Past socities offered more personal freedom

"It is said that we live in a free society because we have a certain number of constitutionally guaranteed rights. But these are not as important as they seem. The degree of personal freedom that exists in a society is determined more by the economic and technological structure of the society than by its laws or its form of government. Most of the Indian nations of New England were monarchies, and many of the cities of the Italian Renaissance were controlled by dictators. But in reading about these societies one gets the impression that they allowed far more personal freedom than our society does. In part this was because they lacked efficient mechanisms for enforcing the ruler’s will: There were no modern, well-organized police forces, no rapid long-distance communications, no surveillance cameras, no dossiers of information about the lives of average citizens. Hence it was relatively easy to evade control".

- Ted Kaczynski (The Nature of Freedom p.95)

Primitive life was more fulfilling because their lives were woven into community, nature and and purposeful tasks such as hunting and providing for your family. Primitive man was not burdened by alienating work, chronic stress or complex societal hierarchies. Their needs were simple, their relationships direct, and their sense of purpose came naturally from survival, cooperation and belonging.
Return to the natural ways of life.

Civilization presents itself as progress, but in truth it is a prison. Before agriculture and the rise of complex societies, humans lived in small bands where no state our authority forced people into obedience. Life was guided by cooperation, not domination. Yet once we began storing surplus and dividing labour, complicated hierarchical structures were born. Chiefs, kings and eventually the modern state rose to power, and with them came taxation, laws, prison and labour.

Another point i want to make is that in hunter-gatherer societies, securing food rarely took more than a few hours a day. The rest was filled with play, rest and community. Civilization destroyed that rythm with the introduction of agriculture that demanded endless labour in the fields. Hierarchy was born together with the creation of civilization in order to protect the surplus. What was once a life of freedom sustained by cooperation, became a system of control. This has meant the erosion of our autonomy.

The techno-industrial systen must collapse as soon as possible.

The collapse of the system is not a tragedy, but a necessity. The sooner the system destroys itself, the better the chance humanity has to rebuild a natural, free existence. To delay its fall is to prolong the suffering and tighten the chains. Acceleration of collapse is an act of liberation — a way to tear down the technological prison before it becomes eternal.

What you are looking at is not a typical machine.

Researchers are already experimenting with bio-hybrid robotics, lab-grown tissues, and organic systems that can move, react, and regenerate in ways traditional machines cannot.

This is an insult to nature and must be stopped at all cost.

"There is goоd reason to believe that primitive mаn suffered from less stress and frustration and was better satisfied with his way of life than modern mаn is".

- Theodore John Kaczynski

As children, we were given books in ready-made forms. The book was always right, curiosity and thinking outside of the education board's framework was frowned upon. As teens, were were taught subjects we did not want to learn. When we became depressed and hopelessness, society offered us antidepressant drugs instead of removing the conditions that make people depressed.

We were born in a world where we are told to follow schedules and abide by laws that shape and mould us into obedient pawns. Nobody ever stopped to ask whether or not we enjoyed the life given to us.

Many people do not understand the root of their own frustration, hence they are directionless. We learn that there is much more to life and the system is at fault.

"Imagine an alcoholic sitting with a barrel of wine in front of him. Suppose he starts saying to himself, “Wine isn’t bad for you if used in moderation. Why, they say small amounts of wine are even good for you! It won’t do me any harm if I take just one little drink....” Well, you know what is going to happen. Never forget that the human race with technology is just like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine".

- Theodore John Kaczynski (ISAIF - Strategy | paragraph; 203)

ALL ORGANIZATION-DEPENDANT TECHNOLOGY MUST BE ABOLISHED

Many anti-civ ideologies like anarcho-communism that is cloaked in the false generosity of ecologism, argue that not all technology is inherently bad and can instead serve a use to "protect" humans and the natural environment. Already there are many flaws one can point out with this. "Bad" technology cannot be separated from the supposed "good" because modern technology is an interconnected system in which every part depends on the other. Technologies that seem beneficial like medicine or communication tools rely on the same industrial infrastructure that produces harmful or oppressive technologies. This essentially means that you cannot keep one without also sustaining the system.
All organization-dependant technology ends up enroaching on human freedom.

"Unlike you I am not confident that civilization will go down in the reasonably near future. Even just the elimination of the technoindustrial system is very problematic, and we must exert ourselves to the utmost in an effort to assure that it will happen. That is why I strongly disagree with your statement that “it is our primary task” to see that civilization goes down “at a minimum cost to human…life.” I think we have a desperate struggle ahead of us, and if we pull our punches we are sure to lose. Here’s what will happen if we worry about conserving human life: Suppose the system is on the brink of collapse. Do we give it a push, or do we scramble to keep things together so that the system will survive? You presumably realize what will happen if the system collapses: There won’t be any fuel or spare parts for farm machinery, there won’t be any of the pesticides or artificial fertilizers on which modern agriculture has become dependent, and the trucks and trains won’t be running to transport any food that is produced to the places where it’s needed. Consequently, people won’t have enough to eat. Not to mention other necessities such as clothing, fuel for heating and cooking, or potable water. There probably will be fighting over food and other scarce resources. That’s why the collapse of the technoindustrial system will probably unleash aggressive and competitive impulses. Also male dominance, since men for obvious reasons tend to assume leadership in a fighting situation".

- Theodore John Kaczynski (Kaczynski letter to Derrick Jensen | 1998 • no date)

𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝙁𝙄𝙉𝘼𝙇 𝙍𝙀𝙑𝙊𝙇𝙐𝙏𝙄𝙊𝙉

"If we are ever to get rid of the system, we will have to accept the consequences. The human race will have to pass through fire. When a species becomes too numerous, typically it reaches a point where it suffers a sudden population collapse through starvation, epidemic, or whatever. The human race should be subject to the same law".

- Theodore John Kaczynski (Kaczynski letter to Derrick Jensen | 1998)

The system will inevitably destroy itself, but do not take this a sense of security. The collapse may be hindered by opposing forces that will try to reinforce the defense of the techno-industrial system. The collapse will only happen when the system is sufficiently unstable, and our movement strong enough to strike. We will have to out-recruit the rival groups. That is, we have to try to get more people on our side than they have.