Ted Kaczynski’s Letter to Mr. K.

Dear Mr. K.:

To answer your questions:

• I was acquainted with McVeigh & with the other individual{1} you mention, but they were never friends of mine. The “other individual”, by the way, was a habitual liar. I’m not sure either of these two individuals had any definite goals other than destructiveness for its own sake, but their goals, if they had any, had nothing in common with my goals.

• The goals of nationalism and ethno-nationalism are the goals only of fools. Such goals only distract attention from the one goal that is overwhelmingly more important than all other goals put together. To state it in simplified terms, that one goal is to get rid of the technological system before it gets rid of us. See ISAIF (*Industrial Society and Its Future), P 206. In the passage you quote from ISAIF, P 18, underline the word “appear”. I was merely making a point about the psychology of leftists. I’m not interested in questions of “superiority” or “inferiority” except to the extent that I am firmly opposed to any notions of ethnic, racial, or gender “superiority” or “inferiority”, because such notions only generate conflicts that distract attention & energy from the main goal. See ISAIF, P 191–92. Whether we like it or not we’re all in this together, and any successful effort to get rid of the technological system will have to span all races, ethnic-groups, genders, etc.

• On climate change: My answer is “yes.” You need to read my books

  Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How (2016), available from
  www.feralhouse.com or amazon.com

  Volume 1 of a new and greatly improved edition of Tech Slavery will soon be published by Fitch & Madison.

  You’ll find my views on global warming in Tech Slavery (2010), pages 303, 314, 363-64 and Anti-Tech Revolution, pages 64-68, 215-17.

If you find after reading the books that you would like to assist us in building an anti-tech movement, and if you are willing to put a great deal of time & effort into the work, then I invite you to write me again. We need young people like you!

One last point before I close: The “primitive” societies that you mention in the next-to-last paragraph of your letter are not normally considered primitive--not by a long, long way. To be considered “primitive”, a society must at a minimum satisfy the following requirements: It must have no form of writing; no cities; no social organization above the level of the tribe. And “crime rate” here refers to crime as defined by the norms of the society in question. E.g., if the society in question does not consider it a crime for people to fight each other with deadly weapons, then such fighting (even if it has fatal results) is not included in the crime rate as I’m using the term. It would be silly to try to apply a concept of “crime” that is suitable for one kind of society to another society of a totally different kind. Lastly, my remark about crime rates was meant to apply only to societies whos social structure has not been radically disrupted by the intrusion of modern civilization. Once such disruption has occurred, traditional norms usually disintergrate to such an extent that the concept of “crime” becomes almost meaningless.

True, even if the term “crime” is understood as in the preceding paragraph, my remark about crime rates in many (notice that I did not say all) primitive societies possibly might be open to dispute.

P.S. Please note my correct address (on the envelope). — TJK

{1} I won’t mention his name because I think he is still a federal inmate, and federal inmates are not allowed to mention the names of other federal inmates in their correspondence. Actually, I’m surprised that your letter was allowed to reach me, given that you did mention this individual.