful resistance is completely ineffective against this type of systemic violence and it is even equivalent to a form of suicide. Who is responsible ultimately for the “restructuring plans” which condemn thousands of workers to unemployment and destroy as many homes? And who can guarantee that these workers have the chance to defend themselves with their ballots? Just like despotism, democratic totalitarianism criminalises any form of revolt, according to a method denounced by Ernst Jünger: “Now, the despots naturally endeavour to give to the legal resistance, or even to the refusal of their requirements, the appearance of a crime, and [... ] in their hierarchy, they place the common rights of a criminal higher than he who thwarts their intentions”[7]. It is important to stress that the violence of these groups was not aimed at innocent civilians but the responsible state, the guilty state. And their revolutionary violence could not be compared with the violence of state control. It is high time to address the difference between the targeted and assumed action of the revolutionary who kills one industrialist and the greedy and irresponsible attitude of the industrialist who knowingly exposes thousands of workers to an atrocious death by lung cancer; or the large seed-farmer who drives hundreds of thousands of small farmers to the brink of suicide; or the arms engineer who develops weapons of mass destruction. Why is this first always responsible and guilty whereas the others are often deemed nonresponsible and are never to blame? Is the targeted violence of an AD militant more inhumane than the state controlled violence which kills innocent civilians with its ferocious repressions (Genoa), preventive wars (Iraq, Afghanistan) or economic sanctions (economic embargoes against Serbia and Iraq)? On one side is a targeted violence over-exposed by the media and the propaganda of the system, and on the other side a carefully concealed or justified mass violence.

The revolutionaries have paid dearly for their insurrection. Between 1970 and 1998, the dates of the creation and subsequent official dissolution of the RAF, 27 militants (of a total thought to range from 60 to 80) died, the majority shot by the police force. Holger Meins died in prison at the end of a hunger strike in 1974. Ulrike Meinhof was found hanged in his prison cell on 8 May 1976. The founders of the RAF (Andreas Baader, Gudrun Ensslin and Jan-Carl Raspe) were assassinated in the high security area of Stammheim Prison on 18 October 1977. Brigitte Mohnhaupt, leader of the “second generation” of the RAF between 1977 and 1982, was freed on 25 March 2007, after 24 years of detention. She spent more time in prison than Albert Speer, former architect of Hitler’s Arms Ministry. Eva Haule, representing the “third generation” of the RAF, was released on 17 August 2007. Two militants of the RAF remain in prison to date: Birgit Hogefeld, sentenced to life imprisonment in 1996, and Christian Klar (aged 54), condemned in 1985 to life in prison. Christian Klar recently saw his request for a pardon refused. His sentence will end in January 2009. A survey published at the beginning of 2007 by the magazine Der Spiegel showed that 71% of Germans were opposed to a pardon if Christian Klar did not express public remorse. He has now been languishing in prison “longer than any Nazi criminal”. No other prisoner has been asked to express remorse before being released after 25 years in prison. At the age of 57, Brigitte Mohnhaupt never publicly apologised for her acts. Barbara Balzerani, aged 58, ex-leader of the Red Brigade, sentenced to life for her participation in the kidnapping and murder of Aldo Moro in 1978, was freed on 24 April 2007 after 21 years of detention, without publicly apologising. These revolutionaries gave up the armed struggle but they never gave up their ideals. It is the same for the AD militants. Suffering from cancer, Joelle Aubron benefited from a penal suspension for medical reasons on 17 June 2004, after 17 years of imprisonment. She died on 1 March 2006 at the age of 46. Nathalie Ménigon has been in an open prison since August 2,2007 .Jean-Marc Rouillan has benefited from this same form of “semi-freedom” since 29 November 2007. The last member of AD condemned for the same assassinations, George Cipriani, submitted a new request for a review of his sentence in November 2007. They all refused to apologize for their crimes to obtain a release on parole; once in place their sentences were non-reducible. As Joelle Aubron said, “the reasons to revolt remain intact, twenty years afterwards”. The violence of the left continues in Italy-the sole case in Europe-more than twenty years after the “years of lead” and the dismantling of the BR. Young militants, who had not known the years of lead, have joined the armed struggle via the “No Global” movement of the social centres. They are generally blue-collar workers and union representatives confronted with instability. Their violence is aimed especially towards advisers in social affairs, economists or specialists in labour law: “BR hates those who plan reforms and allow a better operation of the labour market and labour relations”.

In 1999 and 2001, a commando group led by Desdemona Lioce, “Red Brigades-For the construction of a militant Communist Party” (BR-PCC or Lioce Group) assassinated two advisers in social affairs, experts in labour law, from the governments of Alema, and then Berlusconi. This group proclaimed to be of the

“First Position” (“Prima Posizione”) or the militant wing of BR. In 2005, Nadia Desdemona Lioce, aged 47, as well as about fifteen accomplices, were sentenced to life in prison. On 12 February 2007, about fifteen successors of the Red Brigades, proclaiming itself anew as the “Communist Politicomilitary Party” (PCP-M) were arrested on the run in Milan, Turin and Padua. The ideologicalline of the PCP-M is drawn from the “Second Position” (“Seconda Posizione”) or wing movements of BR, in agreement with the social struggles of the radical left but against the strategy to be adopted by the militant wing. The majority of persons arrested carne from the working community and were registered with a trade union. In possession of military weapons, the group had identified several targets that it was on the point of striking (newspapers, television transmitters, economists and experts in labour law). These militant workmen and young union representatives declared themselves “political prisoners”.

An anarchist Italian cell, proclaiming themselves to be part of the Informal Anarchist Federation (FAI), declares being “in the process of promoting an acceleration of the ecological war”. The objective of this insurrectionist movement is “direct action” against the structures of the state and capital. The favoured means of expression of these “anarco-insurrectionists” is the placing of explosives against electric pylons, telephone relays and administrative or commercial buildings. These nebulous anarchists, volatile and unpredictable, seem to be the most aggressive subversive group.

The Violent Action of the Radical Ecology Movements

Radical ecology movements appeared in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and Northern Europe in the 1970’s. “Deep Ecology” was developed in the 1970’s by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess [8]. These movements deviated from the pacifist line and civil disobedience, towards direct action and violence. In the Foreword of the famous work by Rachel Carson, “Silent Spring”, Roger Heim, President of the Academy of Science, had already voiced ecologists’ anger regarding inaction: “We arrest gangsters, we shoot hold-up artists, we guillotine assassins, we shoot despots-or allegedly so-but who will imprison these public poisoners, who daily diffuse the products of their synthetic chemistry that add to their profits and their carelessness?”[9]. The activists of the ecologist cause are organised in “eco-warrior” groups who reject anthropocentrism, preach a return to nature and oppose new technologies.

The “Earth Liberation Front” or ELF was founded by members of the radical ecologist movement “Earth First!”, created by Dave Foreman. ELF is an organisation which has recourse to direct action in the form of economic sabotage in order to stop the exploitation and destruction of the environment. The direct actions of this group (sabotage, fires, etc.) in the United States have caused more than 200 million dollars worth of damage. Captain Paul Watson, an ecological and animal rights militant, is an “eco-warrior” who fights for the safeguarding and protection of marine animal life by using his fleet of ships to pursue whalers who violate international law. He has reinforced the prows of his ships in order to sink or seriously damage the whalers. Paul Watson left the Greenpeace association, of which he was an influential member, to found the “Sea Shepherd Conservation Society”. According to him, the peaceful protests of Greenpeace are futile and non-violence can only be seen as a form of suicide.

Only direct action can oppose the will of the states. The activists of the “Animal Liberation Front” or ALF are vegetarians and vegans who defend the antispecist cause. The latter does not tolerate any differentiation between animals and humans. These eco-warriors preach violence against laboratories which practise vivisection, industrial breeding or the fur industry. They favour sabotage, vandalism, the release of animals or the contamination of products for human consumption [10][11][12]. The British organisation “SHAC” (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty) and the anti-vivisection group “Animal Rights Militia” are mainly targeting the British animal experimentation centre “Huntingdon Life Sciences” (HLS) and the Novartis company. The direct action of ELF or the radical action of ALF attacks financial interests; these liberation fronts strike where it hurts. Facing the violence of the system, they refuse to accept its fanciful, weak and non-violent-in other words, completely uselessecology. As a form of self-defence, they unleash the sword of radical ecology against the sword of the industrial system. In the United States, radical ecologists are regarded as “domestic terrorists” and are opposed by the USA Patriot Act. The FBI estimates that the “eco-terrorism” of the ELF and the ALF constitutes the second most dangerous threat after Islamic terrorism. Several members of ELF are being tried in Oregon and California for vandalism, arson and attacks on public and private property. Heavy prison sentences have been demanded for certain activists, accused of “conspiracy”. The ALF is also classified as an “eco-terrorist organisation” in England and in the United States. The intelligence services judge that “the time has now come to closely watch this influential militant entity that is in the process of forming”. Greg Avery, a historical figure of “SHAC”, is imprisoned and awaiting trial for “conspiracy and blackrnail”. The Pentagon has created a database of these peaceful protests, of animal defence associations and vegetarian communities, including investigations that the FBI has planned with regard to the fight against terrorism.

Neoluddism is, according to the Pentagon, a movement opposed to technologies and industrial capitalism, which appeared in the United States in the 1990’s [13]. Hostile to the technological invasion, the neoluddite militants see themselves as successors to the English textile workers who, at the beginning of the 19th century (between 1811 and 1813), destroyed thousands of machines they perceived to be a threat to their way of life. In 1813, a law was declared with the penalty of capital punishment for breaking machinery, in spite of the protests of Lord Byron, and some luddites were hanged[14][15]. For the neoluddites, technologies created by Western societies are uncontrollable and threatening. Groups of “Refuzniks” (“tech-refuzniks”), hostile to technology, have not hesitated to use violence to halt its progress: the ploughing up of GMO fields, destruction of computer equipment, violent demonstrations against the development of RFID microchips, biometric scanners or nanotechnologies. These activists are not demanding the supervision of new technologies; they demand a moratorium, an unconditional prohibition. They do not want a half-way house for new technologies, they want a cemetery. In France, the criticism of modern technology and its devastating effects has been well documented by Jacques Ellul.

Ted Kaczynski’s Place

Where is Ted Kaczynski's place in this domain of direct action against the system? Is it that of revolutionary, anarchoprimitivist, eco-warrior or neoluddite? It is impossible to label him under one category: Ted Kaczynski is indefinable, in all senses of the term. A solitary fighter, he is, above all, the subverter and perhaps the grave-digger of the expert system, this noxious system, alienating, dehumanising and violent. The revolution preached by Ted Kaczynski is not a political revolution. It is not a question of overturning a government, or attacking a political system. The left as well as the right favour “progress”. But in addition to being favourable to progress, the reformist left have perverted the spirit of rebellion. Ted Kaczynski harshly criticizes the leftist reformists, these men of compromise who pass for rebels while they support the system and prevent true revolution. He attacks those who divert the instinct of revolt, who channel it, who debilitate it: these false rebels who divert the attention from the only true problem (the problem of technology) by focusing it on xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, discriminations of all kinds and animal suffering. He denounces the breaking of windows to pay the glaziers. From now on the left plays the part of the “Brotherhood” of Goldstein, in George Orwell’s 1984: a fictitious opposition set up and governed by the powers-that-be, an alienated opposition that reinforces the system that it claims to fight. Imprisoned in the high security section of Florence Prison (Colorado), Ted Kaczynski is urgently trying to use his written work to weaken the foundations of a dehumanising society. He equally inspires the international anarchistic movements as he does the alternate-world movements. In his radical criticism of industrial society, one finds the continuity of the thoughts of Aldous Huxley, George Orwell and Jacques Ellul. A renowned scientist, Bill Joy, demonstrated the relevance of his arguments in a famous article in “Wired” entitled “Why the future doesn’t need US”[16]. Ted Kaczynski vigorously continues his work on the deconstruction of the myth of technological progress, by preaching a strategy of severance-because there is no possible compromise with a technological power which unrelentingly destroys humanity. All the written works of Ted Kaczynski underline the contempt of this expert society for human freedom and dignity. Never, since the dawn of humanity, has man been so subjugated, deprived of initiative, incapable of changing the course of his history, excluded from his destiny. He no longer has any control over the events which determine his physical and spiritual life: he does not have any other choice but submission. The system has made alienation desirable and has domesticated man because it needs round pegs in round holes, square tenons in square mortises, smooth-turning wheels in well oiled machinery. The system has transformed freedom into a watched and monitored liberty, and every citizen is now unknowingly shackled with electronic handcuffs, like a criminal on parole. Ernst Jünger wrote in Waldgangf[17]: “It does not matter that the game-bird runs here or there, as long as it remains between the nets of the beaters”. Today, that which we call democracy is nothing more than the freedom granted to human game to run between the nets of the beaters. As for our private lives and our personal privacy, each day they become a little more transparent and undermined. A universal neutralising of consciousness is in the process of development: the journalist self-censors, the French doctor becomes a spin doctor in the pay of the militaryindustrialist complex, the humanitarian becomes the harbinger of new colonial wars, the social worker transforms himself into informer and the citizen becomes denouncer. What remains of rebellious conscience is now isolated in a besieged fortress, waiting for the final attack. A fortress besieged by technology For Ted Kaczynski, the goal of the revolution is to destroy the expert system and not to create an ideal society. This book comprises several essays which are striking by the intensity of Ted KaczynSki’s beliefs regarding the evolution of society, the recourse to violence and the revolution to come. Ted Kaczynski also answers objections and criticisms concerning his analyses. This is therefore not, as some would be tempted to believe, a terrorist manifesto but a work which touches upon anthropology, philosophy and sociology. Its reading is essential for whoever thinks about the evolution of human societies in general and on the evolution of industrial society in particular.

The Overthrow of the Technological System

From his prison cell, Ted Kaczynski no longer sends bombs, but his written work has the potential to be much more devastating. The American government understands only too well and are trying, using the new anti-terrorists laws, to silence this prisoner who still believes that the future can be inhabited by free men. Here is the only authentic version of his Manifesto, followed by several essays whose attentive reading should help to slow down, if not stop, this formidable “progressive stampede” that is carrying humanity to the brink of a precipice. Historians and poets tell us that civilisations are mortal, but not one past civilisation has dragged humanity to its grave, as industrial civilisation is likely to do. From now on, we must accept that humanity is mortal. These words of Nietzsche’s Zarathustra are perfectly appropriate for Ted Kaczynski: “1 am a guard-rail at the edge of a rushing river: whoever can seize me, seize me! But I am not your crutch”[18]. It is for you, reader, to seize-here and now!

DR PATRICK BARRIOT

Road to Revolution Bibliography

Source: Road to Revolution

---

The System Projects Its Own Fear

Source: Fabrikzeitung 258 – Ted Kaczynski Issue - Rote Fabrik (English Translation)

---

An interview with Slobodan Despot, founder of Xenia Editions, who has recently published the only version of the manifest by Ted Kaczynski approved by the author himself. Our interest is the censorship problems related to the publishing of the book: The Road to Revolution.

Julien: You are Slobodan Despot who created Xenia Editions in 2005?

SD: Yes, I am.

Dimitri: We would like to discuss the accusation made by the author in his preface, where he complains about the final version of his text. He pretends that there are a few mistakes left but that he has not had enough time to correct them because of the US authorities censoring the text. Could you tell us more about this?

SD: Yes, he was in a hurry to publish his book for practical and political reasons. The US authorities were starting proceedings against him with the objective of seizing what he would earn with a hypothetical publication of his book, as well as prohibiting him to write. At the time of his arrest, there was no legal possibility to do the latter. You certainly know that after 9/11, new laws were passed limiting the freedom of expression of people accused of terrorism, such as the famous «patriot act». Some of of Kaczynski’s writings were labelled terrorist. This is not true: most of his writings are neither violent nor terrorist. As US authorities were after him, he was in a hurry, and had to publish his book with some subsisting mistakes. Being a true perfectionist, somehow in a pathological way, he was really dissatisfied with the situation. He is actually never satisfied with what he has written.

Dimitri: Did he ask anybody to publish his work or did anyone else ask him to do it?

SD: In jail, Kaczynski established a relationship with a few intellectuals and students, which made the publication possible. Patrick Barriot, a French doctor, is a close friend of Kaczynski’s, and they were close enough for Kaczynski to ask him to find a publisher for his first book, and to be approved by him. Doctor Barriot, also a friend of mine, came to me asking to publish it and that is what I did.

Julien: You published this book in 2008. We heard about some legal orders that were about to fall and which hastened the publication of the book. Did these court orders actually interfere with the publication? Is everything Kaczynski wanted to say in the book?

SD: I believe that the essence of what Kaczynski meant to convey was in it. But it is true that some choices were difficult to make, namely relating to the illicit chapter titled «What to do first», in which Kaczynski develops the idea of aggressiveness and murder. The chapter was censored by US authorities, so if we had kept it, it would have put the whole project in danger. We thought it would be clever not to publish the chapter so as to make sure the book would come out. We did not want to see the whole project fail because of one chapter, all the more so because the contents are extremely diverse: manifesto, letter exchanges, ethnological analysis, and that the whole book, excluding the chapter, adds up to 400 pages.

Julien: Was there a sort of judge or a commission who had rights over the writings and who were ready to filter the information?

SD: Yes, there was a lawyer who i gave permission to look over the book. In fact, I gave the book to read to two American lawyers and both stumbled over the «What to do first» chapter. We didn’t want to have Kaczynski’s reputation as a violent man strengthened, nor to let him be considered as more terrorist than he is already. Our purpose was to put at the public’s disposal Kaczynski’s mental world and ideas, and to make allowances between them and his acts.

Julien: Could you tell us in detail the problem with this chapter and its real content?

SD: In the text, Kaczynski explained that if you want to fight against the institutions, you sometimes have to fight physically and declare war without any kind of hesitation. The kind of things the ultra-environmentalists would do, for example. I regret I cannot tell you more about the chapter: as we decided not to publish it, I cannot really talk about it.

Dimitri: Is this text still mentioned by any organisation ?

SD: Today, in 2009, you find it in a lot of publications by ultra-environmentalists or anarchist organisations. That is not our problem. Kaczynski was a criminal and he still is. It took the police a long time to track down the suspect because the man operated alone and it was really difficult to catch him. The population was against him. What we wanted to put at everybody’s disposal was his innovative ideas about the evolution of the contemporary society. Of course he was not the first one to ask this type of questions. But the way he made it was new, that’s why it is important to publish this book. The aggressive aspect does not interest us.

Julien: Is there a court order to seize Kazcinski’s royalties?

SD: Yes, there is. That’s the reason why we signed a contract saying that he has no right over his writings and that he gets no royalties, because those would have gone directly to his victims. So you see, for Kaczynski it’s much simpler to collaborate with a European publisher, because an American publisher would always fear the consequences.

What you need to know is that we finally found an American publisher who agreed to publish the text next Spring, as a co-publisher for the American marketplace. Just because he thinks it’s worth trying it, and also he saw that I wasn’t subject to a court order, neither in Europe nor in the States. They could have tried to seize the copies sold through Amazon for instance, but so far they haven’t. At the end, what I want is a useable document. The Americans did not allow us to publish the controversial chapter, but they didn’t censure it because I did not publish it. Why didn’t I publish it ? Because I feared the consequences? No. I’m against censoreship. The thing is more complicated. Finally, an editor has to make choices, and that is what I did.

Dimitri: So, finally it is the publisher who decides ?

SD: Yes, that’s precisely his job. That’s why I think that the publisher is a key-person in the process of publication. Today you can send your texts to a printing house and make your own book without resorting to a publisher. But the chances are that the book won’t be a commercial success.

Julien: Didn’t you try to resist the pressure? Was there a court order which you could oppose ?

SD: How could I, from Switzerland, make myself heard while legal decisions were taken in the States? You know, we could have ignored them but then the English version would not exist. It would have been pure provocation against the US authorities and that was not my intent. It is not impossible that the whole text will be published in the future, but I believe the American justice will not change that kind of decision right now.

Julien: Kaczynski made bad use of his ideas. Would it be possible, for you, to make good use of his theories?

SD: Of course, a lot of people around him are peaceful. They are not terrorists or violent. They are university teachers or students, people feeling concerned about environmental and technological issues. Kaczynski influenced all the actors of the decreasing movement. Those people would never tell you that. A lot of people near the decreasing are saying that the Unabomber is a dangerous and crazy terrorist. For me and for a lot of other people, he is a man who speaks out loudly saying that the system has to change. I don’t believe he regrets his acts. He is a militant. And he is consistent: he lives in a hut, uses no electricity or any other industrial produce. He would like everybody to live the same way. The end justifies the means, that is what he means. If I kill somebody living inside the system, it’s no big deal because I am achieving what I think is right and important. He would also ask: What are the real, right weapons? I am powerless and lonely, I am a mathematician. I keep sending letters and essays to important newspapers to warn them about the dangers of our society, but nobody is listening to me. The point is that we are heading towards the complete destruction of our planet. Anything is better than the destruction of the planet, even murder.

Dimitri: In your opinion, is there a difference between the «American» and «European» way of considering the publication?

SD: In Europe, that kind of problem would be less important and people would not be as afraid of the publication of the chapter, rough and brutal as it may sound. In the States things are more complicated, as American society is a moralizing society. To read texts by Kaczynski is perceived badly, there is a moral fence so to say. Here it is different: for us it is quite obvious that on one hand Kaczynski is a criminal and a murderer, but that before that, he was also a mathematician, a scientist and a philosopher, and we know how to make allowances for both. For most of the Americans he is just one: a terrorist.

Since 2001, Americans are very reactive to the word terrorist. That’s the reason why I couldn’t find anyone who would distribute or publish the book in the States. I looked for an agent who would help me find a co-publisher, so the book would get into the distribution network to which I, as a European publisher, have no access. The agent I found said that she was sorry but she couldn’t do the job because she volunteered in an association concerned about the victims of terrorism. Another problem for an American publisher is that Kaczynski, apart from his three life sentences (if I am not mistaken), was also condemned to pay 5 million dollars to the victims’ families, so any benefit resulting from the publication of any of his texts would directly go to the victims. Obviously he will never be able to pay such an amount of money. Which makes it impossible for any publisher to earn money with Kaczynski’s texts. Another type of difficulty is that the royalties are all automatically taken by the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) and the administration, another reason why it makes no sense to publish the book.

Julien: You spoke of the approaches you made to American publishers who wouldn’t publish the texts. Actually they are censoring themselves without even suspecting that they are doing so...

SD: Yes, I think that the main censorship is self-censorship. Explicit, objective censorship is very unusual. Most of the time people don’t even dare speak out for fear of the consequences, so they keep their own words or writings for themselves. The system is not that repressive. My idea is you have to attempt doing something; if I had received a bomb or been put into jail, then it would have been very clear that the system is repressive and that our society cannot accept it.

Julien: Would you define yourself as inactive in a way?

SD: Yes, I’d rather be passive. Then you have these fears that we project on the world, on what can be said or not. The important thing is to attempt doing things, always.

Gent: The system projects its own fears, in fact.

SD: Obviously, we live in a system based on fear. The system is in fact hard, but in a passive way, which may be the most dangerous way anyhow.

F For Fake

Felix: Can we explain to you what we have in mind ?

Julien: What we are trying to do is a documentary film that does not have the same value as a journalistic film. We are trying to do a reality-fiction documentary on Kaczynski. Because we can easily extrapolate his words. We don’t know yet if it is worthwhile doing that. We would like to talk about a fake article or chapter that would have been censored because of an American law forbidding that chapter. We would also like to make our teachers believe until the last day that we’ve discovered something new on this case. With your help, we can create a really valuable document.

SD: To make short, you’re planning a hoax ? You want us to imagine that the book was censored ?

Julien: That’s what we want to pretend. Our hope in coming here was that you would suggest an idea, an element, or an article in the book that would have been censored. Something simple and interesting that is trust-worthy. We want you to be an actor for this second part of the interview. We don’t want to talk about the content of the censored part but more about the fact that the book was censored. The content will just be mentioned.

SD: For example an article about Kaczinsky calling for bloodlust ?

Julien: Yes, we did such hypotheses... We could tell people that he had a confederate.

SD: So I would have to explain why this chapter isn’t in the book ?

Julien: Yes. We care about making our purpose credible. What we would like to do is to pretend that the book has been under pressure and been censored.

SD: Ok. But what if the case gets published?

Julien: No, it will never get out of our school, we can sign a paper if you want.

There might be a chance that it gets published in the «Fabrikzeitung», a cultural-artistic underground magazine based in Zürich. So this fictional part must be seen from an artistic point of view. In any case, it will be clearly stated that these documents are fake.

SD: Ok. Let’s do it!

Felix: We took a leaf out of the documentary that pretended no one ever walked on the moon. When you watch this documentary, you never ask yourself if it is fake because of the credibility of the scientists explaining and telling facts that even landing on the moon is simply impossible.

SD: Indeed.

Julien: That’s a concept that interests us.

SD: Ok, let’s try!

Julien: Ok. I will pretext to ask a question about the book.

Dimitri: Shall we do it ?

Slobodan Despot: Yeah, let’s go !

The Notes

The first day, we discovered a small Vevey-based publisher who in 2008 published Ted Kaczyinski’s book, A road to revolution. We decided to try and meet that publisher, Slobodan Despot, whom we had only known for a few hours, through several google-found videos, and got an appointment with him for the following day. Before that meeting we had only had a few hours to get briefed on a topic we surely didn’t overcome. We realized we weren’t real reporters and had to do something different, something we could master. We immediately thought that Slobodan’s notoriety and credibility could help us in a way.

This is how we decided to script the interview in progress during the week. Conceptually, inventing a story that we would make credible by many ways was the best option. We focused on Slobodan Despot’s interest for the Kaczynski case, and asked him questions about the making of the book. Had there been any censorship? Did the US authorities have an eye on the writings before they got published, as we had assumed? Did Ted Kaczynski have the possibility to express himself as freely as it was supposed? Unfortunately, or maybe not, the answers had nothing of an American movie: there was no censorship, the US authorities couldn’t care less and therefore, Kaczynski could express himself as freely as an African swallow in springtime. It is only after we got those answers that we explained to Slobodan Despot the true point: faking. He kindly accepted to play our game and suggested to us the content of a pretended missing chapter of the book, where Theodore Kaczynski would have written texts totally unacceptable for the American self-righteous society, in which he engaged people to take up weapons and fight. We also got several materials to play with, including a hand-written letter from Kaczynski to Slobodan. We built up fake letters from this one, having Kaczynski say that there was no chance his book would ever be published without that missing chapter. To give even more credibility to our own William Karel’s Opération Lune, we found the articles of the new US Patriot-act limiting communications for terrorist inmates. With these, no one would doubt our story. A font was also designed, based on aczynski’s writing that we copied on his letter. The font is ugly and has no use, but conceptually goes along with our matter, giving a theoretical opportunity to fake documents.

Another point was that one of the two persons following the project during the week, was aware of our fake tv-show documentary, whereas the other one was our «victim». So we had two different points of view, one on the project from the outside and another one giving «conscious» advice. Even if we strongly suspect Gregor telling his friend Yvan. Or maybe Yvan pcked up the hoax by himself... He does look smart... Anyway.

As we were interviewing Slobodan Despot, we also had a camera hidden somewhere in a corner of the room. This way we had the full conversation video-recorded, storing up evidences against ourselves. We were able to make two movies, one showing what we wanted to be believed, and the other one, backstage.

At the end, telling any story using the good old «aesthetics of truth» would have worked alike. Thanks to Magritte, everyone knows pictures lie all the time. So does any media and it is no luxury to remind it.

System Technologies

Source: Fabrikzeitung 258 – Ted Kaczynski Issue - Rote Fabrik (English Translation)

---

Profiler

A case analyst (also profiler and profile creator) is usually a member of the police who carries out operational case analysis to solve serious crimes. During case analysis, the case analyst draws conclusions based on criminal findings using evidence, traces at the crime scene and the circumstances of the crime. In doing so, he draws conclusions about the perpetrator's behavior and can, under certain circumstances, recognize dark circumstances that can be linked to state-specific socio-economic characteristics. In this respect, it is not necessarily psychology, but rather criminology first, and then criminology and sociology, which are used as the most important auxiliary sciences. Assistive criminal techniques used by case analysts include DNA analysis and dactyloscopy. Under certain circumstances, a case analysis can provide decision-making support for structuring investigations (for example, that an investigation should begin in a regional area and concentrate on 20 to 40-year-old men; in many cases, for example (controversial ) Mass DNA tests can be carried out that would otherwise not be possible without limitations).

public relations

Public relations refers to a broad term for the form of public communication by companies, authorities, ideas or individuals. The term is further used as a professional field and research field that is in a process of increasing professionalization, a social phenomenon that is the subject of a science that differentiates itself in the area of communication and economics as well as sociology to maintain relationships with the public

Deputy: Thomas J. Mosser Attack on Thomas J. Mosser, who advised Exxon on a tanker accident in Alaska in 1989, December 10, 1994

lobbyism

Lobbyism is a term adopted from English (lobbying) for a form of interest representation in politics in which interest groups (praise and legislative influence through personal or public opinion via the mass media. Official names include interest representation, public affairs, political communication, Political advice and the like. In 2006, Thomas Leif and Rudolf Speth introduced the term Fifth Ge lobbyism for the P se in Germany, analogous to the term Fourth Estate. Lobbyism is a method of influencing decision-makers and decision-making processes through precise information within the framework of a defined strategy. It is about selective influences on specific decisions and not about ongoing participation in shaping the (state) political framework.

Deputy: Gilbert B. Murray

Attack on Gilbert B. Murray, lobbyist for the California Forestry Association, April 24, 1995

Biology (Genetics)

Biology is the natural science that deals with the general laws of living things, but also with the special characteristics of living things, their organization and development as well as their diverse structures and processes. Biology is an extremely comprehensive science that can be divided into many subject areas. Z general oriented parts of biology õIn particular general zoology, general botany, but also ysiology, biochemistry, ecology and theoretical biology. In recent times, as a result of the fluid transitions into other scientific areas (e.g. medicine and psychology) and the often highly interdisciplinary nature of research, the terms biosciences, life sciences and life sciences have also become established. Biologists' levels of observation range from molecular structures to organelles, cells, cell groups, tissues and organs to complex organisms. In larger contexts, the behavior of individual organisms and their interaction with others and their environment are examined.

Data Mining

Data mining is the systematic application of methods, which are usually based on statistics and mathematics, to a database with the aim of pattern recognition. This is primarily about searching through very large datasets, which is why we primarily consider methods that have an excellent asymptotic runtime. If model assumptions about the data creation process are dispensed with, useful application possibilities also arise for small or medium-sized data sets. In practice, especially in German usage, the Anglo-Saxon term “data mining” has become established for the entire process of so-called “knowledge discovery in databases”. Today, large amounts of data are generated in companies, research projects, administrations or on the Internet. Data mining enables the automatic evaluation of such data sets using statistical methods, artificial neural networks, fuzzy clustering methods or genetic algorithms. The aim is to detect rules and patterns or statistical abnormalities. For example, you can B. Tracking changes in the behavior of customers or customer groups and business strategies can be tailored accordingly. However, deviant behavior of individual people can also be recognized. This calls data protection advocates into action, who critically monitor the use of data mining procedures.

Psychologie

Psychology is an empirical science. It describes and explains people's experiences and behavior, their development over the course of life and all of the relevant internal and external causes. As a science, psychology is cross-disciplinary. It cannot be assigned to the natural sciences, social sciences or the humanities alone. Rather, its basis is formed by anthropology in the broadest sense. A classification that comes from the Anglo-Saxon world divides psychology in the sense of behavioral sciences only into behavioral science, cognitive science and neuroscience. In addition to academic psychology, there is an everyday psychology. It is only occasionally the subject of the academic discipline we are talking about here. It often makes use of originally academic psychological concepts and terms that have found their way into everyday language.

Deputy: James V. McConnell Attack on James V. McConnell, Professor of Psychology at the University of Michigan, November 15, 1985

Biometrics

The word “biometrics” is a Greek term made up of the words bios (life) and metron (measure). According to this, biometry is the science of measuring the body of living beings. Only humans and their measurable physical characteristics are placed in this context. In the narrower sense related to the computer world, the term “biometrics” is to be understood as a synonym for the identification of people using their personal characteristics. Personal characteristics must therefore be designed in such a way that even identical twins can be distinguished. Beards, glasses and the like must also not pose any obstacles to detection. In contrast to forensics, biometric methods should be able to carry out detection in real time and automatically. Biometrics, as a closely related word to biometrics and often incorrectly used as a synonym for it, is primarily used in connection with mathematical measurement and statistics in medicine and biology. The aim is to use empirical studies to find insights into medical, psychological, ecological or biological connections. This area is often referred to as “classic biometrics”. The two terms biometrics and biometrics are therefore not interchangeable and are also clearly differentiated in the English literature with “biometry” and “biometrics” (biometrics).

GPS

Global Positioning System (GPS), officially NAVSTAR GPS, is a global navigation satellite system for position determination and time measurement. It was developed by the US Department of Defense in the 1970s and replaced the US Navy's old satellite navigation system NNSS (Transit) from around 1985, as well as the Vela satellites for locating atomic bomb explosions. GPS has been fully functional since the mid-1990s and, since artificial signal degradation (selective availability) was switched off in May 2000, has also ensured positioning accuracy of the order of 10 meters for civil purposes. The accuracy can be increased to centimeters using difference methods (dGPS), and even more precise measurements can be achieved for special applications in geodesy. GPS has established itself as the world's most important positioning method and is widely used in navigation systems.

Mathematics

Mathematics is the science that emerged from the study of figures and calculating numbers. There is no generally accepted definition of mathematics; Today it is usually described as a science that examines self-created abstract structures for their properties and patterns.

Deputy: John G. Harris (Student) Attack on Northwestern University Evanston, Illinois, May 9, 1979

Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a branch of computer science that deals with the automation of intelligent behavior. The term cannot be clearly defined because there is already a lack of a precise definition of intelligence. Nevertheless, it is used in research and development. In general, “artificial intelligence” or “AI” refers to the attempt to recreate human-like intelligence, i.e. a computer that can think for itself. However, it is often also used to describe a programmed, simulated intelligence, especially in computer games, which is intended to simulate intelligent behavior using mostly simple algorithms.

Deputy: David Gelernter Attack on David Gelernter, computer science professor at Yale University, Connecticut and researcher in the field of artificial intelligence, June 24, 1993

CCTV (video surveillance system)

Video surveillance systems are used for observation using optical-electronic devices. In the English-speaking world, these systems are known as closed circuit television (CCTV), which derives from the closed circle of users who are authorized to view the images. This term distinguishes it from public television. The main area of application for video surveillance systems is the monitoring of public or private spaces, traffic and technical systems of all kinds. Conventional video surveillance systems consist of at least one surveillance camera and a display monitor; the systems optionally allow the images to be recorded (for example on video tape) and then transmitted analogue, wired or wireless. Newer video surveillance systems often use digital cameras that are connected to a computer via a TCP/IP network (IP cameras). Additional functions such as motion detection, facial recognition and storage of images can be carried out using special video surveillance software.

Body scanner

Body scanners, also called full body scanners, body scanners or nude scanners, are devices that can be used to image the surface of the human body. Objects hidden under clothing, such as weapons or explosives, can be made visible. This can be achieved using various methods.

Intrusion Detection System (IDS)

An intrusion detection system (IDS) is a system for detecting attacks directed against a computer system or computer network. The IDS can complement a firewall or run directly on the computer system to be monitored, thereby increasing the security of networks.

Computer Science

Computer science is the science of the systematic processing of information, especially automatic processing using computer systems. Historically, computer science developed as a science from mathematics, while the development of the first computing systems has its origins in electrical engineering and communications engineering. Nevertheless, computers only represent a tool and medium of computer science to put theoretical concepts into practice. The Dutch computer scientist Edsger Wybe Dijkstra formulated: “Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.”

Deputy: Patrick C. Fischer Attack on Patrick C. Fischer, head of the computer science department at Vanderbilt University of Nashwille, Tennessy, May 5, 1982

Materials Science

Materials science is an interdisciplinary science that is based on the disciplines of chemistry, physics, engineering, mineralogy, crystallography and petrology and deals with the research, i.e. design, production, characterization and processing of materials.

Deputy: Buckley Christ Jr. Attacked at Northwestern University Evanston, Illinois, May 26, 1978

Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)

Radio Frequency IDentification is a method for reading and storing data without contact and without visual contact. RFID systems are generally suitable wherever there is a need to automatically label, recognize, register, store, monitor or transport. Due to the rapid spread of technology in the private and commercial sectors, the term is more relevant than ever. Nevertheless, few topics are as controversially discussed as the use of RFID technology. On the one hand, companies are striving to advertise the possibilities and opportunities of RFID technology (example: IBM commercial) and to create broad acceptance; on the other hand, data protectionists and civil rights activists are trying to counteract the ever-increasing surveillance by raising awareness among citizens.

Spyware

Spyware is usually software that sends a PC user's data to the manufacturer of the software (call home) or to third parties without the user's knowledge or consent, or is used to offer products directly to the user.

Aviation/Aviation

Aviation (also known as aviation) refers to the transport of people or goods through the earth's atmosphere without a fixed connection to the earth's surface. The term now generally includes all people, companies, activities and sub-areas (including on the ground) that relate to the operation of aircraft and is also used in German instead of the term aeronautics for the engineering sector, aerospace technology. The term air transport is used legally.

Deputy: Percy A. Wood

Attack on Percy A. Wood, President of United Airlines, June 10, 1980

Space travel

Space travel refers to travel or transport in or through space. The transition between earth and space is fluid and has been set at a limit altitude of 100 kilometers by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI). However, the classic separation between aviation and space travel is increasingly being blurred by the technical development of sub-orbital space planes and rocket planes. In the early days of space travel, a clear distinction was made between space travel and astronautics; The latter mainly includes their scientific and technical developments and is still referred to in English as astronautics, while the actual space flights are called space flights.

Deputy: John E. Hauser Angriff auf John E. Hauser, Pilot bei der Airforce und angehender Astronaut, 15. Mai 1985

[1] Ernst Jünger, Der Waldgang, Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart, 1980.

[2] Unabomber, Manifeste: L’avenir de la société industrielle. translated and introduced by J.-M. Apostolides. preface by Annie Le Brun. Jean-Jacques Pauvert/ Editions du Rocher, Paris. 1996.

[3] Theodore Kaczynski. La Société Industrielle et son Avenir, Editions de l’Encyclopédie des Nuisances, Paris. 1998.

[4] “L’Allemagne cammémare les victime5 de la RAF”, Le Mande, 25/10/2007, p. 10.

[5] “Ils reprennent le concept ‘Brigades rauges’“. Le Monde, 27/lO/2007, p. 3.

[6] “Un tribunal accorde la semi-liberté au fondateur d’Action directe”, Le Monde, vendredi 28 Septembre 2007, p. 10.

[7] Ernst Jünger, Der Waldgang, Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart, 1980.

[8] Bill Devall, George Sessions, Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered, Gibbs M. Smith, Publisher, U.S.A. (Layton,Utah), 1985.

[9] Rachel Carson, Printemps silencieux, préface de Roger Heim, Editions Plon, Paris, 1963.

[10] “Le chantage ‘écoterroriste’ des défenseurs des animaux”, Libération, 1-2/9/2007, p. 11.

[11] “Des militants de la cause animale annoncent avoir contaminé des solutions pour lentilles”, Le Monde, 4/9/2007, p. 13.

[12] “Les militants antivivisection sement la peur”, Le Figaro, 22-23/9/2007, p. 9.

[13] Frédérique Roussel, “Rage against the machine”, Libératíon, 21/6/2007, pp. 30-31.

[14] Kirkpatrick Sale, La révolte luddíte: briseurs de machines à l’ere de l’industrialisation, Editions L’Echappée, collection “Dans le feu de l’action”, 2006.

[15] Nicolas Chevassus-au-Louis, Les bríseurs de machines, de Ned Ludd a José Bové. Editions du Seuil, 2006.

[16] Bill Joy, “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us”, Wired Magazine, April 2000, pp. 238-262.

[17] Ernst Jünger, Der Waldgang, Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart, 1980.

[18] Friedrich Nietzsche, Ainsi parlait Zarathoustra, un livre pour tous et pour personne (1883-1885), Editions Robert Laffont, 1993.