Ted Kaczynski not just any ordinary madman

  • Posted on: 2 January 2018
  • By: Anonymous (not verified)

From The app

In Florence, Colorado, in a maximum security prison, there is a genius in an orange jumpsuit. A genius that entered Harvard College at the age of 16 and became a professor at Berkeley by the age of 25. A genius serving eight life sentences without the possibility of parole. Why throw it all away? I’d like to find out.

Ted Kaczynski is a mathematician, domestic terrorist, anarchist and murderer who sustained a nationwide bombing campaign for nearly two decades. He probably isn’t the first pick for many, but I would jump at the chance to meet him. Kaczynski is one of the most fascinating criminals in the world — to me, anyway. In school, he was described as a “walking brain.” He showed compassion for animals and was regarded as a polite, quiet young man.

Then, like the flip of a switch, something changed. He abruptly quit his well-paying job and completely severed ties with civilization, moving to a remote cabin in the middle of nowhere to produce fatal bombs and a 35,000-word manifesto.

Many write him off as another madman, a schizophrenic, a recluse with recycled ideas and far too much time on his hands. And maybe that’s all that he is, but what drives a person of great prominence and potential to commit such merciless acts? When I read about him that was all I could think about. Ultimately, the case of Ted Kaczynski was the first to spark my interest in criminal psychology. After learning about him I went crazy researching infamous convicts and, for the first time, I discovered a line of work that really interested me.

It is doubtful that I will ever meet Ted Kaczynski. If I could, I think that it would make for a fascinating conversation. I would like to find out what drove him to the point of no return. He committed unforgivable acts, but such criminals must be studied and remembered in order to interpret motives and avoid repeating history. Some people may never be fully understood. Ted Kaczynski seems to be one of them.

Devin Roughan

Point Pleasant Beach High School

category: 

Comments

got respect for TK's stance. He fought back when civilisation took another piece of the wild. TK advocated on behalf of the wild. Well done Ted. Sadly, there are so few people like you. I don't agree with all you've written although much of you have written makes sense.

The last two victims got what they deserved. But Kaczynski is still a madman sociopath. Plus, his politics are no good (cue laugh track here)

Damn this post is cracking me up.... Cute miss sunshine from some New Jersey high-school, covering Ted Kaczinsky.

MWAHAHAHAHAAA The rev is approaching, I AM THE GOD OF DEVIATIONS.

Devin can go visit Ted if she wants. He may refuse, but since she's so cute, I doubt he'd turn her away.

In order to be an approved visitor on such a high-profile and sequestered federal prisoner's list, she would need to show a prior relationship. The entire process is meant to be intimidating and to take away any semblance of privacy for the visitor. Not saying she shouldn't try, but clearly anon 22:24 hasn't, or he'd know how difficult it actually is.
https://www.bop.gov/policy/forms/BP_A0629.pdf

She may be his love child from his pre-radical days as a college dorm party animal, wow, wouldn't the irony put a pall on the whole anti-civ movement?

Not true, boles, there have been at least two reporters who have visited Ted in Florence since he was incarcerated, as well as Theresa Kintz, and archaeologist and anarchist. None of these people had a prior relationship.

"Not true, boles, there have been at least two reporters who have visited Ted in Florence since he was incarcerated, as well as Theresa Kintz, and archaeologist and anarchist. None of these people had a prior relationship."

Anyone with proper credentials (reporters and academics, as well as attorneys and cops) will have an *easier* time getting on to a federal prisoner's visitation list. But a minor who wrote a semi-paean? Good fucking luck.

He didn't "abruptly" do anything. He was driven out of college because he didn't have the social skills to teach the way they wanted. He suffered serial social rejection and was traumatised by the MK Ultra people (this isn't conspiracy theory in his case, it's in all the biographies that he was in one of their experiments). Then he went away and lived harmlessly in nature, but someone came and started bulldozing his neighborhood. That's when he started waging war on civilization.

All this moralizing about "terrorism" and "murder" is just hypocrisy. If someone pays taxes to the US government, they're providing material support for terrorism. If America wasn't a corrupt fascist dictatorship then Kaczynski would be a POW or exiled to a nice island somewhere, or maybe he'd be President by now, like ex-"terrorist" Jose Mujica. Instead he's being tortured for life to give pigs and their buddies a hard-on. The excuse being "oh he murdered some people". More like: he murdered people without a license. It's the lack of license which bothers the state, not the murdering.

it’s also relevant to point out that his actual death toll was comparatively small, making him far less lethal than most big city cops... hand wringing humanists make me sick. Ted is no madman; his intended targets were all complicit in the industries that actively destroy the planet. the feds came down on him so hard because he was able to act with near total impunity for years; it was totally personal and necessary to portray him as crazy otherwise his example would be too threatening to the status quo.

I agree with your general points about cop kill-counts and the other poster's sentiment about state-licensed killing but sending mail bombs is still pretty damned different from say, pointing a gun at someone you mean to kill. It's more akin to firing wildly in to a crowd and I don't think this makes me a "hand-wringing humanist" haha

On the contrary, Ted's strategy was the best he could come up with GIVEN HIS SITUATION. He apparently wasn't part of an insurgent network during his "war years" (I don't think the Freedom Club was enough insurgent or active to support his actions pracitcally) and he was constrained to do his high-risk deeds alone. When you got more than one head as targets then you gotta think of covering your ass, not going full-frontal where you're obviously likely to get caught.

"Safe" attacks from a remote location, out-of-the-blue, has allowed him to exploit the State's response through a long investigation that gave him Public Enemy status, which in '80s USA (maybe even today) is the highest honor an insurgent or dissenter could get from a State. Of course by today's security standards mailbombs attacks are no longer effective, but this approach of remote attacks still retained some efficiency in the post-9/11 U.S.. This made several whistleblowers/hackers gain prominence, for instance.

Not the contrary ...I think you misunderstand me. I'm someone who isn't alienated from violence but I also don't try to negate all ethics just by talking about it. It's not all-or-nothing.

There's such a thing as ethical violence (which is why I'm not handwringing) but mail bombs don't even come close to meeting any criteria for it. Too many unknowns and variables, it's a coward's weapon, etc. You seem to be more focused on the criteria of not getting caught, which makes perfect sense but wasn't the topic.

I'll still argue that "cowardice" is a moral judgement that doesn't consider the personal context of the attacker. If someone is fighting alone and seeks to be doing for a while and maybe build himself some notoriety, remote attacks like mailbombing were a reasonable course of action back in the '80s (where it is very problematic to carry these days), up until the Oklahoma Bombing perhaps, where Teddy Bear K. stopped being a main national antagonist next to the infamous serial killers, in the favor of the new hard-hitting insurgency that arisen in the mid-'90s. There was the Anthrax letters scare following 9/11 that's interesting, but only worked in relation to this titanesque attack.

Context influences the efficacy of action, and equaly action also gives the tone of a new context (à la 9/11). This is the bidirectional pattern that anarcho insurgents would better understand, before doing anything.

You can feel free to argue it! By all means! I'm not a stirner cultist so you can't conjure any doubt from me by accusing me of "moralizing". On a personal level, I view it as cowardice but that's just my opinion. On a tactical level, it's asymmetric warfare for the very weak to attack the very strong. If you won't acknowledge the cowardice of flinging bombs blindly through the mail, you should at least acknowledge that this is an act of desperation and/or necessity of being very weak, isolated, etc.

*sighs* By grossly throwing a moral judgement upon a figure you are thus perpetuating the repressive legal system of the democratic State, and still refusing to look at what makes a "criminal" or "terrorist", i.e. undertanding the person and the factors that may have influenced them to commit the stuff they did, and what was driving, motivating them.

comments. He normally gets the opposite unless people understand his motivations. When I read his manifesto, it made so much sense to me, particularly his take on The Left and specifically, the 'Green' corporations with their donate buttons. Just donate and forget about all the crap and pollution. Donate and proud you've done your bit. Interestingly, Ted's work doesn't go away which is another positive. We are all culpable for the mess, that has to be said. Britain has now been told by China that the British has to find other ways of dumping plastic. Guess what, India was the first country blessed with having the option of taking bales of plastic crap. I hope India says no.

Yep, Green corporations profit from the global warming hypothesis, 'bout time this came out, we're all gonna actually go out in a massive ice-age.

for allowing the destruction to continue. We play idpol while Rome burns. This is not about reifying nature. The global dictatorship is taking shape. Global management is upon us. I wonder what the individualists will come up with to eek out an identity! This is happening because those who supposedly oppose this destruction cannot/will not work together, preferring to highlight differences instead of similarities.

*eke*

*raspy voice* "you can meet me, Kid"

Ted is a confusing and controversial character. His words and ideas have many good things in them which was acknowledged by many mainstream people at the time of the manifesto's publishing. He did many acts I think are terrible, but some that I think were good. For what it's worth, he apologized for some of his terrible acts, but not all of them (all the terrible ones). I think intentions matter also, which his manifesto and other scattered writings make clear. His project was agitation for revolution against industrial society in order to free humanity and the Earth. He also quite obviously had serious mental health issues, probably made worse by all those years alone which if you want to be generous you could attribute to some of his poorer target selections.

So to give a troll poke the everpresent pink elephant in the room: Does Ted equal ITS? I would say no, because most of his actions as time went on were less reckless/random, regardless of whether each target exactly deserved what they got (Some certainly did). And secondly, his project is a completely different project from ITS. It is more sympathetic and well thought out and doesn't have a goal of human extinction or some other similarly absurd position. Ted also, in defense of his bombings somewhat acknowledged the bad effects of some of his attacks, but rather than reject all ethics or morality (which seemed pretty important to him) in order to wipe his hands clean of any criticism, he said he was operating under revolutionary morality, that held his task of agitation as ultimately worth the cost. One could debate the finer points of his revolutionary morality or the concept in general, but the point is that Ted wasn't trying to do bad things to just be an asshole or to kill everyone, but because he believed his actions would contribute to a greater longterm good, and that matters a lot in any discussion of Ted in my opinion.

As an entertainment-related aside, the recent TV series Manhunt: Unabomber (which I'm sure prompted this high schooler to write this), is probably worth watching for people interested in these topics. Ted is of course a bit demonized and his mental health issues a bit over dramatized in it, but it isn't a completely unsympathetic portrayal of the events, which is about as much as you could hope for in a mainstream TV series. There's also an interesting plot line of the agent leading his investigation at the fbi sympathizing a lot with Ted's politics (not enough to not arrest him, but still quite sympathetic all expectations considered), which I couldn't find any evidence of online so I'm not sure how realistic that part is but it does add more to the dynamic of the show that you're not a monster for having sympathy with Ted's perspectives.

This made me reconsider the mobile ice cream parlour business (what I really meant by "TAZ"), which got me into some trouble across several suburbs over the recent years, and start moving towards armed struggle. That old foe of mine, Teddy K. now proved to be right all along! If you think about it, this would provide me with a whole new fan base among pretty young high school boys, not just girls. Unlimited potential!

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
v
a
W
y
b
G
C
Enter the code without spaces.