Talk:Ted Kaczynski

Featured articleTed Kaczynski is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 11, 2021.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 8, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 15, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
July 7, 2008Good article nomineeListed
February 12, 2021Peer reviewReviewed
March 27, 2021Featured article candidatePromoted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on June 10, 2023.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 3, 2004, September 19, 2004, April 3, 2005, September 19, 2005, September 19, 2006, September 19, 2008, September 19, 2009, September 19, 2010, September 19, 2013, September 19, 2015, September 19, 2020, September 19, 2023, and September 19, 2024.
Current status: Featured article

Semi-protected edit request: Changes to summary of ISAIF

Hello, apologies if I am presenting this incorrectly- it is my first time posting on Wikipedia. I am suggesting a few changes to the following sentence at the end of the second paragraph on the page. The sentence currently reads: "He authored a roughly 35,000-word manifesto and social critique called Industrial Society and Its Future (1995) which opposes all forms of technology, rejects leftism and fascism, advocates cultural primitivism, and ultimately suggests violent revolution." In my opinion there are a few issues with this sentence:

1) Kaczynski did not oppose all technology. He opposed industrial technology. I think the word "all" should be replaced with the word "industrial". In the version of ISAIF contained in Technological Slavery Volume 1 (Enhanced Edition), Kaczynski distinguishes between "small-scale" technology and "organization-dependent" technology in a section called Two Kinds of Technology that starts at paragraph 207. Just before this, he writes: "206. With regard to revolutionary strategy, the only points on which we absolutely insist are that the single, overriding goal must be the elimination of modern technology, and that no other goal can be allowed to compete with this one. ..." Considering that Kaczynski isn't shy about stating his opposition to the things he disagrees with, and consistently uses the terms "modern" and "industrial" to describe the technology he is referring to, I don't think it's correct to characterize ISAIF as advocating against all technology- only large-scale, industrial technology.

2) Kaczynski did not reject fascism. I think the words "and fascism" should simply be removed from the sentence. In ISAIF, Kaczynski criticizes “leftism” many times. However, I did not find a rejection of fascism. To the contrary, Kaczynski rejects the idea that changes in the existing political structures of the modern world are necessary, and displays an openness to fascism if it is in service of his anti-industrial ideal. In the section titled Strategy, he states: “193. The kind of revolution we have in mind will not necessarily involve an armed uprising against any government. It may or may not involve physical violence, but it will not be a political revolution. Its focus will be on technology and economics, not politics.” Additionally, in paragraph 195, Kaczynski writes: “…it is argued that if the relatively democratic nations of the world fall behind in technology while nasty, dictatorial nations like China, Vietnam and North Korea continue to progress, eventually the dictators may come to dominate the world. That is why the industrial system should be attacked in all nations simultaneously, to the extent that this may be possible. True, there is no assurance that the industrial system can be destroyed at approximately the same time all over the world, and it is even conceivable that the attempt to overthrow the system could lead instead to the domination of the system by the dictators. That is a risk that has to be taken. And it is worth taking, since the difference between a “democratic” industrial system and one controlled by dictators is small compared with the difference between an industrial system and a non-industrial one. It might even be argued that an industrial system controlled by dictators would be preferable because dictator-controlled systems usually have proven inefficient, hence they are presumably more likely to break down. Look at Cuba.” I think this makes it clear that Kaczynski does not prioritize protection from or opposition to fascism in his political philosophy.

3) I think "rejects leftism" is not strong enough wording to characterize Kaczynski's views on what he calls leftism. I suggest the phrasing "argues with conviction against leftism" instead. In ISAIF, he concludes his argumentation with a section titled "The Danger of Leftism". In this section he writes: "214. ... [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 run inconsistent with wild nature, with human freedom and with the elimination of modern technology. ... Leftism is unlikely to ever give up technology ..."

4) I think cultural primitivism is not a well-enough known term to merit use here. I think an allusion to Kaczynski's idea of the power process would be better, though I'm not sure how to describe the power process concisely so that it can be quickly understood by someone browsing the page. I define the power process as "the opportunity for individuals and small groups to meet their basic needs without assistance from large-scale technologies."

5) Saying the manifesto "ultimately suggests violent revolution" is a bit of a leap- while the manifesto does reference revolutions that involved violence, the manifesto does not explicitly call for violence. Additionally, in paragraph 193, Kaczynski writes: "The kind of revolution we have in mind will not necessarily involve an armed uprising against any government. It may or may not involve physical violence, but it will not be a political revolution. Its focus will be on technology and economics, not politics." I feel that saying the manifesto "ultimately suggests violent revolution" represents a departure from summary into interpretation, and while I do think this interpretation is valid, I don't think it belongs in the summary / introductory paragraph. I'm not saying it's inaccurate, I'm just saying it's either interpretation (which doesn't belong in a summary) or a selective summary (which is dishonest to the actual text).

6) While Kaczynski does not outright call for violence, he does call for revolution rather than reform, and I think using this language is more faithful to the text itself.

My suggestion for the new sentence is: "He authored a roughly 35,000-word manifesto and social critique called Industrial Society and Its Future (1995) which opposes industrial technology, argues with conviction against leftism, stresses the importance of the "power process" (the opportunity for individuals and small groups to meet their basic needs without large-scale technology), calls for revolution against modern technology rather than reform, and discusses the potential future of industrial society." 100.14.5.140 (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the linked source for this sentence, the article "The Unabomber and the origins of anti-tech radicalism" by Sean Fleming (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13569317.2021.1921940), argues that Kaczynski is a "bioprimitivist" rather than a "cultural primitivist".
The article also does not say Kaczynski rejects fascism.
Lastly, the article agrees with my claim that Kaczynski does not explicitly call for violent revolution in ISAIF, and supports my claim that finding an argument for violence in ISAIF is an act of interpretation: Fleming writes, "Despite the Manifesto’s apparent ambivalence about violence, the revolution that Kaczynski envisions is definitely a violent one. As he reveals in an unpublished essay, ‘In Defense of Violence’, he ‘did not explicitly advocate violence’ in the Manifesto simply because he ‘assumed that the mainstream media would refuse to publish anything that did advocate violence'." 100.14.5.140 (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to note the part about fascism in paragraph 2 as well, you can just ctrl f a copy of the manifesto and see it does not mention "fascism." it passingly mentions "fascists" a single time: "This phenomenon was exploited by the fascists, nazis and communists. Our society uses it, too, though less crudely." (paragraph 83 of ISAIF) So, they are not mentioned with especial disdain, especially in comparison to leftists, to whom Kaczynski essentially dedicates 4 proper sections of describing why he thinks they are bad (The psychology of modern leftism, Feelings of inferiority, Oversocialization, and The danger of leftism). So at best one might be able to say he is against fascism by implication according to some definition of "fascist," but it should not in any case be juxtaposed with his views on leftism in this manner so as to imply he feels remotely the same way about the two. And I am of the same mind as OP that "rejected leftism" does not really capture his views; I think the proposed edit would be much more accurate; that being said the whole paragraph might be worth a more thorough rewrite but I fear I am too busy to give it the effort it would deserve. Boris J. Cornelius (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request: Remove anarchist sidebar from the manifesto section

There is no mention of his views being anarchist anywhere in the article, nor was he actually, the sidebar is misleading and irrelevant MZoooo (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've provisionally removed the sidebar, as it's clearly pushing a certain point of view and unnecessarily clutters the article (as most sidebars tend to, but especially these kinds of coatrack sidebars). I've also removed the "American anarchists" and "Insurrectionary anarchists" category, as nothing in the article appears to define him by these terms. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:59, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2026

I would suggest a grammar change for the line " He often included bits of a tree branch and bark in his bombs; his selected targets included Percy Wood and Leroy Wood." On the second to last sentence, in the last paragraph of "Airline bombing and clues" that line is used, How ever the name LeRoy has an uppercase R instead of a lowercase one. I would like to suggest a grammar change Merades (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done At least two of the cited sources spell the name as "LeRoy", so I've changed it accordingly. Day Creature (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary or misplaced addition

The final paragraph under the Arrest section seems hardly relevant as it is disjointed chronologically, but also adds nothing.

If this "Nathan" investigation is important enough to warrant its inclusion, I'd suggest including it somewhere else that works better contextually and chronologically Thnift (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.