dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

How many boys and men have been targeted for FBI false flags and are now in prison or dead. Make a list to show the extremely gross pattern by FBI and DOJ.

Gary John mikulich. NO TRIAL GIVEN

Jerry Drake Varnell. Parents say FBI set him up.

Read this:

https://www.rightsanddissent.org/news/fbi-paid-informant-mentally-ill-man-another-fake-terror-plot/

These men need justice.

Gary mikulich would have said so much in a trial thatmay have sou dedcrazy, but was it really the truth, so no trial given, just forced medicated and imprisioned, for so many years now.

>How about freeing him, getting out of federal doctors and therapists hands, clearing his mind and then letting him have a trial where he can be heard as to what he says happened. Even if sounds crazy, as they claim he is schizpophrenic, ( I believe dr. Induced shit, personally. Smart , brilliant boys found early in school and made ill) Any crazy sou ding shit needs to be fully heard by Gary, so it can be looked into in light of what we all now know the FBI does. Weird sounding events or happenings may just sound really weird and crazy as still be true. Putting Gary in prision for decades and no trial and forced medication seems like silencing. IN AMERICA to an AMERICAN MAN.

Justice for Gary Mikilich

http://besser.tsoa.nyu.edu/howard/Anarchism/Unabom/manifesto2.html

>>18669281

>>18669273

http://besser.tsoa.nyu.edu/howard/Anarchism/Unabom/manifesto.html

Anonymous ID: f4cbbd April 9, 2023, 6:38 p.m. No.18669309 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>9327

The FBI and DOJ need to be held accountable for their setup of Americans who have free thinking minds.

2023 we see the agenda to silence and fuck peoples lives to push narratives they want and silence any opposition.

>>18669284 Did Gary Mikulich say no and they made him anyway? What happened in college?

>>18669273 part one Ted Maifesto

>>18669281 part two

http://besser.tsoa.nyu.edu/howard/Anarchism/Unabom/index.html

This site links to articles and commentary about the Unabom spectacle. Of particular interest is public discourse, the role of media and public officials, and an attempt to discover what the Unabomber's views really are. (Unapack Website – most extensive site supporting Unabomber's anti-tech views)

Unabom Suspect Arrested 4/4/96

Earth First! Responds to April 5 ABC News Story Blaming Them April 7

U.S. Detains Ex-Professor as Unabomber Suspect, NY Times, April 4, 1996

Unabomber Suspect in Custody, SF Chronicle, April 4, 1996

Harvard grad jailed in Unabomber case, USA Today, April 4, 1996

WWW site for the Freedom Club (interesting Unabomber info)

Role of Media and Public Officials

Letter from Penthouse Publisher to Unabomber (that appears to be an ad for Penthouse)

Unabomber Calls Threat a Prank, But security at airports remains tight, (6/29/95 San Francisco Chronicle)

Unabomer Makes Fools of Government and Media, commentary on public officials' actions after late June 1995 threat to blow up airliner (7/2/95)

Rants on current events–a "bomber" becomes a "serial killer"

Hints about the Unabomber's Views

Unabomber's Manifesto, nicely formatted by Time-Warner

Unabomber's Manifesto, full text in two linked files (may be too large for some WWW viewers)

Condensed version of Unabomber's Manifesto

Letters sent by the Unabomber

Unabomber's letter to NY Times demanding publication of his manifesto

Kirkpatrick Sale comments on the Unabomber's views

Much has been written about the FBI giving copies of the Unabomber's tract to University Professors to analyze (see, for example, Scholars find no cludes in Unabom writings–SF Examiner 8/13/95). Many professors contend that his arguments "are familiar to anyone with a background in political science" but "rarely heard in the mainstream media". This appears to be one of the Unabomber's main points: that these ideas do not get wide circulation (and are unknown to most people). This is why he feels he needs to resort to such drastic actions.

NY Times publishes excerpts from the Unabomber's Manifesto, August 2, 1995

Unabomber sends his Manifesto, one of the few sources that gives more than one line about his views (6/30/95 San Francisco Chronicle)

Excepts from Analysis of Unabomber's Manuscript by the Washington Post

Some anti-technology anarchists comment on Unabomber (5/16/95 San Francisco Chronicle)

Information about Anarchism on the WorldWide Web

Example of a critique of technology

Are You the Unabomber?, by Kevin Fagan, San Francisco Chronicle, July 21, 1995

Sources for news updates

FBI Unabom Information

San Jose Mercury site for Unabom articles (some of these are hilarious pop-psych)

Investigators (think they're) Zeroing in on Elusive Unabomber, by Kevin Fagan, San Francisco Chronicle, August 8, 1995

Chronology of Unabomber's atentats

return to "Impact of New Technologies" Homepage

>>18669273

>>18669309

was Ted ahead of his time as we read 2023

Industrial Society and its Future

(Manifesto of FC–the Unabomber

part one:

http://besser.tsoa.nyu.edu/howard/Anarchism/Unabom/manifesto.html

part two:

http://besser.tsoa.nyu.edu/howard/Anarchism/Unabom/manifesto2.html

PB

READ IT

READ

>part one:

>http://besser.tsoa.nyu.edu/howard/Anarchism/Unabom/manifesto.html

>part two:

>http://besser.tsoa.nyu.edu/howard/Anarchism/Unabom/manifesto2.html

>>18669273

>>18669327

>>18669339

TED was right.

http://besser.tsoa.nyu.edu/howard/Anarchism/Unabom/manifesto.html

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM

Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.

But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by "leftism" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)

Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn't seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.

Anonymous ID: f4cbbd April 9, 2023, 6:48 p.m. No.18669367 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>9373

>>18669354

Our discussion of leftism has a serious weakness. It is still far from clear what we mean by the word "leftist." There doesn't seem to be much we can do about this. Today leftism is fragmented into a whole spectrum of activist movements. Yet not all activist movements are leftist, and some activist movements (e.g., radical environmentalism) seem to include both personalities of the leftist type and personalities of thoroughly un-leftist types who ought to know better than to collaborate with leftists. Varieties of leftists fade out gradually into varieties of non-leftists and we ourselves would often be hard-pressed to decide whether a given individual is or is not a leftist. To the extent that it is defined at all, our conception of leftism is defined by the discussion of it that we have given in this article, and we can only advise the reader to use his own judgment in deciding who is a leftist.

But it will be helpful to list some criteria for diagnosing leftism. These criteria cannot be applied in a cut and dried manner. Some individuals may meet some of the criteria without being leftists, some leftists may not meet any of the criteria. Again, you just have to use your judgment.

The leftist is oriented toward large-scale collectivism. He emphasizes the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. He has a negative attitude toward individualism. He often takes a moralistic tone. He tends to be for gun control, for sex education and other psychologically "enlightened" educational methods, for social planning, for affirmative action, for multi- culturalism. He tends to identify with victims. He tends to be against competition and against violence, but he ofte finds excuses for those leftists who do commit violence. He is fond of using the common catch-phrases of the left, like "racism," "sexism," "homophobia," "capitalism," "imperialism," "neocolonialism," "genocide," "social change," "social justice," "social responsibility." Maybe the best diagnostic trait of the leftist is his tendency to sympathize with the following movements: feminism, gay rights, ethnic rights, disability rights, animal rights, political correctness. Anyone who strongly sympathizes with ALL of these movements is almost certainly a leftist. [36]

The more dangerous leftists, that is, those who are most power-hungry, are often characterized by arrogance or by a dogmatic approach to ideology. However, the most dangerous leftists of all may be certain oversocialized types who avoid irritating displays of aggressiveness and refrain from advertising their leftism, but work quietly and unobtrusively to promote collectivist values, "enlightened" psychological techniques for socializing children, dependence of the individual on the system, and so forth. These crypto-leftists (as we may call them) approximate certain bourgeois types as far as practical action is concerned, but differ from them in psychology, ideology and motivation. The ordinary bourgeois tries to bring people under control of the system in order to protect his way of life, or he does so simply because his attitudes are conventional. The crypto-leftist tries to bring people under control of the system because he is a True Believer in a collectivistic ideology. The crypto-leftist is differentiated from the average leftist of the oversocialized type by the fact that his rebellious impulse is weaker and he is more securely socialized. He is differentiated from the ordinary well-socialized bourgeois by the fact that there is some deep lack within him that makes it necessary for him to devote himself to a cause and immerse himself in a collectivity. And maybe his (well-sublimated) drive for power is stronger than that of the average bourgeois.

http://besser.tsoa.nyu.edu/howard/Anarchism/Unabom/manifesto2.html

>>18669273

>>18669327

>>18669339

Anonymous ID: f4cbbd April 9, 2023, 6:49 p.m. No.18669373 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>9386

FINAL NOTE

Throughout this article we've made imprecise statements and statements that ought to have had all sorts of qualifications and reservations attached to them; and some of our statements may be flatly false. Lack of sufficient information and the need for brevity made it impossible for us to formulate our assertions more precisely or add all the necessary qualifications. And of course in a discussion of this kind one must rely heavily on intuitive judgment, and that can sometimes be wrong. So we don't claim that this article expresses more than a crude approximation to the truth.

All the same, we are reasonably confident that the general outlines of the picture we have painted here are roughly correct. Just one possible weak point needs to be mentioned. We have portrayed leftism in its modern form as a phenomenon peculiar to our time and as a symptom of the disruption of the power process. But we might possibly be wrong about this. Oversocialized types who try to satisfy their drive for power by imposing their morality on everyone have certainly been around for a long time. But we THINK that the decisive role played by feelings of inferiority, low self-esteem, powerlessness, identification with victims by people who are not themselves victims, is a peculiarity of modern leftism. Identification with victims by people not themselves victims can be seen to some extent in 19th century leftism and early Christianity but as far as we can make out, symptoms of low self-esteem, etc., were not nearly so evident in these movements, or in any other movements, as they are in modern leftism. But we are not in a position to assert confidently that no such movements have existed prior to modern leftism. This is a significant question to which historians ought to give their attention.

TED was right.

kek

clever

Anonymous ID: f4cbbd April 9, 2023, 6:53 p.m. No.18669401 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>9427

small town white brilliant man

you get it

"shut the fuck up ted" (sez fbi and DOJ)