Category Archives: literature

>This is not an exit

>

“Well, we have to end apartheid for one. And slow down the nuclear arms race, stop terrorism and world hunger. Ensure a strong national defense, prevent the spread of communism in Central America, work for a Middle East peace settlement, prevent U.S. military involvement overseas. We have to ensure that America is a respected world power. Now that’s not to belittle our domestic problems, which are equally important, if not more. Better and more affordable long-term care for the elderly, control and find a cure for the AIDS epidemic, clean up environmental damage from toxic waste and pollution, improve the quality of primary and secondary education, strengthen laws to crack down on crime and illegal drugs. We also have to ensure that college education is affordable for the middle class and protect Social Security for senior citizens plus conserve natural resources and wilderness areas and reduce the influence of political action committees.”
The table stares at me uncomfortably, even Stash, but I’m on a roll.
“But economically we’re still a mess. We have to find a way to hold down the inflation rate and reduce the deficit. We also need to provide training and jobs for the unemployed as well as protect existing American jobs from unfair foreign imports. We have to make America the leader in new technology. At the same time we need to promote economic growth and business expansion and hold the line against federal income taxes and hold down interest rates while promoting opportunities for small businesses and controlling mergers and big corporate takeovers.”
Price nearly spits up his Absolut after this comment but I try to make eye contact with each one of them, especially Vanden, who if she got rid of the green streak and the leather and got some color – maybe joined an aerobics class, slipped on a blouse, something by Laura Ashley – might be pretty. But why does she sleep with Stash? He’s lumpy and pale and has a bad cropped haircut and is at least ten pounds overweight; there’s no muscle tone beneath the black T-shirt.
“But we can’t ignore our social needs either. We have to stop people from abusing the welfare system. We have to provide food and shelter for the homeless and oppose racial discrimination and promote civil rights while also promoting equal rights for women but change the abortion laws to protect the right to life yet still somehow maintain women’s freedom of choice. We also have to control the influx of illegal immigrants. We have to encourage a return to traditional moral values and curb graphic sex and violence on TV, in movies, in popular music, everywhere. Most importantly we have to promote general social concern and less materialism in young people.”
I finish my drink. The table sits facing me in total silence.
American Psycho, Bret Easton Ellis, 1991

I’m a huge fan of this novel. Not for the violence – that was what caught my attention when I was 15 and heard about it for the first time – but for its brilliant and clever take on satire. I think the above quote shows just that. Patrick Bateman (nice reference to Norman Bates in another famous novel: Psycho), a yuppie investment banker who is in fact a serial killer totally devoid of emotion – living next door to Tom Cruise (!) – explains how to save America from impending doom. Hilarious!
I still haven’t seen the movie. I hear it’s pretty good. I also hear that the novel is being turned into a stage musical on Broadway! Even more hilarious!

Abandon all hope ye who enter here…

>Jonathan Littell on Israel, the Holocaust and life

>
I’m reading Jonathan Littell‘s Les Bienveillantes (The Kindly Ones, English translation due in March 2009, De välvilliga in Swedish) and I like it – but what must be repeated over and over again is this: this is fiction! The descriptions of everyday life in Nazi Germany bear little resemblance to reality. As with Elie Wiesel‘s Night, and to a certain extent Anne Frank’s Diary, this cannot be seen as some kind of evidence or witness description of the Holocaust. Unfortunately, a lot of people will use it that way because the majority of the people in the Western hemisphere are brainwashed and cannot think rational thoughts when dealing with such a sensitive subject as the Holocaust.

However, what I wanted to touch upon is Littell’s real life opinions about Israel and the Holocaust. Littell, of Jewish background, seems to have a clear standpoint that I consider very sane. Hear him out, quoted from an article in Haaretz, Israel’s oldest daily newspaper:

“My reading of what you call ‘Holocaust’ is also less Jewish and Judeo-centric than that of my father. I think that what happened was far broader than a narrow issue of ‘Germans killing Jews.’ The English word ‘holocaust’ is certainly the wrong term to describe what happened. It is a religious term, rife with non-historical meaning. I don’t think the word ‘shoah’ is any better. It’s a controversy among historians. Raul Hilberg described it as ‘the destruction of European Jewry,’ but he encountered criticism because that was also the Nazi terminology.

Ulrich Herbert calls it the ‘National-Socialist extermination policy,’ and I find that a far more accurate description because it also includes the extermination of the homosexuals, the Gypsies, the disabled and other minorities.”

Indeed, according to Littell, the “National-Socialist extermination policy” was “only one of the several big genocides that have happened in human history.”

But doesn’t the unprovoked nature of the destruction of the Jews, the underlying ideology, the apparatus that was created to implement it, its scale, make it exceptional in human history?

“I personally understand the arguments for the exceptionality of the Holocaust, but I don’t agree with them. The basic argument is that the Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews, but I don’t see the difference between that and an extermination policy that was aimed – and implemented on a large scale – at groups such as the peasants in the Soviet Union or in Cambodia. Every genocide is exceptional.”

“I think the extermination of the Jews is a universal problem, I think it concerns everyone. Beyond that, I think that today the issue is being used for political purposes in Israel.”
[…]
It is political, a mechanism. It has no connection to what actually happened. The Holocaust, I think, is being exploited politically, in a way that the Nazi extermination policy against other groups – Russians, homosexuals, Gypsies – is not.”

Asked whether he thinks the Holocaust shapes Israeli actions today, he replies: “On the one hand, Israel is a country that underwent a serious trauma, and the Holocaust made it dramatically paranoid. But then there is also greed and land-grabbing and all that shit. That’s just inexcusable. I’m sorry, but this cannot be excused by traumas that occurred 60 years ago.”

Littell says Israel uses the Holocaust to justify “inexcusable” acts, by which he means the situation in the territories, and he likens the actions of the Israel Defense Forces to the behavior of the Nazis in the period before they came to power.

Would you really compare the two?

“No, we cannot compare: There is nothing like genocide in the territories, but they are doing absolutely atrocious things. If the government would let the soldiers do worse things, they would. Everyone says, ‘Look how the Germans dealt with the Jews even before the Holocaust: cutting the beards, humiliating them in public, forcing them to clean the street.’ That kind of stuff happens in the territories every day. Every goddamn day.

[…]
“Like how what the Americans are doing in Iraq is unacceptable. I’m not talking about the war but about torture and things like Abu Ghraib. Understanding the Germans of 60 years ago may make you feel that you’re not that far from it, as Americans or as Israelis. So maybe it will be possible to enforce our social mechanisms to prevent our societies, at least, from going completely off the wall.”

What should your Israeli readers do?

“I think the Israelis, instead of beating their breast, should take a long, hard look at what they are doing now. I am not saying that present-day Israeli society is comparable to Nazi society in World War II, but it is definitely one of the most crazed Western societies.”

“Look,” Littell sums up, in a delayed response to the question of his motivation and perhaps that of his protagonist as well, “Life is a question of a search for meaning – what’s it all about? Are we here to have fun? Make money? Have sex? No, clearly not. Then you have this whole religion thing. A lot of people find meaning in that – I don’t. I adhere to a point of view that says our existence is completely meaningless and completely absurd, and all the horrible things we do to each other are completely unjustified. And anyway, we are going to die. So the question is how you get through life if you accept this approach as the fundamental parameter. Personally, I sometimes find it pretty amusing, but most times it’s just grim. And I focus on the grim, because it’s there.”

>Ezra Pound

>

“Nothing written for pay is worth printing.
Only what has been written against the market.

Ezra Pound (1885-1972) once said of poetry: ”It is the dance of intelligence among words”. He dismissed most of the poetry he read as ”rethorical din crippled by painted adjectives and emotional slither”. His friend Wyndham Lewis, novelist and painter, wrote that Pound was ”a pedagogic volcano whose molten matter was language that seared through a tragic fracture in his personality, a broken seam of sensibility, releasing an uncontainable energy or an anger that could persist for thirty years”. Once, in Lewis’ Rebel Art Centre, Pound caused a stir when waving a flag that proclaimed ”The End of the Christian Era!”. He could never be fully trusted in polite society.
But Ezra Pound was a major figure in the modernist movement. He was its inspiration and, according to some, its sole establisher. Undoubtly, he was one of the immortals of poetry.


The years before World War I were very vital for Pound. He was occupied with his poetry, with journalism, with his work as editor of the journal Poetry, and with new writers like T.S. Eliot and James Joyce. When WWI exploded everything was shattered. Pound, recieving frontline reports from his friends, felt the best part of his generation had been ravaged by an absurdly wasteful war. Having begun his career with the studies of love poetry, now venom, antagonism and invective were to become equally important motivations for his own work.
He began to loathe Western civilization because it had no room left for its artists, and ”because it seemed systematically bent on its own extinction through warfare”. He hated the liberal modern state, where there seemed to be no strong leaders and where responsibility had become corrupted by insane bureaucracy. He also hated the influence of organized religion, and took as his models the two grand masters of hatred: Dante and Villon. He began to incorporate his anger and criticism in The Cantos, a booklenght long epic poem of 120 sections which was to become his lifework.

Pound, an American by birth, moved to London in 1908, and in 1921, dissatisfied with England after the war, he moved to Paris, and four years later to Rapallo, Italy. Here he became very interested in economics and he campaigned viciously against the Western banking system. He began to fear the preparations of yet another great war, ”a second instance of organized madness”, and he imagined Jews to influence political systems, the banking business and the weapon industries. He thought they would begin the next war to create a huge debt and new profits.
He began writing letters to American senators and congress men: ”Every man in high office is a thief’s accomplice”. He also campaigned against the obscenity laws affecting great literary works like James Joyce’s Ulysses. Of course, this was not a popular thing to do amongst the men of power. Even his closest friends began to protest against him.

When World War II was a fact, Pound ventilated his feelings of anger in a series of broadcasts on Italian State Radio where he – besides speaking of cultural matters – defended fascism, savaged America and incorporated what most would call anti-Semitism in his denunciations of the war. His radio rage was monitored by the FBI, and in 1943 he was arrested for treason by the United States government. He was incarcerated and isolated for three weeks in a very small wire cage, subject to broiling sun and searchlights all night. He was interrogated in an U.S. Army detention center where they usually dealt with troops who had raped civilians or disobeyed their officers. No one was allowed to talk to him, not even the guards, and from his gorilla cage he witnessed several inmates being shot to death in escape attempts. Finally, after weeks of fear, he ”believed something snapped” in his head, and he ”suffered a nervous breakdown”.
In Washington he defended his action as a ”protest against a system which creates one war after another, in a series and in system”. He refused to admit he’d been wrong.
Treason is punishable by death, and the U.S. government now faced a dilemma: Wouldn’t it be embarrassing if one of the world’s leading democracies executed one of its leading writers? But why should an artist deserve special treatment, even if he had contributed more than most to the general cultural level of the times?
The solution was to declare him insane.

In 1946 he was sent to what he called the ”Hell-hole”, a ward for lunatics in St. Elizabeths in Washington, D.C., an insane asylum where he was to be kept for the next twelve years of his life, from age sixty to seventy-two. He spent twelve years in the company of screaming men in straitjackets. Despite his suffering he continued writing The Cantos, which he had been working on since 1915. Now the themes of economics, governance, and culture were integral to its content. He also translated the Confusian classics while being held prisoner in this lunatic asylum.

He was often visited by a Library of Congress researcher named Eustace Mullins. Pound commissioned Mullins to write a book about the history of the Federal Reserve, which resulted in Secrets of The Federal Reserve. Pound believed that the bankers in charge of the Federal Reserve and their associates in the Bank of England were responsible for getting the United States into both World Wars, in an effort to drive up government debt beyond sustainable levels. He claimed that bankers hide behind the screen of the central banks and pull political strings to drive countries into the war, creating immense profits for themselves as the principal beneficiaries of wartime debt. Pound advocated an abandonment of the current system of money being created by private bankers.

“Wars are made to make debt.”

Released in 1958 after pressure from T.S. Eliot, Ernest Hemingway and Robert Frost, writers he had helped as critic and editor, he returned to Italy where he gave in to despair and depression. For the last ten years of his life he almost stopped writing and speaking, the man who had spent all his life doing just that: raging against the system in the name of poetry. The releaser of words spent his last ten years wordless. He died in 1972, two days after his 87th birthday, in Venice where he is buried.

The Cantos was never finished, but is nevertheless published. Still, along with the 794 pages long A Companion to The Cantos of Ezra Pound I don’t understand much at all… Even scholars claim that The Cantos is an extreme piece of work, and it is said that Pound himself got depressed when realizing he’d spent most of his life writing a poem few people would understand. What I understand, though, is that The Cantos is the work of a genius.


“I did not enter into silence, silence captured me.”

Besides being a poet, critic, author, journalist and editor, Pound was also a translator and composer. In Paris he composed two complete operas and several pieces for solo violin. Pound’s first radio opera, transmitted in October 1931 under the title The Testament of François Villon, was one of the first electronically enhanced operas to be broadcasted in Europe.
Personally, I have no understanding at all for this thing they call opera, but you may listen and judge for yourself at Amazon. More info at ezrapoundmusic.com.

Current selling prices for an original copy of Ezra Pound’s A Lume Spento (1908):
$45000-$90000 /£24000-£48000
More info at bookride.com.

>Zionism, Jews and conspiracy theories

>

Ben Heine‘s take on The Lovers
(check the ABOUT PORN!!! post for the original painting by René Magritte)

This is where I stand today:

  • I oppose Zionism, not Jews.
  • The essence of Zionism is Jewish ethnic domination over Palestine.
  • Zionism is the real enemy of the Jews, since Zionism causes global anti-Semitism.
  • Some Israelis, Americans, Jews and Zionists are responsible for the situation I’m about to describe. Some are not.
  • Israel and Zionism have always been in the wrong throughout history. The wrongdoings of the Palestinians pale in comparison.
  • There are always grey areas, and I do not applaud Palestinian terrorism.
  • The modern Jewish State would not be in existence without the Holocaust having occurred.

Now that you know my point of view, let’s get on with the program…

Why is it that everytime Jews are criticized in discussions we get to hear that the ones with an opposing viewpoint are either conspiratorial or anti-Semitic? Even when Jews criticize Israel, the Israel lobby or the Holocaust industry (like Michael Neumann, Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein do) they are most often labelled ”self-hating Jews” by the Zionists. Instead of discussing the main point we get to hear that type of whining bullshit. It’s nothing but a cowardly low way to avoid touchy subjects.
To dismiss a serious discussion by shouting ”conspiracy theory” is plain, simple and effective, though. The debate loses its credibility and its seriousness and the judeo-supremacists have won again. Nowadays there’s even a term called ”the new anti-Semitism”… Jeez. Try to learn the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism once and for all, will you? Opposition to Israel is not anti-Semitic. And since not all Jews are Israelis or supporters of Israel, to be against all Israelis or Israel is not to be against all Jews.
You need to get that into your brain if we’re supposed to have an honest and open debate.

Now, let’s look at your so called conspiracy theory. You know, just because people are constantly bitching about conspiracy theories doesn’t necessarily make them conspiracy theories.

How shall we adapt to the fact that Jews are overrepresented in the American banking systems (the Federal Reserve Bank)? What about AIPAC:s great influence – established through hard facts – in American politics? America’s financial and military aid in favour of Israel (Israel still remains the top recipient of US foreign aid world wide, Bush requested an aid budget of $20 billion dedicated to Israel in February this year…)?
These are just a few examples of very large Jewish overrepresentation and influence in the economic and political area. The question is, does the fact that these people are Jewish matter at all? Of course it does. That’s beyond doubt.
But that the lobby is working ruthlessly to benefit its cause is in itself not odd at all. That’s what lobby groups do. It’s about realpolitik, economic interests, power and influence. So why label it ”conspiracy” then? Why bitch about conspiracy theories when presented with obvious facts? Is Norman Finkelstein’s The Holocaust Industry a conspiracy theory? If you think so, explain to me how.

If people were sane they would laugh at this very strange urge the Zionists have to label everything that votes against them as conspiracy theories or anti-Semitic. Unfortunately, the majority of the people are insane, brainwashed and untaught and finds even the most tiny criticism towards Jews as racist and politically incorrect (I bet you feel a bit uncomfortable reading this article, right?), and in a society like that, being labelled anti-Semite is as bad as being labelled pedophile. Not good, so to speak. The Zionists know this and hence use the term anti-Semite all the time to easily silence the opposition.

Here’s what Noam Chomsky has to say about conspiracy theories, and you might as well apply this to the discussion about Israel, Zionism, the Jews, USA or whatever conspiracy you’re talking about:

Part of the structure of corporate capitalism is that the players in the game try to increase profits and market shares – if they don’t do that, they will no longer be players in the game. Any economist knows this: it’s not a conspiracy theory to point that out, it’s just taken for granted as an institutional fact. If someone were to say, ”Oh no, that’s a conspiracy theory”, people would laugh. Well, what we’ve been discussing are simply the institutional factors that set the boundaries for reporting and interpretation in the ideological institutions. That’s the opposite of conspiracy theory, it’s just normal institutional analysis, the kind of analysis you do automatically when you’re trying to understand how the world works. For people to call it ”conspiracy theory” is part of the effort to prevent an understanding of how the world works, in my view – ”conspiracy theory” has become the intellectual equivalent of a four-letter word: it’s something people say when they don’t want you to think about what’s really going on.
[…]
Every example of planning decisions in the society is a case where some people got together and tried to use whatever power they could draw upon to achieve a result – if you like, those are ”conspiracies”. That means that almost everything that happens in the world is a ”conspiracy”. […]
Every business decision, every editorial decision is a conspiracy. […] Okay, obviously that’s not interesting: all decisions involve people. So the real question is, are there groupings well outside the structures of the major institutions of the society which go around them, hijack them, undermine them, pursue other courses without an institutional base, and so on and so forth? And that’s a question of fact: do significant things happen because groups or subgroups are acting in secret outside the main structure of institutional power?
Well, as I look over history, I don’t find much of that.
[…]
This term ”conspiracy theory” is an interesting one. For example, if I was talking about Soviet planning and I said, ”Look, here’s what the Politburo decided, and then the Kremlin did this”, nobody would call that a ”conspiracy theory” – everyone would just assume I was talking about planning. But as soon as you start talking about anything that’s done by the power in the West, then everybody calls it a ”conspiracy theory”. […] The guys in power aren’t idiots, after all. They do planning. In fact, they do very careful and sophisticated planning. But anybody who talks about it, and uses government records or anything else to back it up, is into ”conspiracy theory”. […] In other words, as soon as you describe elementary reality and attribute minimal rationality to people with power – well, that’s fine as long as it’s an enemy, but if it’s part of domestic power, it’s a ”conspiracy theory” and you’re not supposed to talk about it.
[…]
There is just no doubt that a lot of very conscious planning goes on among intelligent people who are trying to maximize their power. They’d be insane if they didn’t do that. I mean, I’m not telling you anything new when I tell you that top editors, top government officials, and major businessmen have meetings together – of course. And not only do they have meetings, they belong to the same golf clubs, they go to the same parties, they went to the same schools, they flow up and back from one position to another in the government and private sector, and so on and so forth. In other words, they represent the same social class: they’d be crazy if they didn’t communicate and plan with each other.
[…]
Now, the only significant question to ask is, is it intelligent planning? Okay, that depends on what the goals are. If the goals are to maximize corporate profits for tomorrow, then it’s very intelligent planning. If the goals are to have a world where your children can survive, then it’s completely idiotic.
Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power

As for the connection USA-Israel-Zionism-Holocaust I recommend the following books, they are essential reading when trying to understand the importance of this gigantic problem.
The Case Against Israel by Michael Neumann
The Holocaust Industry – Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering by Norman Finkelstein
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

You might also want to read The Case For Israel by Alan Dershowitz and The Case For Peace by the same author – but then you’ll be forced to read Norman Finkelstein’s response as well: Beyond Chutzpah – On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History
If you are brave and have an open mind and do not back away from the politically incorrect you should also try Kevin MacDonald‘s The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements.
Also check the True Torah Jews Against Zionism site.
Interesting article: “Over 10,000 Orthodox Jews protesting the existence of the state of Israel”
More about U.S. Aid to Israel

Previous posts of relevance:

War is menstrual envy
War is menstrual envy II
Holocaust religion
Gilad Atzmon Taking Elder Peres Apart
You cannot question the Holocaust – Töben arrested again
Genocide awareness
American Radical – A documentary about Norman Finkelstein
Ahmadinejad and honesty
False media – we don’t need it, do we?
Nuclear war games – for real
Modern Apartheid
Propaganda for war
Obama – Hope or hopelessness
McCain or Obama? Does it really matter in the long run?
The war on/in Iraq
Religion and its influence on society
Political tests

>Theodore Kaczynski, The Unabomber – Part Eight

>

Left: David Kaczynski — Right: Theodore Kaczynski

Had it not been for David Kaczynski’s wife, Linda Patrik, he probably wouldn’t have turned his brother in. She was the one insisting on David reading the manifesto, since David kind of lived in denial, obviously not wanting his brother to be the infamous serial killer the Unabomber.
In October 1995, when the Unabomber was very much in the news, David finally got to read the manifesto – almost one month after it had been published by the press.
“After I read the first few pages”, David recalled, “my jaw literally dropped”. He recognized the tone and feel, and remembered certain sentences from his brother’s letters. He went home immediately and dug out those old letters, dating fifteen years back, and found sentences identical to the ones in the manifesto, even with the same capitalization:
“The radical environmentalists ALREADY hold an ideology that exalts nature and opposes technology”.

When living in the wilderness Ted recieved money from his family. Suddenly it struck David and Linda that the Unabomber had performed several of his attacks shortly after the family had sent him money… Could it be that the family had funded murder?
David struggled with himself and finally came to the conclusion that the only way to find out if his brother was the Unabomber was to confront him. He wrote Ted a letter asking if he could visit him and recieved the following reply:
“I get just choked with frustration at my inability to get our stinking family off my back once and for all, and ‘stinking family’ emphatically includes you… I DON’T EVER WANT TO SEE YOU OR HEAR FROM YOU, OR ANY OTHER MEMBER OF OUR FAMILY, AGAIN.”

After letting a friend of Linda handing over some of Ted’s letters to the FBI – with names and adresses carefully removed, in case Ted wasn’t the Unabomber after all – they got the reply that there was a 60 to 80 percent chance of a match. The FBI somehow got to know David’s identity and soon realized it must be David’s brother who had written those letters and they quickly began surveillance in Lincoln, Montana, and on the morning of April 3, 1996, the SWAT team was in place ready to strike against the Unabomber cabin.

Ted said later of his brother that he was “another Judas Iscariot”, but ultimately Ted put most of the blame on Linda Patrik.

>Theodore Kaczynski – The Unabomber, Part Seven

>

Left: Theodore Kaczynski, 9 — Right: David Kaczynski, 2

The Unabomb Taskforce of the FBI had – over 17 years – dealt with 3,600 volumes of information, 175 computer data bases, 82 million records, 12,000 event documents and 9,000 evidence photographs. And still they couldn’t catch the Unabomber, this one man living in a tiny cabin in Montana, terrorizing the country, killing innocent people.
It was with the help of David Kaczynski, Ted’s younger brother, that they managed to solve the case.

Ted and David were very much alike. David admired his older brother for his ideals and conviction, and Ted enjoyed having an equal partner when it came to discussing philosophy, amongst many other subjects the two brothers shared similar interests in. Ultimately, faced with a moral dilemma, David turned his brother in. Theodore Kaczynski, who loved his brother, could not bear David’s betrayal and to this day deeply hates his whole family.

Yet the two were very dissimilar as well. Ted had no time for abstract philosophy or ethics, while David was more romantic, humble and sought discussion and was willing to compromise. Ted was unrelentless in believing he was right, he believed only in what was scientifically verifiable and rejected everything else as pure emotion. He thought of David’s abstract thinking as weak, and claimed David lacked energy and persistence, and he became furious when David summoned up the courage to argue back. Over time, though, his feelings of guilt about his unjust treatment of his little brother grew.

Ted began building his cabin in 1970. In 1985 David, obviously inspired by his brother, quit his job as a teacher, writer and bus driver, and also went into the wild. He bought five acres of land in the Christmas Mountains of West Texas and literally lived in a hole he had dug in the ground. Later on he purchased thirty acres nearby and – exactly like Ted – built his own cabin, living there until 1989.
In those days he was even more outspoken than Ted. He worried a great deal about the destruction of mankind, the destructive use of technology and the extreme materialism in our society. He often spoke about a need to revolt against it all. ”If he had known about my experiments”, Ted said later on, ”he would’ve regarded me as a hero”.
However, David’s conviction didn’t last. In 1989 he abandoned his desert home and moved to New York to marry an old girlfriend, a philosophy professor at Union College. This made Ted furious. He wrote a long letter to David about his ”betrayal of their shared resolve not to capitulate to the system”. David had ”committed the ultimate sin: ideological disloyalty”.
Ted believed all truths were like mathematics: either true or false. There was no room for compromise. Thus David – in Ted’s mind perfectly aware of the evils of industrial society – was living a lie when rejoining the middle class, and thereby proved his dishonesty. There was no forgiveness for such weakness and Ted turned to hate and total alienation.

By the early 1990s David began to worry about Ted’s extreme alienation. His wife said, half jokingly, ”You’ve got a weird brother, maybe he’s the Unabomber?”.