Ted Kaczynski’s Letter Correspondence with John Zerzan

Ted to Zerzan — January 27, 1998

[PAGE MISSING]

[REDACTED] gets migraines, and my father used to get them too, so I know they can be pretty bad.

As I write this, you must be just finishing your talk in the Gerlinger Lounge. Well, how did it go? You got a $500 honorarium for your talk? Impressive! I hope that success won’t spoil you. (That’s a joke; I’m confident that you won’t be spoiled.)

Unlike you, I am not relieved that the death penalty is out of the picture. In order to get that deal I had to sign away my right to an appeal that might possibly have led to my release. I signed only because I had no other way of preventing my attorneys from putting on a defense that would have portrayed me essentially as insane. My attorneys are very able lawyers and they have been very kind to me on a personal level, but my relationship with them has been a tragic and disastrous mis-match.

Have you heard anything lately from our acquaintance at Stanford, Professor A? I have not. He’s probably lost interest in the case. I have an impression that he is an emotional person and perhaps not very steady or consistent.

Let me tell you about Dr. Sally Johnson, the shrink who evaluated me for mental competency.

She is a government hack, associate warden of some federal institution back east. She is also a very strange person. My lawyers tell me that in preliminary discussions at which I was not present, they kept referring to me as “Ted” while Johnson kept referring to me as “Mr. Kaczynski”. My lawyers then suggested that it might be easier for her to just say “Ted” (one syllable) rather than “Mr. Kaczynski” (five syllables). Thereafter Johnson referred to me as “he”; but never as “Ted”. She always wore strange, baggy dresses, as if to conceal her figure, perhaps because she had nothing worth showing off, though she wasn’t fat, she looked terribly out of condition, as if she never got any exercise. Unlike any of the other people I’ve met since my arrest, she never offered me her hand to shake — until the end of my very last interview with her, and then her hand was so limp that it was like shaking a dead fish. I had the impression that her personality was cold.

My attorneys repeatedly tried to get her to let them sit in on the interviews, or at least to let them listen to the interviews over an intercom, but she persistently refused. This put us in the position that as to anything that might be said in the interviews, it was her word against mine. At our very last meeting she said, “If you find any errors in my report, I hope you won’t think there is any intent behind it.”

When I read her report I was incredulous. She had obviously started out with the assumption that I was crazy and then slanted her data to support that conclusion and slanted it so heavily that I could hardly believe it. For example, she reworded statements of mine to make them sound paranoid or otherwise indicative of mental illness, and in some cases she reported I had said things that were flatly contrary to what I did say. For instance, both in my written autobiography and orally to Dr. Johnson I stated that while I began to get along poorly with the kids on my block at the age of 8 or 9, at the same time I continued to get along well with the kids in school; Johnson said in her report that I began to get along badly both with the kids on my block and with the kids in school. She also indicated that my opinions about the technological society were “non-bizarre delusions” symptomatic of paranoid schizophrenia.

As I read her evaluation I started to ask myself, “Can it be that I actually am crazy?” — because this can’t really be happening; a licensed psychiatrist occupying a responsible position with the government can’t be submitting a report that is this irrational. Luckily, the next day I received a batch of your letters that expressed your support and that of other people you told me about, and this gave me reassurance that there are a lot of people out there who know I’m not crazy. A great relief to me, because without that kind of support it’s possible that the shrinks might be able to convince a man in my position that he actually is insane.

But to tell the truth, now that I look back on it, Johnson’s report eases my mind. Some defense shrinks had concluded that I was a paranoid schizophrenic, but in the reports that I saw, they gave only a sketchy indication of how they arrived at that conclusion. Since they appeared to rely heavily on neuropsychological testing and claimed to be using objective criteria, they had me wondering quite seriously whether I might not have some mild form of paranoid schizophrenia. But Johnson’s report is so inaccurate as to factual details, so irrational generally, and uses such highly subjective criteria, that it takes away all my respect for the shrinks’ methods. Also, when one considers the discrepancies between the interpretations of the prosecution shrinks on the one hand, those of Johnson on the other hand, and those of the defense shrinks on the third hand (it’s convenient to imagine for a moment that we have three hands) it becomes clear that this stuff has no scientific basis.

I hasten to add that I recognize I am different from the average person. I don’t know whether my difference has a neurological basis, and I am not in a position to assert that it has no relation to paranoid schizophrenia. But I am confident that I do not have delusions and am capable of rational thought.

Whew! I’m glad I got all that off my chest. On that subject I will only add that all this fulfills a prediction made by the lawyer who represented me in Montana, Michael Donahoe. He said that the government would try to portray me as sick, but not sick enough to escape the death penalty.

I recently had a talk with Quin Denvir, and he told me that the Federal Defenders at this stage will be quite comfortable about my consulting with outside lawyers, and that they will even facilitate such interactions for me. He specifically mentioned that I might talk with our mutual friend — the one who was scared off by Judy Clarke’s verbal aggression.

If our mutual friend is still willing to talk with me, I believe I can arrange for him to visit me under such conditions that he will not have to come in direct contact with Quin Denvir or Judy Clarke, and I can promise him that they will raise no objections to his visit. Even though the trial is over, I still need legal advice, and for more than one reason the Fed Defenders are not suitable sources for that advice. If our mutual friend is no longer interested in talking to me, can he recommend another lawyer who would be willing to give me some advice pro bono?

The fact that Quin Denvir is actually encouraging me to speak with an outside lawyer means that I no longer feel I have to separate myself from the Fed Defenders, (provided that our mutual friend does not consider my relationship with them to be an obstacle to his meeting with me), because for all practical purposes the Fed Defs will no longer be representing me except at the May 15 sentencing. And it will be convenient for me to keep them formally as my representatives until May 15 because that way they will be able to continue to perform many services for me, such as bringing me documents, etc. Really, they are so helpful and kind to me that I often feel guilty about having had such conflicts with them over the defense strategy.

Please let me know what our mutual friend thinks about this.

One more piece of news: It’s been announced that I will not be prosecuted on a California state charge. I don’t know whether that’s good or bad.

I guess that’s enough for one letter.

P.S. John, I suggest that you save this letter permanently.

Ted to Zerzan — February 2, 1998

Dear John,

At this writing (evening of Feb 2) I have received no message from you since our meeting of this morning, nor have I received any information from the Federal Defenders concerning any interactions that you may have had with them. If and when I get any such info I will comment on it as may seem appropriate.

Meanwhile: In the past you have assured me repeatedly that you believe in my innocence. I’ve been somewhat concerned that my guilty plea may have shaken your belief, so I want to remind you that people sometimes plead guilty without being so, because that may represent the least undesirable alternative in a given legal situation, and I want to assure you that I am not in fact the Unabomber.

With continued gratitude for your friendship and support

Ted

Ted to Zerzan — March 8, 1998

Kaczynski notified Zerzan that he had read his critique of Nihilism and Postmodernism and that he agreed with it “completely.”

Ted to Zerzan — November 29, 1998

Dear (John),

Yes; send me a copy of your new book.

Concerning EF!, my suggestion is that the real revolutionaries among them should with-draw from the existing EF! and form their own movement, which would exclude mere reformers, liberals, leftists, etc. who are afraid of “alienating the middle class.” (Imagine how the war against Hitler would have turned out if Allied soldiers had been afraid of “alienating the Nazis.”) Such a splinter EF! movement might start small, but I have a feeling that it would grow pretty rapidly.

I suggest that one of the biggest mistakes modern American revolutionaries make is that, in the name of “tolerance,” they let anyone and everyone of a vaguely rebellious disposition join their movements. The result is that they get diluted, or even swamped, by large numbers of make-believe revolutionaries for whom rebellion is only a game. Even if it sounds “intolerant,” revolutionaries must form a movement that is exclusive to the extent that it incorporates none but real revolutionaries. Only in this way can the movement have cohesion and the capacity for vigorous action.

Feel free to pass this not on to the editor of the EF! Journal. She can publish it if she likes.

Best regards,
—Ted Kaczynski