Importance of perception: it’s nice to see people waking up – my defence of Ted Kaczynski.

First, I would like to say again that I’m sorry for not posting more and for my inconsistency. It’s hard for me to motivate myself. As I wrote in my recent posts, I would really appreciate it if you could leave comments about what you want me to write about, since there are thousands of topics I could cover. It’s also really demoralizing not knowing whether the people I hope to reach are even reading my work. Sometimes I see things –  like the two videos I have attached to the post – that make me think maybe they are reading my stuff, but more likely it’s just wishful thinking. I don’t even know if Alex and Alexander read my posts.

I’ve written many times that I “woke up” to the truth about the world – what I call the “world of the naive” – almost 20 years ago, during the second Iraq War. Investigating 9/11 and the JFK assassination pushed me further down the rabbit hole and made me finally see the real world. I also wrote that once I understood what I believed to be the real world, another question came to mind: how was this “world of the naive” created in the first place? How do they make people believe in a world built on lies so big they go against basic, elementary laws of physics?

At that point, I decided that if I wanted to be able to challenge this world of the naive, I needed to understand how it was built, and to do that, I needed to understand how the human mind works. This led me into philosophy, psychology, and behaviorism – fields that form the foundation for understanding the human mind and are essential for understanding propaganda, which shapes the naive world most people live in. Because what’s the point of understanding the truth about the world if you can’t communicate it and help others see what you see?

For me, it started with my father, whom I respect greatly. He’s very intelligent – I think I inherited my intelligence from him. When I first understood the truth about 9/11, I tried to explain to him what really happened, and because he’s so smart, I thought he would understand. But my attempts failed. A long time ago, I once received a comment under one of my posts about 9/11 from someone who said his family also thought he was crazy because he understood the truth behind 9/11. That comment made me genuinely happy – I felt a connection to this person, because it made me think I wasn’t alone in what I was going through.

I’m also glad to see people like Brian Berletic and Glenn Diesen going through what I experienced a long time ago. Like me back then, they now have reached the truth, and they’re frustrated that others aren’t accepting it – just like what happened with my father a long time ago. In those videos, both Brian Berletic and Glenn Diesen talk about perception. They already see part of the truth, but they’re frustrated that no one else is accepting it, so they’re starting to tackle the issue of perception. Brian Berletic focuses on the layers of lies on which the world of the naive is built, while Glenn Diesen focuses on perception itself and propaganda. If you check out my older posts, you’ll see that I’ve written about these topics long ago. Like for example those posts:

Introduction to Propaganda

“So they come up with a digestible narrative for the audiences, for you know the citizens who they treat as children. Which is like “he’s in with the bad guys”” That’s the narrative I speak about.

Aldous Huxley and Brave New World: The Dark Side of Pleasure

When you look into this subject, you’ll see that we were warned a long time ago by some of the greatest thinkers of that era. For example, in 1953, the distinguished British philosopher Bertrand Russell explained:

“It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries.” 

― Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society

I even used Bertrand Russell’s Nobel speech in one of my posts.

I also have a problem with one of the posts from The Duran.

On Ted Kaczynski and False Prophets

While I think it’s a great post on a very interesting subject and containing many interesting facts, I believe it also includes several misunderstandings and misconceptions. The post mentions Ted Kaczynski, Bertrand Russell, and Aldous Huxley, but in my opinion, it misrepresents them. Later, I found a great video about Ted Kaczynski.

The creator of this video mistakenly connects Ted Kaczynski to Luigi Mangione, but aside from that, it’s a pretty good video. I read Ted Kaczynski’s manifesto, which is why I don’t agree with how he was characterized in the post from The Duran that I linked. Kaczynski was highly intelligent, and because he participated in an MK-Ultra experiment, he developed strong views about the influence of science on the human mind. He saw what the CIA was capable of doing to someone as intelligent as he was, which frightened him. In my view, he came to the same conclusions that many other thinkers had reached long before - similar to what Bertrand Russell’s quote i mentioned earlier pointed out and what figures like Aldous Huxley also discussed.

“In 1931, when Brave New World was being written, I was convinced that there was still plenty of time. The completely organized society, the scientific caste system, the abolition of free will by methodical conditioning, the servitude made acceptable by regular doses of chemically induced happiness, the orthodoxies drummed in by nightly courses of sleep-teaching — these things were coming all right, but not in my time, not even in the time of my grandchildren…Twenty-seven years later, in this third quarter of the twentieth century A.D., and long before the end of the first century A.F., I feel a good deal less optimistic than I did when I was writing Brave New World. The prophecies made in 1931 are coming true much sooner than I thought they would… The nightmare of total organization…has emerged from the safe, remote future and is now awaiting us, just around the next corner.”

― Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited

The main issue Ted Kaczynski had, in my opinion, was his belief that science and modern society destroy individual freedom. He felt that even a highly intelligent person could have their mind manipulated through scientific methods, something he believed he witnessed during the MK-Ultra experiments - especially considering that scientific capabilities continue to advance in ways that increase the potential for influencing human behavior.

However, in the post I linked, the author focuses only on environmental statements and environmental protection, portraying Ted Kaczynski merely as an eco-terrorist. In my view, that was not the most important aspect of what he was trying to address. The article also criticizes Bertrand Russell, who was trying to warn us in his own way, as well as Aldous Huxley, who similarly attempted to warn society.

I highly recommend Aldous Huxley’s 1962 Berkeley speech, The Ultimate Revolution, where he discusses ideas related to Brave New World.

3:21

Needless to say, some kind of direct action on human minds and bodies has been going on since the beginning of time, but this has generally been of a violent nature. The techniques of terrorism have been known from time immemorial, and people have employed them with more or less ingenuity—sometimes with the utmost crudity, sometimes with a good deal of skill acquired by a process of trial and error, of finding out what the best ways of using torture, imprisonment, and constraints of various kinds are.

But, as I think it was the Metonic said many years ago, "You can do everything with bayonets except sit on them." That is, if you are going to control any population for any length of time, you must have some measure of consent. It's exceedingly difficult to see how pure terrorism can function indefinitely; it can function for a fairly long time, but I think sooner or later, you have to bring in an element of persuasion, an element of getting people to consent to what is happening to them.

It seems to me that the nature of the ultimate revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: we are in the process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy (who have always existed and presumably always will exist) to get people actually to love their servitude. This, you see, seems to me the ultimate in malevolent revolutions.

This is a problem which has interested me for many years and about which I wrote a fable 30 years ago, "Brave New World", which is essentially the account of a society making use of all the devices at that time available (and some of the devices which I imagined to be possible), making use of them in order to, first of all, standardize the population, to iron out inconvenient human differences, to create, so to say, mass-produced models of human beings arranged in some kind of a scientific caste system.

Since then, I have continued to be extremely interested in this problem, and I have noticed with increasing dismay that a number of the predictions which were purely fantastic when I made them 30 years ago have become true or seem in the process of coming true. A number of techniques about which I talked seem to be here already, and there seems to be a general movement in the direction of this kind of ultimate revolution—this method of control by which people can be made to enjoy a state of affairs which by any decent standard they ought not to enjoy; this I mean, the enjoyment of servitude.

This process, as I say, has gone on over the years, and I have become more and more interested in what is happening. Here I would like briefly to compare the parable of Brave New World with another parable which was put forth more recently in George Orwell's book "Nineteen Eighty-Four" .

Orwell wrote his book, I think, between '45 and '48, at the time when the Stalinist terror regime was still in full swing and just after the collapse of the Hitlerian terror regime. His book, which I admire greatly—a book of great talent and extraordinary ingenuity—is, so to say, a projection into the future of what for him was the immediate past and the immediate present. It was a projection into the future of a society where control was exercised wholly by terrorism and violent attacks upon the mind and body of individuals.

Whereas my own book, which was written in 1932 when there was only a mild dictatorship in the form of Mussolini in existence, was not overshadowed by the idea of terrorism. I was therefore free, in a way which Orwell was not free, to think about these other methods of control—these nonviolent methods.

I am inclined to think that the scientific dictatorships of the future (and I think there are going to be scientific dictatorships in many parts of the world) will be probably a good deal nearer to the "Brave New World" pattern than to the "Nineteen Eighty-Four" pattern. They will be a good deal nearer not because of any humanitarian qualms in the dictatorial policymakers, but simply because the Brave New World pattern is probably a good deal more efficient than the other.

If you can get people to consent to the state of affairs in which they are living—the state of servitude, the state of having their differences ironed out and being made amenable to mass-production methods on the social level—if you can do this, then you are likely to have a much more stable and much more lasting society, a much more easily controllable society, than you would if you were relying wholly on clubs, firing squads, and concentration camps.

So that my own feeling is that the Nineteen Eighty-Four picture was tinged, of course, by the immediate past and the present in which Orwell was living, but I feel that the past and present of those years does not represent the likely trend of what is going to happen.

Needless to say, we shall never get rid of terrorism; this will always find its way to the surface. But I think that insofar as dictators become more and more scientific, more and more concerned with a technically perfectly running society, they will be more and more interested in the kind of techniques which I imagined and described from existing realities in Brave New World.

It seems to me, then, that this ultimate revolution is really not very far away; that we already have a number of the techniques for bringing about this kind of control here, and it remains to be seen when, where, and by whom they will first be applied on any large scale.

Does this sound like an evil man trying to push this ‘ultimate revolution’ on people, or like someone who understood the idea, was frightened by it, and wanted to warn us? In my opinion, what Huxley is talking about here is similar to the concerns Ted Kaczynski was trying to raise. Even Whitney Webb has touched on this subject of Huxley in one of the videos I posted earlier.

The world is not black and white, so stop your simplistic analysis. Blackmail and Division within the Deep State — an old video by Whitney Webb.

16:00

You mentioned Huxley. Do you think of Aldous Huxley as somebody who sort of broke away from the family and thought, "I have to get this out to the world with 'Brave New World'," or do you see his views differently?

It's hard to know. I used to read a lot more of his work when I was younger; I don't really have time for pleasure reading anymore. But I did once, when I was, you know, before college, and I read a book that he wrote later on in his life called 'Island' . That was very interesting because it was basically presenting his vision of what a Utopia would be, and then how this giant evil empire basically comes and ruins it.

It seemed like, by the end of his life, he had a very cynical view of how the world was going and wanted a sort of different society, but didn't see any possibility for that to actually exist alongside the "octopus," I guess you could call it—the global power structure that we're dealing with today.

Understanding what Ted Kaczynski, Bertrand Russell, and Aldous Huxley were discussing - and what they were warning us about - is important for examining the human mind and perception. Now that people like Brian Berletic and Glenn Diesen are beginning to understand that the world most people live in is built on illusions - what I call ‘the world of the naive’ - they have started addressing issues of perception and how such a worldview is formed.

It feels strange to watch them go through something I experienced a long time ago. They now understand that most people live in a kind of dream, and they want to wake them up from it. They have come to understand something I realized years ago: understanding reality, truth, or the ‘real world’ is not enough if most people do not accept it. I will quote here one of my heroes who also understood this.

“Now, if people cannot challenge the validity of the evidence you present, they have fallback positions. I remember the Moscow intellectuals back when the Soviet Union existed. In the 1980s, there was a very interesting article written, of all places, in National Review, a conservative right-wing magazine, where the author described the Moscow intellectuals as loving Ronald Reagan, Marlboro cigarettes, and the Confederacy during the Civil War. I thought that was a very accurate description, given the ones I met when I was there. They hated socialism.

A friend of mine had the same experience. She happened to be in Leningrad with the Soviet intellectuals there, and one guy said to her, "The poorest people in your country live better than I do." Now, here's a guy who had gone to Moscow University. He spoke fluent English, had a small but comfortable apartment, a wall full of books, and never missed a meal in his life, but he was convinced that the poorest in your country, in America, lived better than he did. When I used to hear them talk, their eyes would begin to sparkle: "America, America!"

She said, "Well, that's not true. We have people in our country who sleep in doorways and pick through garbage cans and such." And you know what they said to her? They said, "That's all right, you don't have to lie to us anymore." She said, "No, really," and she cited some statistics, talking about this. They asked, "What's the fallback?" The first fallback position was, "Where did you get those figures from?" She said, "From the federal government, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Census Bureau; it's public knowledge."

So their second fallback position was, "Oh, those are just the blacks. The blacks, they're lazy and stupid, and so yeah, they're poor." Yeah, that's a rhetorical fallback position. I've given that a technical term, a descriptive term, and I forgot what I did. Oh yes, racism. I call that racism.

So it so happened that she had a copy of Mother Jones with her, and there was a special photo feature in that issue about the poor of Appalachia, 30 years after Kennedy's war on poverty. In Appalachia, these people were as poor as ever, and there were pictures of their destitution. So she brought this out and said, "Look, Appalachia, they're all white, you know, 90-97%, kind of like Seattle." She said, "Look at this." They looked at the pictures, and they had another fallback position, which was, "Oh, so there are a few white people who are poor out in the country, and so that's so unusual that they made a whole article with photographs about them."

You see, beliefs are not surrendered easily. Beliefs are, rather, frighteningly impervious to evidence. Sometimes the Soviet intellectuals believed America was a capitalist paradise. They knew, by the way, when I spoke to the ones I met in Moscow, they knew so much more about America than I did. I was handicapped by experience and reality, which, as you know, is a messy, multi-dimensional thing. They had all the certainty of inexperience.

The believers in the capitalist paradise were a mirror image of the believers in the Soviet Union as a workers' paradise. There were many people I knew—people in the party, fellow travelers, and such—who had heard so much negative about the communist countries. Everything about them was bad, every single thing. There wasn’t a single positive thing ever said, so their reaction was to reject every single criticism.

A girlfriend I had back in the '80s was a party member, and I remember I would raise questions—not from a position of hostility, but from a position of wanting the system to work a lot better and be more viable. I said, "Look, there are real problems here." We would end up banging heads together. It was just impossible to have a rational discussion and introduce things. I can think of another lady I know, who was in New York—well, it doesn't matter, this was another friend of mine, a third-generation Communist party member.

She says to me, "There is no prostitution in the Soviet Union." I said, "Esther, what are you talking about? This is a country of 340 million people, with wars, scarcities, all the imperfections of human beings, and self-serving exploitations and motives. Are you telling me that in this whole country there is no prostitution?" She said, "There is no prostitution."

A year later, I headed a delegation to the Soviet Union made up of economists and political scientists. I remember our guide in Moscow, a woman in her late 40s or early 50s, saying, "There is no prostitution in my country." Now, we’re trying to explore the nature of belief here. How do people believe? I said to her, "There may not be any prostitution in your country, but there sure is a hell of a lot of it in our hotel right here downstairs."

And you know what she said? Without missing a beat, she said, "Yes, well, I want you to know all those girls have full-time jobs during the day." Talk about a fallback position!

So, if you're engaged in political discourse and political struggle, as I am all the time, you realize you're not doing politics—you're doing religion. It's religion you're dealing with because you're dealing with belief. And it’s a rough deal. I mean, it’s with good reason that we use words like "political dogma" and "sectarian"—these are religious terms.”

― Michael Parenti

I’m adding one more interesting video that I originally forgot to include. I have many interesting things I’d like to share, and I’m thinking about posting more videos without my commentary, but I’m not sure if you’d like that. I would really appreciate it if you could let me know in the comments whether you want me to post more interesting content without my commentary.

4:40

If you think of the way that social media manipulates our brain, it falsifies tribal agreement and it makes us say, "right."

So, we're willing to ignore everything that we see because we're seeing a tribe say that something else is happening. Okay?

So, it'll override our brain. And if there's one thing that matters a lot, it is that our brains are not capable of overcoming this technology. We don't have a firewall, and technology has outpaced our brain's ability to adapt to it.

“Our brains are not capable of overcoming this technology,” “technology has outpaced our brain’s ability to adapt to it.” Does he sound here just like Ted Kaczynski? Or Huxley or Russell, and there are many others who understood what was coming. Ted Kaczynski’s main thing was not being some eco-terrorist; what he understood, thanks to being a subject of MKUltra, is the fact that technology gives the ability to influence our minds, and that with technological progress ability of some people to influence our minds will increase further, which in the end will lead us to losing our freedom. The first step is understanding how much of what you think are your own thoughts are not really your thoughts. When you mention MKUltra and mind control, people think about sci-fi and some impossible thing, while in reality it’s just PR and advertising. People long ago understood how our mind works, and their understanding of it didn’t stop and with the progress of science their ability to influence us also progressed. I don’t agree with Ted Kaczynski about everything, and I don’t think the solution is for us to become Luddites, but I agree with Kaczynski, Russell, Huxley, and many others that the threat is real, and the first step in fighting this threat is acknowledging its existence by understanding that not all our thoughts are our own and that mind control is not some kind of sci-fi idea.

In a report released in 2021, scientists on a subcommittee of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) in the UK admitted to using “totalitarian” mind-control tactics to obtain mass-compliance. One scientist went as far as to state that he was “stunned by the weaponisation of behavioural psychology over the last five years”, while another admitted:  

“You could call psychology ‘mind control’. That’s what we do… clearly we try and go about it in a positive way, but it has been used nefariously in the past. Psychology has been used for wicked ends.”  

― Laura Dodsworth, A State of Fear

Thanks to everyone who stuck with me until the end of my post. And, as always… 

“Knowledge will make you be free.”

― Socrates

+

“Knowledge isn’t free. You have to pay attention.”

― Richard P. Feynman

=

“Freedom is not free, you need to pay attention.”

― Grzegorz Ochman

Please pay enough attention, or we’re all screwed!

"There is no better breeding ground for the bacteria of falsehood and legends than fear of the truth and lack of will."

— Józef Piłsudski