Talk:Ted Kaczynski

Rejecting leftism

Ted Kaczynksi, in his manifesto, clearly rejected both left and right. Mentioning his rejection of leftism only is a thinly veiled suggestion that he was right-leaning. This stinks of political bias editing and should be corrected or removed. 107.142.60.195 (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

He spent the bulk of the manifesto denouncing leftism and that's what the article correctly says. "The right", "rightism" and "rightist" appear nowhere in the manifesto. "Conservative" appears in two paragraphs. In comparison to the number of references to the left, these are exceptions that prove a rule. More fundamentally, K used his political gripes to justify psychopathy that he exhibited (and acknowledged exhibiting) since he was a teenager, and what truly stinks is attaching any significance to them. 2601:642:4600:D3B0:DD:ECBB:5E2E:A476 (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@2601:642:4600:D3B0:DD:ECBB:5E2E:A476 He also repeatedly stated in the same manifesto that when he says "Leftism" he's not referring to a political ideology or set of ideas but to a "psychological type", and he also repeatedly stated that simply holding left-wing beliefs (such as equal rights for women, ethnic and sexual minorities) does *not* automatically make someone a "Leftist" (at least according to his own definition). He even suggests that those whom he calls "Leftists" could actually be a minority of those who hold left-leaning beliefs.

As for the "Right" he never mentions it, but he openly states that authoritarian regimes like Nazi Germany exploited what he calls "vicarious power process" to gain popular support (a thing which he clearly regarded as bad). In one article he stated that neo-Nazis are evil and violent but also very stupid, which according to him made them less dangerous than police officers.

On top of that, he openly identified as an Anarchist. These do not seem to me like statements from someone who supports the far-right: the fact that his ideas have been appropriated by ecofascists and white supremacists does not make him an ecofascist or a white supremacist.

Also, claiming that he was a "psychopath" should not prevent meaningful discussion of his ideas.

What you are pretty much saying is: "He always attacked the Left, never the Right, so he was right-leaning. But even if he wasn't, he was crazy so everything he said is bollocks". The former statement is just incorrect, the latter is higly debatable.

So yeah, I agree with 107.142.60.195 and say that only mentioning his rejection of leftism without providing context is a form of political bias. Some editors even went as far as suggesting that he was not an anarchist despite the fact that he endorsed Anarchism in the manifesto. 109.54.3.208 (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem very odd to phrase it like that. I even checked the article in a couple of different languages to make sure that this was an anomaly. I believe "rejecting industrialism" would be a better fit, and that is the way it's described in at least two other versions of the text. 2804:D57:5520:5200:77E2:A972:52B4:6DC4 (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Request to Expand on the Influence of the Murray Experiment on Ted Kaczynski

Hello, fellow editors,

I would like to preface this suggestion by acknowledging that I have very little experience editing on Wikipedia. However, I believe that the topic I'm addressing is significant and warrants further discussion by those more experienced in editing this page.

I propose that the introduction section of Ted Kaczynski's Wikipedia page be expanded to more prominently include details about his vulnerable and isolated childhood, as well as the significant impact that the Harvard experiments conducted by Dr. Henry A. Murray had on him. It’s noteworthy that Henry Murray’s own Wikipedia page mentions these experiments and their detrimental effects on students like Kaczynski in the second sentence of the introduction. I believe it is equally important to highlight these factors on Kaczynski’s page, given their potential role in shaping his later actions.

Kaczynski was a young, highly talented, but already isolated and mentally fragile individual when he entered Harvard. The psychological experiment he was subjected to, which was reportedly intense and abusive, further exacerbated his mental instability and broke his spirit. This experience likely played a significant role in his eventual radicalization and descent into violence.

Given the gravity of these experiments and their potential influence on Kaczynski's trajectory, I believe it is crucial to provide readers with a clearer understanding of this context. By highlighting the psychological toll of these experiments more prominently, we can offer a more comprehensive view of the factors that may have led to Kaczynski's eventual descent into domestic terrorism.

I suggest the following changes:

1. Expand the Introduction: The introduction should include a brief mention of Kaczynski’s vulnerable and isolated childhood, followed by a reference to the Harvard experiments that reportedly exacerbated his mental instability and contributed to his radicalization.
2. Parallels to Murray’s Page: Given that Murray’s Wikipedia page highlights the damaging effects of the Harvard experiments in its opening sentences, it would be appropriate to similarly emphasize this context on Kaczynski’s page to provide readers with a fuller understanding of the factors that influenced his life.
3. Cite Relevant Sources: Include citations from credible sources that discuss the impact of the Harvard experiment on Kaczynski, such as Alston Chase's work in "Harvard and the Unabomber: The Education of an American Terrorist."

Thank you for considering this suggestion. I believe these changes would enhance the accuracy and depth of the article, providing a more balanced and comprehensive account of the factors that influenced Kaczynski's life and actionsץ

Best regards, Daniel Caspi Daniel Caspi (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

If you had checked beforehand, you would have seen that Alston Chase is already cited in regard to these matters. The article introduction is a summary, and not the place to promote a contested point of view about why Kaczynski became a serial killer. 2601:642:4600:D3B0:C401:E25F:41F2:47E2 (talk) 04:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and for noting that Alston Chase is already cited. I understand the introduction is meant to be a summary, not a place for contested views.

However, my concern is less about causality and more about how institutions like Harvard handled vulnerable prodigies like Kaczynski. The ethical issues raised by Murray’s experiments are significant, especially given Kaczynski’s fragile state at the time. This isn’t about attributing his later actions solely to the experiments but about acknowledging the broader context in which they occurred.

Given that Murray’s Wikipedia page highlights these ethical concerns, it seems consistent to briefly mention this in Kaczynski’s introduction. This would provide a more balanced view of the influences on his life without promoting any particular narrative.

Thank you for considering this perspective.

Best regards,

Daniel Caspi Daniel Caspi (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Sixteen or seventeen?

The section Bombings contains this sentence:

"Sixteen bombs were attributed to Kaczynski."

But the table in that section describes seventeen bombs (two of which were defused and so did not detonate).

I hope someone familiar with this subject can fix this discrepancy.

A good faith critique of an ominous label

Seems theres been actual discussion even since back then of Kaczynskism or any traits derived from Kaczynski to be in uniform opinion of his disdain for traits of leftism and other anarcho-environmentalists and how Nietsczchean it was (and still is).

But after countless readings and much consideration alot of it are pretty overblown overanalysis of a one part of his thoughts that critique leftists revolutionarism, its not even a main goal of his supposed environmental crusade nor is it main part of his manifesto, just one of many, so seeing it as rejecting leftism as his main labels for him is quite unfair and probably contributes to his whole persona that allures the wrong people and misjudge it. I dont know who put that label recently but i don't remember it there before, but in case any of you editors consensus thinks the label is correct its fine by me, but its a genuine critique on my part. Benfor445 (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)