Why Christians Don’t Celebrate New Year’s

from HERE

Millions keep New Year’s without knowing why—or where it originated. While some question its observance, of course most see nothing wrong with such a celebration. Have you ever considered—much less investigated—WHY you believe and practice what you do?

January 1st, the stroke of midnight: Phil and Julia party like there is no tomorrow, on a ballroom dance floor crowded with men in tuxedoes and women in evening gowns.

Ralph, feeling happy and warm, weaves through traffic, while drunk behind the wheel of a potential killing machine, oblivious to the danger he presents to himself and to others. Todd and Mara, strangers who have just met, exchange kisses while dancing to 120 beats per minute in a dark nightclub. Fred runs outside his house, points his pistol into the air, and fires off a few rounds. Marta sits on a bench in a cold cathedral and whispers the same prayer over and over again. Susan sits at home watching television and envies the masses that crowd together at Times Square and wishes she was there, anywhere, instead of home alone on New Year’s.

And yet there are a few others scattered around the world who will not be out on New Year’s Eve. They will not be partying on a ballroom dance floor, or drinking and driving, or exchanging illicit kisses with strangers, or firing pistols into the air, or sitting beside other professing Christians, praying by rote. And they will not be sitting at home alone, wishing they were out and about with the rest of the world, ringing in the new year. Instead, they will treat New Year’s like just another ordinary day.


Because they are true Christians—those who carefully hold fast to the exact same truths, teachings and traditions which Jesus Christ taught His apostles to pass on to the New Testament Church (Matt. 28:18-20). True Christians do not celebrate New Year’s. They do not get caught up in its “eat-drink-and-be-merry-for-tomorrow-we-die” attitude. And they do not crave to imitate those who do. Yet the vast majority of professing Christians today see nothing wrong with observing New Year’s. They do not see what the “big deal” is. Nor do they care.

What about you? Do you want to know why true Christians—whose calling and goal is to imitate the perfect, sin-free life of Jesus Christ—choose not to celebrate New Year’s or get caught up in its excitement? If so, read on. You may be surprised to learn the PLAIN TRUTH that most “Christian” church leaders refuse to teach.

A Brief History of New Year’s

“The earliest-known record of a New Year’s festival dates from about 2000 BC in Mesopotamia, where the New Year (Akiu) commenced with the new moon nearest the spring equinox (mid-March; Babylonia) or nearest the autumn equinox (mid-September; Assyria)” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1998). “New Year’s Day, the first day of the year. Among ancient peoples the beginning of the year was determined by one of various events, such as the spring or autumnal equinox or the winter or summer solstice. In Egypt, for example, beginning about 2773 BC, the year began with the heliacal rising of Sirius, which coincided with the start of the flood period of the Nile and came not long after the summer solstice” (Encyclopedia Americana, 1999). The Ancient Egyptians, Phoenicians and Persians began their new year with the autumn equinox (September 21), while the Greeks, up until the 5th century BC, observed their new year with the winter solstice (December 21).

“Many ancient peoples…performed rituals to do away with the past and purify themselves for the new year. For example, some people put out fires they were using and started new ones” (World Book, 2001). The Celts celebrated the new year on November 1, marking the end of summer and the harvest, and the beginning of the cold, dark winter ahead (this was a precursor to Halloween). They built “sacred” bonfires to scare off evil spirits and to honor their sun god.

In early times, the ancient Romans gave each other New Year’s gifts of branches from sacred trees. In later years, they gave gold-covered nuts or coins imprinted with pictures of Janus, the god of gates, doors, and beginnings. January was named after Janus, who had two faces—one looking forward and the other looking backward” (World Book, 2001).

“By the Roman republican calendar the year began on March 1; after 153 BC the official date was January 1, and this was confirmed by the Julian calendar (46 BC)…In early medieval times most of Christian Europe regarded March 25 (Annunciation Day) as the beginning of the year, though for Anglo-Saxon England New Year’s Day was December 25” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1998).

Since the Roman Catholic Church leaders falsely believed that Christ was born on December 25 (to learn more, read our booklet The True Origin of Christmas), they assumed His mother Mary conceived Him on March 25th, nine months earlier: “March 25th is called the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary…It celebrates the occasion when the Archangel Gabriel appeared to the young Jewish maiden and announced to her that she was to be the mother of Jesus…Although the Church began very early to commemorate this event, the date itself cannot have been fixed before the date of Christmas was established, which was sometime late in the fourth century. The two dates are dependent on each other, because they must normally have been nine months apart…Then, reaching all the way back, people decided that this was not only the day on which Christ’s earthly life began—it was the day everything began, the day of Creation itself. From here it was a very short step—an almost unavoidable one—to the idea that March 25th must be the beginning of the year, and from the twelfth century until the calendar reform in 1752, March 25th was New Year’s day” (Days and Customs of All Faiths, Howard V. Harper, 1957).

As you can plainly see, the history of New Year’s Eve and New Year’s day speaks for itself, how it originated in the minds of men—pagan idol-worshippers—and how it slowly developed over the centuries.

Now notice God’s view of New Year’s, and any holiday that has its roots in pagan practices, customs and traditions. You may be shocked by what He has to say.

God Hates All Pagan Customs and Traditions—Including New Year’s
Let’s begin with Jeremiah 10:2-3: “Learn not the way of the heathen…for the customs of the people are vain.” That’s a Bible command. Throughout His Word, God describes “heathen” as those who worship nature (the sun, moon, stars, trees, etc.), or man-made idols, or anything but the one true God. He calls such people and their practices pagan. True Christians understand that God hates any customs, practices and traditions that have pagan roots.

How serious is God about paganism? When He rescued the twelve tribes of Israel from Egypt and led them out of brutal slavery, He commanded them, “After the doings of the land of Egypt, where in you dwelt, you shall not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, where I bring you, shall you not do: neither shall you walk in their ordinances” (Lev. 18:3). God demanded the Israelites not defile themselves with the practices and customs of the surrounding nations (vs. 24-29). “Therefore shall you keep My ordinance, that you commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that you defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God” (vs. 30).

God cursed Egypt with ten plagues and freed Israel from slavery. He parted the Red Sea and led them to safety. He fed them manna from heaven, protected them from battle-tested Gentile armies, delivered them into the Promised Land, and drove out their enemies. How did Israel treat God in turn? “Our fathers understood not Your wonders in Egypt; they remembered not the multitude of Your mercies; but provoked Him at the sea, even at the Red Sea…They soon forgot His works; they waited not for His counsel: but lusted exceedingly in the wilderness, and tempted God in the desert…They made a calf in Horeb, and worshiped the molten image. Thus they changed their glory into the similitude of an ox that eats grass. They forgot God their Savior, Which had done great things in Egypt; wondrous works in the land of Ham, and terrible things by the Red Sea…they despised the pleasant land, they believed not His word: but murmured in their tents, and hearkened not unto the voice of the LORD…They joined themselves also unto Baal-peor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead. Thus they provoked Him to anger with their intentions” (Psa. 106:7, 13-14, 19-22, 24-25, 28-29).

God had explicitly commanded Israel to cast out and utterly destroy all nations that occupied the Promised Land (Canaan). Above all, they were not to make political alliances with them or marry into their families (Deut. 7:1-3, 5, 16). “For they will turn away your sons from following Me, that they may serve other gods” (vs. 4).

But the Israelites—who thought they knew better than God—decided to do things their own way. “They did not destroy the nations, concerning whom the LORD commanded them: but were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works: and they served their idols: which were a snare unto them. Yes, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils. And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. Thus they were defiled with their own works, and went whoring with their own inventions” (Psa. 106:34-39).

To wake them up and get them back on track to being the model nation He had originally intended, God gave Israel over to their enemies. Israel repented. God rescued them. Then Israel pursued other gods. God punished them again. Israel repented again. So went the deliverance-idolatry-punishment-repentance cycle (vs. 40-46), until finally, God had no other choice but to “divorce” unfaithful Israel (Jer. 3:6-11). He used the Assyrians to brutally invade, conquer, relocate and enslave the northern kingdom of Israel (II Kings 17), which “disappeared” into history, having forgotten their true national identity (even today, the modern-day descendants of those ten “lost” tribes do not understand who they are). Later, God sent the southern kingdom of Judah into Babylonian exile (II Kings 24 and 25).

This happened because they lusted after pagan customs, rituals, traditions and ways. As you can see, the one true God does not take pagan practices lightly.

God Is NOT the Author of Confusion

True Christians know that “God is not the author of confusion but of peace” (I Cor. 14:33). The original Greek word used here for “confusion” also means instability, disorder, commotion, tumult—words that perfectly describe New Year’s chaotic history. For thousands of years, men kept changing the beginning of their New Year from spring to fall, from March 1 to January 1 (and in some cases, December 25), to March 25, back to January 1 again—the dead of winter! “January 1 was restored as New Year’s Day by the Gregorian calendar (1582), immediately adopted by Roman Catholic countries. Other countries slowly followed suit: Scotland, 1660; Germany and Denmark, about 1700; England, 1752; Sweden, 1753; and Russia, 1918” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1998).

Even today, men cannot agree on the same date. “Chinese New Year is celebrated officially for a month beginning in late January or early February” (Ibid.). “The Muslim New Year falls on the first day of the month of Muharram and commemorates the date of the Hegira (July 16, 622 A.D., on the Gregorian calendar), the starting point of the Muslim calendar. Since the Muslim year is a lunar one consisting of only 354 days, the commencement of the new year fluctuates widely by the Western calendar” (Encyclopedia Americana). The Vietnamese New Year, Tet, falls between January 21 and February 19. “The Jewish New Year, a solemn occasion called Rosh Ha-Shannah, is observed during September or early October. Hindus in different parts of India celebrate the new year on various dates” (World Book, 2001). This is what happens when people insist on relying on their own judgment rather than trusting the One who designed the entire universe and everything in it.

Not only is the history of New Year’s confusing and chaotic, but so is the holiday itself. For some reason, people tend to let go of all inhibition—and many times self-respect—and simply go wild on New Year’s. They drink too much, “hooking up” with people they barely know, for quick affairs that yield life-long repercussions—and shoot guns off into the air to “ring in the new year.” Many throw away common sense in order to have a good time before the night is over. In most cases, the only thing people regret is that they have hangovers the next morning. However, that is usually the least of their problems.

According to MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), on New Year’s Eve (1999), 43 out of 117 total U.S.-wide traffic fatalities—36.5 percent—were alcohol-related. The following New Year’s Eve, the number jumped to 75 out of 147—51.2 percent. On New Year’s Day (1999) 65.7 percent of all U.S. traffic deaths were alcohol-rated, the highest percentage for any holiday that year! That same New Year’s weekend had 53.8 percent. Think about it. People died because of the foolishness of others.

When America was still in its infancy, “many American colonists in New England celebrated the new year by firing guns into the air and shouting” (World Book, 2001). Unfortunately, that tradition still thrives in some parts of the United States. In 1993, the New Orleans newspaper, The Times-Picayune, published a front-page informational graphic reminding citizens about the law of gravity: that whatever goes up (bullets) eventually must come down somewhere. Sadly, few heeded the warning. In fact, a top news editor for the paper who had just moved into town that year received a taste of this tradition—a bullet hole in his brand new car! Only a few years ago, a woman celebrating New Year’s in the French Quarter (which is along the Mississippi River) was struck down and instantly killed by a bullet. Authorities believed that the shot was fired from the other side of that massive river!

Obviously, a holiday this chaotic, violent and dangerous does not reflect God’s command to “Let all things be done decently and in order” (I Cor. 14:40). All true Christians recognize this about New Year’s celebrations and avoid them.

True Christians Live by God’s Word—Not by “Traditions of Men”

True Christians know that they must live “by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4). They know that man cannot rely on himself to determine right from wrong, good from evil. Why? Because “the heart [mind] is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” (Jer. 17:9), and “the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jer. 10:23). God’s ways are higher, better, than man’s ways (Isa. 55:8-9). He designed us and gave us life. Wouldn’t He know how we are supposed to live?

God (your Creator) has given you (His creation) an “instruction manual” to help you live your life the way He originally intended (John 10:10). That “manual”—the Holy Bible—is God’s Word and His truth (John 17:17). It is filled with spiritual laws, statutes, and judgments guided by perfect spiritual knowledge, understanding and wisdom. II Timothy 3:16-17 states, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine [teaching], for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” Only God’s Word can accurately distinguish right from wrong, righteousness (obedience to God’s commandments – Psalm 119:172) from sin (breaking God’s spiritual laws – I John 3:4 and Romans 7:17).

True Christians understand that, as the only real standard of truth man can live by, God’s Holy Scriptures “cannot be broken” (John 10:35).

But most people—even most professing Christians—love to follow the ideas of men. Jesus recognized this, warning, “This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. Howbeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men…Full well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition…making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which you have delivered” (Mark 7:6-9, 13).

God commands His people not to follow pagan practices. Yet mankind follows them anyway. Nowhere in the Bible does God command true Christians to celebrate New Year’s. Nor are there any positive biblical examples of true Christians celebrating New Year’s. Yet, society (including most professing Christians) thumbs its nose at God, in effect telling Him, “We’ll decide what we should or should not do!”
Now what about New Year’s? Can you find any biblical examples of God’s loyal, righteous followers celebrating New Year’s Eve or New Year’s Day? What about David, a man after God’s own heart? What about Abraham, the father of the faithful? What about Moses, or even Christ?

The answer is NO. Nor can you find a biblical command from God to celebrate such a day. Yet that does not stop most professing Christians from doing so. Christians actively search the Scriptures to learn God’s will. Their life’s mission is to live by God’s Word alone—not by the traditions of men, including pagan New Year’s celebrations!

God Has His OWN Calendar, With Its Own “New Year”

When God instituted the Passover to Israel, He also revealed to them His sacred calendar: “This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you” (Ex. 12:2). God’s calendar begins in the spring, between March and April of this world’s calendar system. Leviticus chapter 23 reveals all the special holy days (annual sabbaths) that true Christians are to observe. They are dictated by GOD’S calendar, not man’s (to learn more, read our booklet The Truth About God’s Calendar). Although the Bible tells us when His calendar year begins, God does not command—or even suggest—that His followers cast aside all self-control and celebrate the new year like animals gone wild.
Real Christians understand what days they are commanded to observe: Passover, Days of Unleavened Bread, Feast of Firstfruits (Pentecost), Feast of Trumpets, Day of Atonement, Feast of Tabernacles, and the Last Great Day, all clearly projected on God’s sacred calendar. Christ kept them, and so did the apostles (Matt. 26:17-19, 26-28; 28:18-20; I Cor. 5:6-8).

Most professing Christians believe these special days are only for the Jews. They would rather blindly observe pagan holidays, instituted in humanly-devised calendars. True Christians know better.

This Is Satan’s World—True Christians Must Come Out of It
God’s true servants realize that this world belongs to Satan. He rules it. He runs it, through men, using mass deception, lies, slander, corruption and intrigue: “And the great dragon...that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceives the whole world” (Rev. 12:9). Satan was the serpent who misled Adam and Eve into eating from the forbidden tree, thus cutting their offspring—mankind through the ages—off from God (Gen. 3). And Satan is the same evil spirit who misleads man into committing every sin under the sun.

As you read this, somewhere a little child is being abused. Someone is being murdered. Someone else is being robbed. As long as Satan rules this world, mankind will drown in sins—including pagan customs and practices, which may seem harmless to the average person, but are a stench to God’s nostrils.

Looking into the near future, when man’s Satan-influenced world will collapse, God declares, “Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies” (Rev. 18:2-3).

It is this Satanic system that God commands His people to “Come out of…that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues” (vs. 4).

Both New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day originate from this pagan, Satan-influenced world. They were designed to deceive mankind as a whole by appealing to fleshly, carnal desires—or, as the Bible calls them, the works of the flesh: “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like” (Gal. 5:19-21).
Do any of these sound like the attitudes of New Year’s to you?

At the end of verse 21, we read, “they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” Christ’s followers have their minds focused on God’s kingdom (Matt. 6:33)—not on the fleshly cravings of this world. They strive to “put off the old man” and actively imitate the perfect, righteous example of Jesus Christ. They know they must come out of this Satan-influenced world, including its pagan customs, practices and traditions. That includes celebrating New Year’s.

One day soon, Satan will be removed from His throne, and replaced by Christ, who will establish and head God’s government—the way of righteousness and peace, mercy and truth—on this earth. When that day arrives (and it is coming sooner than you realize), mankind will no longer be deceived into practicing customs that are contrary to God’s divine will.
But until then, what about you? You now know the plain truth about New Year’s, its pagan origins, its chaotic history, and how God views its customs, traditions and practices!

merry Christmas generistrip

memories of december 2013

baking in a tiny oven leads to creative ways to trap the heat

aint and autobody

$75 at krogers

a chocolate orange jenn bought me

mcdonalds playplace... or as we call it: jenningrad

a mind flower

something else

merry christmas, written backwards from the inside

frozen rain from the night before

sorry for the typo

spatula city
having one night off a month

bitcoin will fail

i got sucked in to watching a video on "edison's new money" which was really just a thirty minute long bitcoin ad. the trailer was a lie. edison wanted in 1922 to spread out the commodities that backed the dollar over a large group involving most raw and some refined natural resources.

in digital life, this is as real as they get. yes. a picture. not the real thing. there is no real thing.

bitcoin isn't currency, it's only money. money is backed by... the word of those who print it. currency is backed by something tangible. edison wanted to back the currency of the his new proposed dollar on tangible assets that had real value.

even FDR, after stealing the nations gold; admitted - “behind government currency we have, in addition to the promise to pay, a reserve of gold and a small reserve of silver, neither of them anything like the total amount of the currency.” May 7th, 1933.

so would we have been better off with edisons plan rather than those evil vultures who brought the federal reserve into existence? probably. but will it ever happen? probably not.

will bitcoin fail?


i was a victim of evocash via a ponzi, around ten years ago and personally lost US$5,000 thru it.

bitcoin will fail, the bubble will burst, and there will be thousands of people weeping and crying out over it even more than they do phil robertson calling a mans anus unsavory to sodomize.



by Frank R. Stockton

In the very olden time there lived a semi-barbaric king, whose
ideas, though somewhat polished and sharpened by the
progressiveness of distant Latin neighbors, were still large,
florid, and untrammeled, as became the half of him which was
barbaric. He was a man of exuberant fancy, and, withal, of an
authority so irresistible that, at his will, he turned his varied
fancies into facts. He was greatly given to self-communing, and,
when he and himself agreed upon anything, the thing was done.
When every member of his domestic and political systems moved
smoothly in its appointed course, his nature was bland and genial;
but, whenever there was a little hitch, and some of his orbs got
out of their orbits, he was blander and more genial still, for
nothing pleased him so much as to make the crooked straight and
crush down uneven places.
Among the borrowed notions by which his barbarism had become
semified was that of the public arena, in which, by exhibitions of
manly and beastly valor, the minds of his subjects were refined
and cultured.
But even here the exuberant and barbaric fancy asserted itself
The arena of the king was built, not to give the people an
opportunity of hearing the rhapsodies of dying gladiators, nor to
enable them to view the inevitable conclusion of a conflict
between religious opinions and hungry jaws, but for purposes far
better adapted to widen and develop the mental energies of the
people. This vast amphitheater, with its encircling galleries, its
mysterious vaults, and its unseen passages, was an agent of
poetic justice, in which crime was punished, or virtue rewarded,
by the decrees of an impartial and incorruptible chance.
When a subject was accused of a crime of sufficient importance
to interest the king, public notice was given that on an appointed
day the fate of the accused person would be decided in the king's
arena, a structure which well deserved its name, for, although its
form and plan were borrowed from afar, its purpose emanated
solely from the brain of this man, who, every barleycorn a king,
knew no tradition to which he owed more allegiance than pleased
his fancy, and who ingrafted on every adopted form of human
thought and action the rich growth of his barbaric idealism.
When all the people had assembled in the galleries, and the king,
surrounded by his court, sat high up on his throne of royal state
on one side of the arena, he gave a signal, a door beneath him
opened, and the accused subject stepped out into the
amphitheater. Directly opposite him, on the other side of the
inclosed space, were two doors, exactly alike and side by side. It
was the duty and the privilege of the person on trial to walk
directly to these doors and open one of them. He could open either
door he pleased; he was subject to no guidance or influence but
that of the aforementioned impartial and incorruptible chance. If
he opened the one, there came out of it a hungry tiger, the
fiercest and most cruel that could be procured, which
immediately sprang upon him and tore him to pieces as a
punishment for his guilt. The moment that the case of the
criminal was thus decided, doleful iron bells were clanged, great
wails went up from the hired mourners posted on the outer rim of
*the arena, and the vast audience, with bowed heads and downcast
hearts, wended slowly their homeward way, mourning greatly
that one so young and fair, or so old and respected, should have
merited so dire a fate.
But, if the accused person opened the other door, there came forth
from it a lady, the most suitable to his years and station that his
majesty could select among his fair subjects, and to this lady he
was immediately married, as a reward of his innocence. It
mattered not that he might already possess a wife and family, or
that his affections might be engaged upon an object of his own
selection; the king allowed no such subordinate arrangements to
interfere with his great scheme of retribution and reward. The
exercises, as in the other instance, took place immediately, and
in the arena. Another door opened beneath the king, and a priest,
followed by a band of choristers, and dancing maidens blowing
joyous airs on golden horns and treading an epithalamic measure,
advanced to where the pair stood, side by side, and the wedding
was promptly and cheerily solemnized. Then the gay brass bells
rang forth their merry peals, the people shouted glad hurrahs, and
the innocent man, preceded by children strewing flowers on his
path, led his bride to his home.
This was the king's semi-barbaric method of administering
justice. Its perfect fairness is obvious. The criminal could not
know out of which door would come the lady; he opened either he
pleased, without having the slightest idea whether, in the next
instant, he was to be devoured or married. On some occasions the
tiger came out of one door, and on some out of the other. The
decisions of this tribunal were not only fair, they were positively
determinate: the accused person was instantly punished if he
found himself guilty, and, if innocent, he was rewarded on the
spot, whether he liked it or not. There was no escape from the
judgments of the king's arena.
The institution was a very popular one. When the people gathered
together on one of the great trial days, they never knew whether
they were to witness a bloody slaughter or a hilarious wedding.
This element of uncertainty lent an interest to the occasion
which it could not otherwise have attained. Thus, the masses
were entertained and pleased, and the thinking part of the
community could bring no charge of unfairness against this plan,
for did not the accused person have the whole matter in his own
This semi-barbaric king had a daughter as blooming as his most
florid fancies, and with a soul as fervent and imperious as his
own. As is usual in such cases, she was the apple of his eye, and
was loved by him above all humanity. Among his courtiers was a
young man of that fineness of blood and lowness of station
common to the conventional heroes of romance who love royal
maidens. This royal maiden was well satisfied with her lover, for
he was handsome and brave to a degree unsurpassed in all this
kingdom, and she loved him with an ardor that had enough of
barbarism in it to make it exceedingly warm and strong. This love
affair moved on happily for many months, until one day the king
happened to discover its existence. He did not hesitate nor waver
in regard to his duty in the premises. The youth was immediately
cast into prison, and a day was appointed for his trial in the
king's arena. This, of course, was an especially important
occasion, and his majesty, as well as all the people, was greatly
interested in the workings and development of this trial. Never
before had such a case occurred; never before had a subject dared
to love the daughter of the king. In after years such things
became commonplace enough, but then they were in no slight
degree novel and startling.
The tiger-cages of the kingdom were searched for the most
savage and relentless beasts, from which the fiercest monster
might be selected for the arena; and the ranks of maiden youth
and beauty throughout the land were carefully surveyed by
competent judges in order that the young man might have a
fitting bride in case fate did not determine for him a different
destiny. Of course, everybody knew that the deed with which the
accused was charged had been done. He had loved the princess, and
neither he, she, nor any one else, thought of denying the fact; but
the king would not think of allowing any fact of this kind to
interfere with the workings of the tribunal, in which he took such
great delight and satisfaction. No matter how the affair turned
out, the youth would be disposed of, and the king would take an
aesthetic pleasure in watching the course of events, which would
determine whether or not the young man had done wrong in
allowing himself to love the princess.
The appointed day arrived. From far and near the people gathered,
and thronged the great galleries of the arena, and crowds, unable
to gain admittance, massed themselves against its outside walls.
The king and his court were in their places, opposite the twin
doors, those fateful portals, so terrible in their similarity.
All was ready. The signal was given. A door beneath the royal
party opened, and the lover of the princess walked into the arena.
Tall, beautiful, fair, his appearance was greeted with a low hum
of admiration and anxiety. Half the audience had not known so
grand a youth had lived among them. No wonder the princess loved
him! What a terrible thing for him to be there!
As the youth advanced into the arena he turned, as the custom
was, to bow to the king, but he did not think at all of that royal
personage. His eyes were fixed upon the princess, who sat to the
right of her father. Had it not been for the moiety of barbarism in
her nature it is probable that lady would not have been there, but
her intense and fervid soul would not allow her to be absent on an
occasion in which she was so terribly interested. From the
moment that the decree had gone forth that her lover should
decide his fate in the king's arena, she had thought of nothing,
night or day, but this great event and the various subjects
connected with it. Possessed of more power, influence, and force
of character than any one who had ever before been interested in
such a case, she had done what no other person had done,--she had
possessed herself of the secret of the doors. She knew in which
of the two rooms, that lay behind those doors, stood the cage of
the tiger, with its open front, and in which waited the lady.
Through these thick doors, heavily curtained with skins on the
inside, it was impossible that any noise or suggestion should
come from within to the person who should approach to raise the
latch of one of them. But gold, and the power of a woman's will,
had brought the secret to the princess.
And not only did she know in which room stood the lady ready to
emerge, all blushing and radiant, should her door be opened, but
she knew who the lady was. It was one of the fairest and
loveliest of the damsels of the court who had been selected as
the reward of the accused youth, should he be proved innocent of
the crime of aspiring to one so far above him; and the princess
hated her. Often had she seen, or imagined that she had seen, this
fair creature throwing glances of admiration upon the person of
her lover, and sometimes she thought these glances were
perceived, and even returned. Now and then she had seen them
talking together; it was but for a moment or two, but much can be
said in a brief space; it may have been on most unimportant
topics, but how could she know that? The girl was lovely, but she
had dared to raise her eyes to the loved one of the princess; and,
with all the intensity of the savage blood transmitted to her
through long lines of wholly barbaric ancestors, she hated the
woman who blushed and trembled behind that silent door.
When her lover turned and looked at her, and his eye met hers as
she sat there, paler and whiter than any one in the vast ocean of
anxious faces about her, he saw, by that power of quick
perception which is given to those whose souls are one, that she
knew behind which door crouched the tiger, and behind which
stood the lady. He had expected her to know it. He understood her
nature, and his soul was assured that she would never rest until
she had made plain to herself this thing, hidden to all other
lookers-on, even to the king. The only hope for the youth in which
there was any element of certainty was based upon the success
of the princess in discovering this mystery; and the moment he
looked upon her, he saw she had succeeded, as in his soul he knew
she would succeed.
Then it was that his quick and anxious glance asked the question:
"Which?" It was as plain to her as if he shouted it from where he
stood. There was not an instant to be lost. The question was
asked in a flash; it must be answered in another.
Her right arm lay on the cushioned parapet before her. She raised
her hand, and made a slight, quick movement toward the right. No
one but her lover saw her. Every eye but his was fixed on the man
in the arena.He turned, and with a firm and rapid step he walked across the
empty space. Every heart stopped beating, every breath was held,
every eye was fixed immovably upon that man. Without the
slightest hesitation, he went to the door on the right, and opened
Now, the point of the story is this: Did the tiger come out of that
door, or did the lady ?
The more we reflect upon this question, the harder it is to
answer. It involves a study of the human heart which leads us
through devious mazes of passion, out of which it is difficult to
find our way. Think of it, fair reader, not as if the decision of the
question depended upon yourself, but upon that hot-blooded,
semi-barbaric princess, her soul at a white heat beneath the
combined fires of despair and jealousy. She had lost him, but who
should have him?
How often, in her waking hours and in her dreams, had she started
in wild horror, and covered her face with her hands as she thought
of her lover opening the door on the other side of which waited
the cruel fangs of the tiger!
But how much oftener had she seen him at the other door! How in
her grievous reveries had she gnashed her teeth, and torn her hair,
when she saw his start of rapturous delight as he opened the door
of the lady! How her soul had burned in agony when she had seen
him rush to meet that woman, with her flushing cheek and
sparkling eye of triumph; when she had seen him lead her forth,
his whole frame kindled with the joy of recovered life; when she
had heard the glad shouts from the multitude, and the wild
ringing of the happy bells; when she had seen the priest, with his
joyous followers, advance to the couple, and make them man and
wife before her very eyes; and when she had seen
them walk away together upon their path of flowers, followed by
the tremendous shouts of the hilarious multitude, in which her
one despairing shriek was lost and drowned!
Would it not be better for him to die at once, and go to wait for
her in the blessed regions of semi-barbaric futurity?
And yet, that awful tiger, those shrieks, that blood!
Her decision had been indicated in an instant, but it had been
made after days and nights of anguished deliberation. She had
known she would be asked, she had decided what she would
answer, and, without the slightest hesitation, she had moved her
hand to the right.
The question of her decision is one not to be lightly considered,
and it is not for me to presume to set myself up as the one person
able to answer it. And so I leave it with all of you: Which came
out of the opened door,--the lady, or the tiger?

Y you no git real news metronews.ca ?

I hate the reposting of senseless news.

When you repost... have a point... or just stay off the interwebs.

Like this post by me... making fun of you.

and no, i will not give metronews.ca the benefit of a relink like this.

Industrial Society and Its Future

Full text of "Industrial Society and Its Future - The Unabomber's Manifesto"

" Never forget that a human being with technology is exactly like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine"

- Ted Kaczynski







The Unabomber's Manifesto


Aiui-Authorttartans Anonymous Po Box 11331 Eugene.Oregon 97440 U$.


Anti-Authoritarians AiioiiMiwus

TO Box 11331
Eugene, Oregon 9"-l4l)


1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster Tor the human race. They

have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in "advanced" countries,
but they hitvc destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings
to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical
suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued
development of technology will worsen the situation. Il will certainly subject human beings
lo greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to
greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical
suffering even in "advanced" countries.

2. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. If it survives, it may

eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing
through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently
reducing human beings and many other living organisms lo engineered products and mere
cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be
inevitable; There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as lo prevent it from
depriving people of dignity and autonomy.

3. If (lie system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful. But the bigger the
system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down
il had best break down sooner rather than later.

4. We therefore advocate a revolution against ihe industrial system. This revolution may or may

not make use of violence: il may he sudden or il may be a relatively gradual process spanning
a few decades. We can'l predict any of that. Bui we do outline in n very general way the
measures that those who hale the industrial system should take in order to prepare the way for
a revolution against that form or society. This is not lo be a political revolution. Its object will
be lo overt h ro w not governments but the economic and technological basis of Ihe present

5. In this mliclc we give atlcnlion to only some of ihe negative developments Hurt have grown
out of llie industrial-technological system. Other such developments we mention only briefly
or ignore altogether. This docs not mean that we regard these other developments as unimpor-
tant, For practical reasons we have lo confine our discussion lo areas thai have received
insufficient public attention or in which we have something new lo say. For example, since
there arc well-developed environmental and wilderness movements, we have written very
little about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild nature, even though we con-
sider these lo be highly important. , - •

The Psychology
Of Modern Leftism

6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most wide-

spread manifestations of thecraziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychol-
ogy of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of ihe problems of modern soci-
ety in general.

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

8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but
there doesn't seem lo be any remedy for this. All we arc trying to do is indicate in a rough and
approximate way the two psychological tendencies that wc believe arc the maiu driving force

of modern leflism. We by no incnns claim to be Idling the whole truth about leftist psychol-
ogy. Also.our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the ques-
tion of the extent lo which our discussion could be applied (o the leftists of (he 1 9lh and early
20th century.

9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism wc call "feelings of inferior-
' it y" and "ovcrsocinlizaiion." Peelings of inferiority arc characteristic of modern leftism as a

whole, while ovcrsocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism;
but this segment is highly influential.

Feelings Of Inferiority

10. By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strictest sense but a
whole spectrum of related traits: low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive ten-
dencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modem leftists tend to have such
feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining
the direction of modern leftism.

1 1. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about
groups witli whom be identifies) wc conclude that he has Inferiority feelings or low self-
esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they
belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They arc hypersensitive about the
words used to designate minorities. The terms "negro," "oriental," "handicapped" or "cluck"
for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connota-
tion. "Broad" and "chick" were merely the feminine equivalents of "guy," "dude" or "fel-
low." The negative connotations have been attached in these terms by the activists them-
selves. Some animal rights advocates have gone so far us to reject the word "pel" and insist on
its replacement by "animal companion." Leftist anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid
saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative.
They want to replace the word "primitive" by "nonl iterate." They seem almost pmaunid about
anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (Wc do not mean
to imply that primitive cultures are inferior to ours. Wc merely point out the hypersensitivity
of leftist anthropologists.)

12. Those who arc most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology arc not the average
black ghcllo-dwcllcr, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of
activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privi-
leged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors,
who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom arc het-
erosexual, white males from middle-class families.

13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image
of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise
inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups arc inferior. They would never admit it
to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups
as inferior that they identify with their problems, (Wc do not suggest that women, Indians,
etc., are inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology).

14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are M strong as capable as men.
Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may not be as strong and as capable as men.

15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They
hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hale white mates, they hate rationality. The
reasons that leftists give for haling the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real
motives. They say they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric
and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures,
the leftist Finds excuses for them, or at best he grudgingly admits that they exist; whereas lie
enthusiastically points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in
Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist's real motive for hating
America and the West, lie hales America ami the West because I hey are strong and successful

16. Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance," "initiative", "enterprise," "optimism," clc. play
litlle role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collcctiv-

229. The leftist is oriented toward large scale collectivism. He emphasizes the duly of the indi-
vidual to serve society and the duly of society to take care of the individual. He has a negative
attitude toward individualism. He often takes a moralistic tone. Me lends to be for gun con-
trol, ftu sex education and other psychologically "enlightened** educational methods, lor plan-
ning, for affirmative action, for multictiltiiraiism. He tends to identify with victims. He tends
to be against competition and against violence, but he often 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 " "geno-
cide," "social change," "social justice," "social responsibility." Maybe the best diagnostic ,
Irait of the leftist is his tendency lo sympathize with the following movements: feminism, gay
rights, ethnic rights, disability rights, animal rights, and political correctness. Anyone who
strongly sympathizes with all of these movements is almost certainly a leftist.'*

230. The more dangerous leftists, that is. those who are most power hungry, are often character-
ized 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 aggressive-
ness and refrain from advertising their leftism, but work quietly and unobtrusively to promote
collcclivisl values, "enlightened" psychological techniques for socializing children, depen-
dence of the individual on the system, and so forth, These crypto- Icliisls (as wc 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 lo bring
people under control of the system in order to protect his way of life, or he docs so simply
because his attitudes arc conventional. The crypto- leftist tries to bring people under control of
the system because he is a True Believer in a collcctivistic 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 brim the ordinary
well-socialized bourgeois by the fact that ihcrc is some deep lack within him thai makes it
necessary for him to devote himself to a cause and Immerse Mntsetf in a collectivity. And
may he his (well-sublimated) drive fur power is stronger than that of the average bourgeois.


231 . 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 he flatly false. Lack of sufficient in formation and the need for brevity made it impossible
for us to fomulale 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 approxi-
mation to the truth.

232. AH the same wc arc reasonably confident that the general outlines of the picture we have
painted here arc roughly correct. Wc have portrayed leftism in its modern form as a phenom-
enon 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 wc think that the decisive role played by feelings of inferiority, low self-esteem, power-
lessness. identification with victims by people who are not themselves victims, is a peculiar-
ity of modern leftism. Identification with victims by people not themselves victims can be
seen lo 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 modem leftism. But we are not in a position to assert
confidently that no such movements have existed prior lo modern leftism. This is a significant
question to which historians ought to give their attention.

36. (Paragraph 229) tt is important In understand that we mean lameone who sympathize* with these movements
01 they exist today in our society One wlm believes that women, homosexuals, etc., shonUI have equal lights is
not necessarily a leftist. The feminist, gay rights, etc., movements thai exist in our society have the particular
ideological tone that characiemes leftism, and if one believes, for example, that women should have equal
tights it tines not necessarily fallow that one must sympathize with the feminist movement as it exists today.

is in die struggle lo impose their morality on everyone,

222. Leftists, especially lliuse of I lie ovcrsocinli/nl type, ate 'line Believers in llie sense of line
Holler's book. "The True Believer." Hut nol till 'line Believers are of lite same psychological
lypc as leftists. Presumably a liuc-belicving uazi, lor instance is very different psychologi-
cally from a iruc-believing Icftisl. Because of their capacity for single-minded devotion lo I
cause, True Believers arc a useful, perhaps a necessary, ingredient ninny revolutionary move-
ment. This presents a problem with which wc musl admit we don'l know how to deal. We
aren't sure how to harness lite energies of llie True Believer lo h revolution against technol-
ogy. Al present all we can say is thai no True Believer will make a safe recruit lo llie revolu-
tion unless his commitment is exclusively lo the destruction of technology. If he is committed
also lo another ideal, he may want to use technology as a lool for pursuing thai olhcr ideal (sec
paragraphs 220. 22 1 ).

223. Some readers may say, "This sluffuboui leftism is a lot of crap. I know John and June who
are lefiish types and (hey don'l have all these lotalitarian Icndcncics." Il's quite true lhat many
leftists, possibly even a numerical majority, are decenl people who sincerely believe in toler-
aiing others' values (up to a point) and wouldn't want lo use high-handed methods lo reach
iheir social goals. Our remarks about leftism are nol meant to apply to every individual lefiisi
but to describe ihe general character of leftism as a movement. And the general character or a
movement is not necessarily determined by the numerical proportions of the various kinds or
|ieople involved in Ihe movement.

224. The people who rise lo positions of power in leftist ntovcincnls lend to be leftists of ihe
most power-hungry lypc because power-hungry people arc those who si rive battiest lo gel
into positions of power. Once ihe power-hungry types have captured conlrol of ihe move-
ment, ihere arc many leftists of a genllcr breed who inwardly disapprove of many of the
actions of ihe lenders, but cannot bring themselves lo oppose them. They need their faith in
Ihe movement, and because they cannol give up litis failh ihcy go along with Ihe lenders,
True, SOttH leftists do have the guls lo oppose Ihe totalitarian tendencies thai emerge, hut Ihey
generally lose, because lite power-hungry types ate bciler oitiinizcd, aic more ruthless and
Machiavellian and have laken care to build themselves a strong power base.

225. These phenomena appeared clearly in Russia and olhcr countries lli.il were taken over by
leftists. Similarly, before Ihe breakdown of communism in the USSR, lefiish types in the
West would seldom criticize llial country. If prodded Ihcy would admil (hut llie UJj.SK did
many wrong tilings, but then ihey would try lo find excuses for l he communists and begin
talking about die faults of the West. They alwnys opposed Western military resistance to
communist aggression, Leftish lypes all over the world vigorously protested ihe U.S.! military
action in Vielnam, but when the USSR invaded Afghanistan Ihcy did nothing. Not thai ihey
approved of ihe Soviet actions; bul because of their leftist faith, they just couldn't bear lo put
themselves in opposition lo communism. Today, in those or our universities where "political
correctness" has become dominant, there are probably many leftist types who privately dis-
approve of the suppression of academic freedom, but ihcy go along with il anyway.^

226. Thus (he fact that many individual leftists are personally mild and fairly tolerant people by
no means prevents leftism as a whole form having a totalitarian tendency.

227. Our discussion of leftism has a serious weakness. It is still far from clear whal 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 aclivisl movements. Yet not all activist movements arc
leftist, and some activist movements (e.g.., radical cnvironmenlalism) seem to include boih
personalities of Ihe leftist type and personalities of thoroughly un-lcftisl types who ought lo
know better than lo collaborate wilh leftists. Varieties of leftists fade out gradually inlo vari-
eties of non-leftists and we ourselves would often be hnrd-presscd to decide whether a given
individual is or is not a leftist. To the extent thai il is defined at all, our conception of leftism
is defined by the discussion of it lhat we have given in this article, and we can pnly advise Ihe
reader to use his own judgment in deciding who is a leftist.

228. But il will be helpful lo 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 mcel any of the crilcrin. Again, you just have lo use your

ist. I Ic wants society lo solve everyone's needs for litem, take enre of them. He is not the soil
of pci son who has an inner sense ol confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems
and satisfy his own needs, flic leftist is anlagonislic to ihe concept of competition because,
deep inside, he feels like a loser.

17. Art forms lhat appeal to modern leftist intellectuals tend to focus on sordiilness. defeat and
despair, or else they lake an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no
hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was lcfl\vas tp tin-'
mcrsc oneself in llie sensations of llie moment.

18. Modem leftist philosophers (end lo dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist
lhat everything is culturally relative. It is (rue that one can ask serious questions about Ihe
foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, ihe concept of objective reality
can be defined. Bul it is obvious that modern leftist philosophers arc not simply cool-headed
logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. Ihcy arc deeply involved
emotionally in their attack on n nth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their
own psychological needs. For one thing, iheir attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to ihe
extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates
science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior)
and other beliefs as false (i.e. failed, inferior). The leftist's feelings of inferiority run so deep
that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other
ihings as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of
menial illness and of ihe utility of IQ tests. Leftists arc antagonistic lo genetic explanations of
human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear
superior or inferior lo others. Leftists prefer lo give society ihe credit or blame for an individual's
ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is "inferior" it is nol his fault, but society's, because he
has not been brought up properly.

19. The leftist is nol typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a brng-
garl, an egotist, a bully, a self- pro molcr, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not
wholly lost failh in himself, lie has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, bul he can
Mill conceive of himself as having the capacity lo be strong, and his efforts to make himself
strong produce his unpleasant behavior. 1 But the lefiisi is too far gone for that. His feelings of
Inferiority arc so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself ns individually strong and
v ul liable, llcncc the collectivism of the leftist. He can feci strong only ns a member of a large
organization or a mass movement wilh which he identifies himself.

20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics, Leftists protest by lying down in front of
vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may
often be effective, but many leftists use (hem nol as a means lo an end but because they prefer
masochistic tactics. Self-halted is a leftist trait.

21. Lcftisls may claim lhat their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principle, and
moral principle does play a role for the Icftisl of the ovcrsocialized type. But compassion and
moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is loo promincul a
component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist bchnvior is
not rationally calculated lo be of benefit lo the people whom the leftists claim to be trying lo
help. For example, tT one believes lhat affirmative action is good Tor black people, does it
make sense lo demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously il would be
more productive to lake n diplomatic and conciliatory approach llml would make al Icasl
verbal and symbolic concessions to while people who think thai affirmative action discrimi-
nates against llicm, But lefiisi activists do nol lake such an approach because il would not
satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race prob-
lems serve as an excuse for ihem to express Iheir own hostility and frustrated need for power.
In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists' hostile attitude toward the
while majority tends lo intensify race hatred.

22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to invent problems in
order lo provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.

/. {Paragraph 19) We are asserting that all, or even most, bullies and ruthless competitors suffer from feelings
ofinferiurity, <

23. We emphasize that tlie foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone
who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of


24. Psychologists use the term "socialization" to designate the process by which children arc
trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he be-
lieves in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that
society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are over-socialized, since the leftist is
perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such
rebels as they seem.
25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feci and act in a
completely moral way. For example, wc are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost every-
one hates somebody nt some lime or other, whether he admits H to himself or not. Some
people are so highly socialized thai the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe
burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive them-
selves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in
reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe such people. 1

26. Ovcrsocializalion can lend to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlcssness, defeatism, guilt, etc.
One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them
feci ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society's expectations. If this is over-
done, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling
ashamed of himself. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the ovcrsocializcd person arc
more restricted by society's expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The
majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit
petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hale someone, they say spite-
ful tilings or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead olthc other guy. The ovei socialized
person cannot do these things, or if he docs do them he generates in himscirn sense of shame
and self-hatred. The ovcrsocializcd person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or
feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think "unclean" ihoughls.And
socialization is not just a matter of morality; wc are socialized to confirm to many norms of
behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the ovcrsocializcd person is kept
on a psychological leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for
him. In many oversocializcd people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlcssness
that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that ovcrsocializalion is among the more serious
cruelties that human beings inflict on one another,

27. Wc argue that a very important and influential segment of the modern left is oversocializcd
and that their ovcrsocializalion is of great importance in determining the direction of modem
leftism. Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or members of the upper-
middle class. Notice that university intellectuals 1 constitute the most highly socialized seg-
ment or our society and also the most left-wing segment.

28. The leftist of the oversocializcd type tries to gel off bis psychological leash and assert his
autonomy by rebelling. But usually lie is nol strong enough to rebel against the most basic
values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today's leftists arc not in conflict 1 with the
accepted morality. On the contrary, the left lakes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its
own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equal-
ity, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, jicacc as opposed to war, nonviolence gener-
ally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duly oflhe indi-
vidual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have
been deeply rooted values of our society (oral least of its middle and uppei classes* Tor a long
lime. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the inate-

2. (Paragraph 25) During the Victorian period many oversocialized people suffered from Striata psychologi-
cal problems at a result of repressing or trying to repress llteir sexual feelings, Freud apparently based his
theories on people of this type. Today the focus of socialization has shifted f torn sex to aggression.

3. (Paragraph 27J Not necessarily including specialists in engineering "hard" sciences.

dom, but today, in those universities where leftists have become dominant, they have shown
themselves ready to lake away from everyone else's academic freedom. (This is "political
correctness .") The same will happen with leftists and technology: They will use it to oppress
everyone else if they ever gel it under their own control.

217. In earlier revolutions, leftists oflhe most power-hungry type, repeatedly, have first cooper-
ated with non-leftist revolutionaries, as well as with leftists of a more libertarian inclination,
and later have double-crossed them to seize power for themselves. Robespierre did this in the
French Revolution, the Bolsheviks did it in the Russian Revolution, the communists did it in
Spain in 1938 and Castro and his followers did it in Cuba. Given the past history of leftism, it
would be utterly foolish for non-leftist revolutionaries today to collaborate with leftists.

218. Various thinkers have pointed out that leftism is a kind of religion. Leftism is nol a religion
in the strict sense because leftist doctrine docs not postulate the existence of any supernatural
hcing. But for the leftist, leftism plays a psychological role much like that which religion
plays for some people. The leftist needs to believe in leftism; it plays a vital role in his psy-
chological economy. His beliefs are not ensily modified by logic or facts. Me has a deep
conviction that leftism is morally Right with a capital R. and thai he has not only a right but a
duty 10 impose leftist morality on everyone. (1 lowcvcr, many oflhe people wc arc referring lo
as "leftists" do not think of themselves as leftists and would nol describe their system of
beliefs as leftism. We use the term "leftism" because we don't know of any belter words to
designate the spectrum of related creeds that includes the feminist, gay rights, pohticaf cor-
rectness, clc, movements, and because these movements have a strong affinity with the old
left. Sec paragraphs 227-230.)

219. Leftism is totalitarian force. Wherever leftism is in a position of power it tends to invade
every private corner and force every thought into a leftist mold. In pari this is because oflhe
quasi-religious character of leftism; everything contrary lo leftists beliefs represents Sin. More
i in porl ant ly. leftism is a totalitarian force because oflhe leftists' drive for power, The lcfti.il
seeks to satisfy his need for power through identification with n social movement and he tries
lo go through the power process by helping lo pursue and attain the goals of the movement
(see paragraph 83). But no mailer how far the movement has gone in attaining its goals the
leftist is never satisfied, because his activism is a surrogate activity (see paragraph 41). That
is, the leftist's real motive is not to allntn the ostensible goals of leftism; in reality he is
motivated by the sense of power he gets from struggling for and then reaching a social goal."
Consequently I he leftist is never satisfied with the goals he has already attained; his need for
the power process leads him always lo pursue some new goal. The leftist wants equal oppor-
tunities for minorities. When that is attained he instsls on statistical equality of achievement
by minorities. And as long as anyone harbors in some comer of his mind a negative attitude
toward some minority, the leftist has to reeducate him. And ethnic minorities are not enough;
no one can be allowed to have a negative altitude toward homosexuals, disabled people, fat
people, old people, ugly people, and on and on and on. It's not enough that the public should
be informed about the hazards of smoking; a warning has to be stamped on every package of
cigarcltcs. Then cigarette advertising has lo be restricted if not banned. The activists will
never be satisfied until lobacco is outlawed, and after that it will be alcohol, then junk food,
etc. Activists have fought gross child abuse, which is reasonable. But now Ihey want to stop
all spanking, When they have done that they will want to ban something else they consider
unwholesome, then another thing and then another. They will never be satisfied until they
have complete control over all child rearing practices. And then they will move on lo another cause.

220. Suppose you asked leftists to make a list or ALL the things thai were wrong with society,
and then suppose you instituted every social change that they demanded. It is safe lo say thai
within a couple of years the majority of leftists would find something new lo complain about,
some new social "evil" lo correct because, once again, the leftist is motivated less by distress
at society's ills than by Ihc need lo satisfy his drive for power by imposing his solutions on society.

221. Because of the restrictions placed on ihcir thoughts and behavior by their high level of
socialization, many leftists of the oversocialized lype cannot pursue power in the ways that
olhcr people do. For them the drive for power has only one morally acceptable outlet, and (tint

,\5. (Paragraph 219) Matty leftists ate motivated also by hostility, but the hostility probably results in part
from a frustrated need for power.

would be few and scattered. An industrial society, if built from scratch without outside help,
cim only be built in a series of stages: You need tools to make tools to make tools to make
tools ... . A long process of economic development and progress in social organization is
required. And, even in the absence of an ideology opposed to technology, there is no reason to
believe that anyone would be interested in rebuilding industrial society. The enthusiasm for
"progress" is a phenomenon particular to the modern form of society, and it seems not to have
existed prior to the 17th century or thereabouts.

211. In the laic Middle Ages there were four main civilizations that were about equally "ad-
vanced": Europe, the Islamic world, India, and the Far Fast (China, Japan, Korea). Three of
those civilizations remained more or less stable, and only Europe became dynamic. No one
knows why Europe became dynamic at (hat lime; historians have their thcoiics hut these arc
only speculation. At any rale, it is clear that rapid development toward a technological form
of society occurs only under special conditions. So there is no mason to assume thai long-
lasting technological regression cannot he brought about.

212. Would society eventually develop again toward an indusliiul-lcchtiological form? Maybe.
hut there is no use in worrying about it, since wc can't predict or control events 500 or 1,000
years in the future. Those problems must be dealt with by the people who will live al that lime.


213. Because of their need for rebellion and for membership in a movement, leftists or persons
or similar psychological type are often unattracled to a rebellious or activist movement whose
goals and membership arc not initially leftist. The resulting influx of leftish types can easily
turn a non-leftist movement into a leftist one, so (hat leftist goals replace or distort the original
goals of the movement.

214. To avoid this, a movement that exalts nature and opposes technology must take a resolutely
anti-leftist stance and must avoid all collaboration with leftists. Leftism is in the long tun
inconsistent with wild nature, with human freedom and with Ihc elimination of modern tech-
nology. Left ism is collectivism it seeks to bind together the ciltirc world (both nature and the
human race) into a unified whole. But this implies management of nature and of human life
by organized society, and il requires advanced technology. You can't have a united world
without rapid transportation and communication, you can't make all people love one another
without sophisticated psychological techniques, you can't have a "planned society" without
the necessary technological base. Above all, leftism is driven by the need for power, and the
leftist seeks power on a collective basis, through identification with a mass movement or an
organization. Leftism is unlikely ever to give up technology, because technology is too valu-
able a source of collective power.

215. The anarchist" too seeks power, but he seeks it on an individual or small-group basis; he
wants individuals and small groups to be able to control the circumstances of their own lives.
He opposes technology because it makes small groups dependent on large organizations.

216. Some leftists may seem to oppose technology, but they will oppose il only so long as they
are outsiders and the technological system is controlled by non-leftists, [f leftism ever be-
comes dominant in society, so that the technological system becomes a tool in the hands of
leftists, they will enthusiastically use it and promote its growth. In doing this they 1 will be
repealing a pattern that leftism has shown again and again in the past. When the Bolsheviks in
Russia were outsiders, they vigorously opposed censorship and the secret police, they advo-
cated scir- determination for ethnic minorities, and so forth; hut as soon as they crime into
power themselves, they imposed a lighter censorship and crealed a more ruthless secret po-
lice than any that had existed under the Isars, and they oppressed ethnic minorities at least as
much as the tsars had done. In the United Stales, a couple of decades ago when leftists were a
minority in our universities, leftist professors were vigorous proponents of academic frcc-

34. (Paragraph 215) Tltis statement refers to our particular brand of anarchism. A wide vmiety of social
altitudes have been called "anarchist, " and it may be that many who consider themselves anatchists would
not accept our statement of paragraph 215. It should be noted, by the way, dial there is a nonviolent
anarvhist movement whose members probably would nut accept FCas anarchist and certainly would not
appiave ofFC's violent methods.

rial presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the educational system.
Leftists, es|jccially those of the ovcrsocialized type, usually do not rebel against these prin-
ciples but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society
is not living up to these principles.

29. Here is an illustration of the way in which theoversocialized leftist shows his real attachment
to the conventional altitudes of our society while pretending to be in rebellion against it.
Many leftists push fur affirmative action, for moving black people into high-prestige jobs, for
improved education in black schools and more money for such schools; the wny of life of the
black "underclass" they regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into
the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just like upper-middlc-class
while people. The leftists will reply flint ihc hist thing Ihcy want is to make the block man into
a copy of Ihc while man; instead, they want to preserve African Amcricnn culture. Bui in what
does this preservation of African American culture consist"/ It can hardly consist in anything
mote than caling black-style food, listening to black-style music, wearing black-style cloth-
ing and going to a black-style church or mosque. In other words, il can express itself only in
superficial mailers. In all essential respects more leftists of the ovcrsocialized type want to
make ihc black man conform to while, middle-class ideals. They want to make him s'tudy
technical subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing the status lad-
der to prove that black people nre as good as while. They want to make black fathers "respon-
sible." They want black gangs to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of
the industrial-technological system. The system couldn't care less what kind of music a man
listens lo, what kind of clothes he wears or what religion he believes in as long as he studies
in school, holds a respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a "responsible" parent, is non-
violent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it, the ovcrsocialized leftist wants
lo integrate the black man into the system and make him adopt its values.

30. We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of theoversocialized type, never rebel against the
Imulanicntal values of our society. Clearly they sometimes do, Some ovci socialized leftists
have gone so far as lo rebel against one of modern society's most iinpot Hint principles by
engaging in physical violence. By their own account, violence is for them a form of "libera-
tion." In other words, by committing violence they break through the psychological restraints
that have been trained into them. Because ihey are oversocialized these restraints have been
more confining for them than for others; hence their need lo break free of them. Bui (hey
usually justify their rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence they
claim to be fighting against racism or the like.

3 1 . We realize (hat many objections could be raised lo Ihc foregoing thumb-nail sketch of leftist
psychology. The teal situation is complex, and anything like a complete description of it
would lake several volumes even if the necessary data were available. We claim only to have
indicated very roughly the two most important tendencies in the psychology of modern leftism.

32. The problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our society as a whole. Low self-
esteem, depressive tendencies and defeatism arc not restricted to the left. Though they are
especially noticeable in the left, they arc widespread in our society. And today's society ivies
lo socialize us to a greater extent than any previous society. We are even told by experts how
lo eal, how lo exercise, how lo make love, how lo raise our kids and so forth.

4. (Paragraph 28) There are many individuals of the middle and upper classes who resist some of these values,
but usually their resistance is more or less covert. Such resistance appears in the mass media only to a
very limited extent. The main thiust of propaganda in our society is in favor of the stated values. The main
reasons why these values have become, so to speak, the official values of our society is that they are useful
to the industrial system. Violence is discouraged because it disrupts the functioning of the system. Racism
is discouraged because ethnic conflicts also disrupt the system, and discrimination wastes the talent of
minority- group members who could be useful to die system. Poverty must be "cured" because the underclass
rouses pirdilems far die system and contact with the underclass lowers the moral of the other classes.
Women are encouraged to have careers because their talents ate useful to the system anil, more impor-
tantly because by having regular jobs women became better integrated into the system and lied directly lo
it rather than to their families. This helps toweaken fatuity solidarity. (The leaders of the system say they
want to strengthen the family, but they really mean It that they want the family to serve as an effective tool
for socialiiing children in accord with the needs of the system. We atgue in paragraphs 51,52 that the
system cannot ajfoid to let the family or other small-scale social groups be strong or autonomous )

The Power Process

33. Human beings luivc a need (probably based in biology) Tor something that we wilt csdl llie
"power process." This is closely related lo the need for power (which is widely recognized)
bul is not quite the same tiling. The power process has four elements. The three most elenr-cul
of these we cnll goal, effort and attainment of goal. (Everyone needs to have goals whose
attainment requires effort, and needs to succeed in attaining at least some of his goals.) The
fourth clement is more difficult to define and may not lie necessary for everyone. Wc cidl it
autonomy and will discuss it later (paragraphs 42-44).

34. Consider the hypothetical case of a man who can have anything he wants just by wishing for
it. Such a man has power, but he will develop serious psychological problems. At first he will
have a lot of fun, bul by nnd by he will become acutely bored and demoralized. Eventually he
may become clinically depressed. History shows that leisured aristocracies tend lo become
decadent. This is not true of fighting aristocracies that have lo struggle lo maintain their
power. But leisured,, secure aristocracies that have no need to exert ihemselves usually be-
come bored, hedonistic and demoralized, even though they have power. This shows that power
is noi enough. One must have goals toward which to exercise one's power.

35. Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical necessities oflife: food, water and
whatever clothing and shelter are made necessary by lite climate. Bul the leisured aristocrat
obtains these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization.

36. Non-altainineni of important goals results in death if the goals are physical necessities, and in
frustration if non-attainment of the goals is compatible with survival. Consistent failure lo
attain goals throughout life results in defeatism, low self-esteem or depression.

37. Thus, in order to avoid serious psychological problems, a human being needs goals whose
attainment requires effort, and he must have a reasonable rate of success in attaining his


38. But not every leisured aristocrat becomes bored and demoralized. Tor example, the emperor
Hirohilo, instead of sinking into decadent hedonism, devoted himself lo marine biology, n
field in which lie became distinguished. When people do not have to exerl Ihemselves In
satisfy Uieir physical needs they often scl up artificial goals for ihemselves. In many cases
(hey then pursue these goals with the same energy and emotional involvement (hat they oth-
erwise would have put into the search for physical necessities. Thus Ihc aristocrats of the
Roman Empire bad their literary pretentions; ninny European aristocrats n few centuries ago
invested tremendous lime and energy in hunting, though they certainly didn't need ihc meal;
other aristocracies have competed for status through elaborate displays of wealth; and a few
aristocrats, like Hirohilo. have turned to science.

39. We use Ihe term "surrogate activity" to designate an activity that is directed toward an artifi-
cial goal that people set up for ihemselves merely in order lo have some goal to work toward,
or let us say, merely for the sake of the "fulfilhiienl" that (hey get from pursuing the goal.
Here is a rule of Ihumb for the identification of surrogate activities. Given a person who
devotes much time and energy to the pursuit of goal X, ask yourself this: If he had to devote
most of his lime and energy lo satisfying his biological needs, and if that effort required him
to use his physical and mental facilities in a varied and interesting way, would he feci seri-
ously deprived because he did not attain goal X? If ihc answer is no, then the person's pursuit
of a goal X is a surrogate activity. Hirohilo's studies in marine biology clearly conslitulcd a
surrogate activity, since it is prclty certain that if Hirohilo had had lo spend his time working
at interesting non-scientific tasks in order to obtain Ihc necessities of life, he would not have
felt deprived because he didn't know all about the anatomy and life-cycles of marine animals
On the other band the pursuit of sex nnd love (for example) is nol a surrogate activity, because
most people, even if llicir existence were otherwise satisfactory, would feel deprived if they
passed their lives without ever having a relationship with a member of the opposite sex. (Bul
pursuit of an excessive amount or sex, more than one really needs, can be a surrogate activity.)

40. Ill modern industrial society only minimal effort is necessary to satisfy one's physical needs.

altitude is a direct outcome of a person's genetic constitution, but it nppcnrs (hat personality
Iraits tend, within the context of our society, to make & person more likely to hold this or thai
social attitude. Objections to these findings have been raised, bul objections are feeble and
seem lo be ideologically motivated. In any evcnl, no one denies thai children tend on the
average lo bold social altitudes similar to those of (heir parents. From our point of view it
doesn't mailer all that much whether the altitudes are passed on genetically or through child-
hood training. In either case they aw passed on,

205. The trouble is thai many of ihc people who arc inclined to rebel against the industrial system
arc also concerned about the population problems, hence Ihey are apt to have few or no
children. In this way ihey may be handing the world over lo the sort of people who support or
al leasl accept the industrial system. To insure ihc strength of the next generation of revolu-
tionaries Ihc present generation must reproduce ilsclf abundantly. In doing so they will be
worsening Ihc population problem only slightly. And ihc most important problem is to get rid
of the industrial system, because once the industrial system is gone the world's population
necessarily will decrease (see paragraph 167); whereas, if ihe industrial system survives, it
will continue developing new techniques of food production that may enable the world's
population to keep increasing almost indefinitely.

206. With regard to revolutionary strategy, the only points on which we absolutely insist are that
the single overriding goal must be ihe elimination of modern technology, and lhat no other
goal can be allowed lo compete with this one. For the rest, revolutionaries should take an
empirical approach. If experience indicates that some of the recommendations made in the
foregoing paragraphs arc not going to give good results, then those recommendations should
be discarded.


207. An argument likely to be raised against our proposed revolution is lhat it is bound lo fiiil.
because (il is claimed) throughout history technology has always progressed, never regressed,
hence technological regression is impossible. But this claim is false.

208. Wc distinguish between ifvo kinds of technology, which wc will call small-scale technology
and organization-dependent technology. Small-scale technology is technology that can be
used by siniill-sciile communities without outside assistance. Organization-dependent tech-
nology is technology that depends on huge-scale social organization. Wc arc aware of no
significant cases of regression in small-scale technology. Bul organization-dependent tech-
nology does regress when the social organization on which it depends breaks down. Ex- .
ample: When Ihe Roman Umpire fell apart the Romans* small-scale technology surVivefd be-
cause any clever village craftsman could build, for instance, a waler wheel, any skilled smith
could make steel by Roman methods, and so forth. But the Romans' organization-dependent
technology did regress. Their aqueducts fell into disrepair and were never rebuilt. Their tech-
niques of road construction were lost. The Roman system of urban sanitation was forgotten,
so lhat until rather reccnl times did the sanitation of European cities match that of Ancient Rome.

209. The reason why technology has seemed always to progress is that, until perhaps a century
or two before the Industrial Revolution, mosl technology was small-scale technology. But
most of the technology developed since the Industrial Revolution is organization-dependent
technology. Take (he refrigerator for example. Without factory-made parts or the facilities of
a posl-iudusirial machine shop it would be virtually impossible for a handful of local crafts-
men lo build a re frige ralor. If by some miracle they did succeed in building one it would be
useless lo llicni without a reliable source of electric power. So they would have to dam a
stream and build a generator. Generators require large amounts of copper wire. Imagine try-
ing lo make that wire without modern machinery. And where would ihey get a gas suitable for
refrigeration? It would be much ensier lo build an icehouse or preserve food by drying or
picking, as was done before the invention of the refrigerator.

210. So il is clear lhat if ihc industrial system were once thoroughly broken down, refrigeration
technology would quickly be lost. The same is Irue of olher organ! z.at ion -dependent technol-
ogy. And once this technology had been lost for a generation or so it would take centuries lo
rebuild it, just as it look centuries to build il the first lime around. Surviving technical books