Kaczynski’s philosophy, along with elements of the far-left and the far-right, I think can best be summed up as anti-humanism. Humanists put the individual at the center of universe, whereas anti-humanists put either a more abstract idea in the middle, such as as god. But also, for the humanist, social problems can be solved through human ingenuity and rationality (such as the invention of technology, democracy, etc.), but anti-humanists may argue that such solutions are too Utopian or don’t exist through human means, but rather by something abstract like a deity. Humanism, interestingly, encompass both the ‘left’ and the ‘right’, although not the fringes of either, and is related centrism and pragmatism. Objectivism and neoconservatism (esp. the part about trying to bring democracy to the Middle East) could be considered examples of right-wing variants of humanism. Left-wing variants include neoliberalism and classical liberalism. Jordan Peterson’s lectures, which are heavily imbued with themes of existentialism (but also his Jungian interpretation of Christianity), could also count as humanism. It’s not the technology in and of itself that is bad, but rather the certitude that technology and science have the answers to problems beyond their respective domains, and also that technology leads to undesirable social consequences. Bur anti-humanism does not imply theism. Many secularists on the far-left agree with Kaczynski’s critique of technology as well as rejection of ‘liberal’ enlightenment values. Secular nihilists may perceive humanity as intrinsically and irreparably irredeemable and that life itself is not worth living, with no promise of redemption or afterlife.