X Close

Gen Z’s worship of the Unabomber He was the violent prophet of our tech-dystopia

Professor Theodore Kaczynski (Photo by Bureau of Prisons/Getty Images)

Professor Theodore Kaczynski (Photo by Bureau of Prisons/Getty Images)


September 12, 2022   8 mins

“The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.” Writing those words as the introduction to his 1995 anti-technology manifesto Industrial Society and its Future, Ted Kaczynski couldn’t have known that they would someday spawn an entire genre of memes. But so they have.

Eighty years old and serving eight consecutive life sentences in federal prison for his career as the Unabomber, Kaczynski has been revived as an online folk hero. Spend enough time online and you’ll stumble across the ‘Ted-pilled’ community, where “Uncle Ted” is a prophet who predicted the Silicon Valley-created dystopia we live in.

Kaczynski’s online popularity has coincided with a flurry of Unabomber-related content in recent years, including three separate TV or film projects: a four-part Netflix documentary, a dramatised Manhunt series on the FBI’s investigation, and Ted K, a feature-length biopic set on location near the infamous Lincoln, Montana cabin where Kaczynski built the bombs he used to kill three people and injure 23 more.

Advertisements

This spring saw the publication of a book by Kaczynski’s neighbour in Montana, and this summer Apple TV released a podcast on the case. He’s also been name-checked by Right-wing influencers clearly trying to keep up with the zeitgeist, like Fox News host Tucker Carlson and Arizona Senate candidate Blake Masters. Carlson last year praised Kaczynski’s “smart analysis” of systems and large organisations, while Masters recommended Kaczynski’s manifesto in a podcast interview in March, saying “there’s a lot of insight there.” Over 25 years after he was arrested, there is no end to our interest in the Unabomber. Why do we still find him so compelling? And why is Kaczynski cool now with very online types, from Right-wingers on 4chan to “anti-woke” leftists on Reddit?

While the recent Unabomber retrospectives mostly rehash his life and the facts of his case, the current zeitgeist revolves more around his ideology. Kaczynski’s manifesto argued that technological progress — the “Industrial Revolution and its consequences” — posed an existential threat to humankind by turning people into “engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine”. Stripped of their autonomy by a faceless, unaccountable system, humans endured psychological suffering as they were forced into “over-socialization”, Kaczynski’s term for a state of being in which the industrial society’s codes and mores have replaced a person’s innate selfhood.

Zombified in this way, people blindly applauded technological advances which spelt societal and environmental doom. There was no hope of fixing the current system. The only option remaining, in Kaczynski’s view, was to overthrow it completely through revolution — by any means necessary. Though Kaczynski repeatedly emphasises the non-political nature of his revolution, he has a lot to say about political movements, particularly Leftist ones, which he saw as cadres of over-socialised do-gooders preoccupied with irrelevant identity concerns. Conservatives weren’t much better: they were “fools” who failed to understand that technology was destroying the traditionalism they prized.

Gen Z and younger millennials see the truth in Kaczynski’s central critique of technology, and its deleterious effects on society. Surrounded by screens from early childhood, addicted to near-constant media consumption, often lacking basic in-person social skills, many sense a broader problem in their own individual capture by the tech borg. They’ve grown up in an era marked by mounting terror about climate change, and in which conventional politics seems woefully insufficient to solve any problems. So Kaczynski’s manifesto resonates.

Though he could never have imagined such horrors as TikTok in the Nineties, the society he describes — atomised and materialistic, one that has forfeited freedom in favour of technological progress we’ve been tricked into wanting — chillingly resembles our own. Sure, he cribbed a lot from French philosopher Jacques Ellul, whose book The Technological Society deeply influenced Kaczynski. But there’s a disquieting reason why Kaczynski is a household name and Ellul, outside of academic circles, is not. Fans tend to either be defiant about the terrorism itself — what better way to offend normies? — or they view it as an unfortunate side plot, perhaps not realising it’s the only reason Kaczynski’s ideas ever attracted notice. “I honestly wish Uncle Teddy wasn’t a terrorist and instead just published the manifesto and let it get popular decades later,” wrote Reddit poster “nabberstonguemyanus” earlier this year. “Then we could openly endorse it and not be called incel psychos.”

Kaczynski’s recent popularity also corresponds with an epidemic of isolated, socially unskilled young men, many of whom appear to be living mostly online. The term “NEET” — not in education, employment or training — has spilled out from the realm of economics research into common usage. The proportion of NEETs who are young men has been increasing in both the US and the UK. Despite sterling credentials and a promising academic career, Kaczynski chose the lifestyle of what would now be called a “NEET”. In doing so, he became free to enact his revenge on a system he hated and from which he’d felt alienated even as a child. Few of today’s NEETs could, or would want to, deploy Kaczynski’s methods. But they admire his refusal to be judged by society’s standards and relate to his inability to fit in. Few have the wherewithal to leave society entirely, but many may dream of it.

Kaczynski grew up in a working-class Chicago suburb, one of two boys. He was a gifted student and enrolled at Harvard at age 16. Lonely, awkward Ted struggled socially and participated in a cruel series of experiments run by a psychology professor with ties to the CIA. Kaczynski and the other participants were subjected to degrading interrogations disguised as intellectual debates and aimed at breaking their confidence. Kaczynski later called it the worst experience he’d ever had. Traumatised and increasingly paranoid, Kaczynski went on to obtain his Ph.D from the University of Michigan, then to a prestigious professorship at the University of California-Berkeley. Kaczynski’s disillusionment with society hardened at Berkeley, where he decided he could no longer countenance studying or teaching mathematics since it contributed to scientific and technological progress. He left Berkeley in 1969 and floated around for much of the Seventies, sometimes living with his parents and holding down temporary blue-collar jobs, before moving permanently into his 10×12 cabin in Montana.

Beginning in 1978, he planted or mailed 16 bombs mostly to universities and airlines, killing three people and injuring 23. He sent his manifesto to the New York Times and the Washington Post (and Penthouse, though that always seems to get left out) promising to end the violence if they published it. With encouragement from the government, who thought publishing the document could help crack the case, the Post did so. Kaczynski’s brother David and his wife Linda recognised Ted’s writing and alerted the FBI, who arrested him at his cabin in April 1996. Cue the iconic mugshot: Kaczynski in an orange jumpsuit, bearded and grizzled, a far cry from the handsome, clean-cut young professor photographed on the Berkeley campus. He spent 25 years in ADX Florence, a federal supermax prison in Colorado known for housing high-profile or particularly dangerous inmates, before being moved to a medical facility late last year.

There’s a strange thrill to the story. How many of us believe so deeply in our philosophical principles that we would give up all our modern comforts? American culture is strongly influenced by the myth of the frontier loner, fiercely independent and living on his own terms. We fear this type, but we also respect him. What makes Kaczynski unique is that he had it both ways, finding freedom in seclusion while also fulfilling that other very American compulsion: to be noticed. Unlike other wilderness hermits such as Christopher McCandless, the subject of Jon Krakauer’s Into the Wild, Kaczynski influenced society even more by dropping out of it than he would have otherwise. McCandless’ Kerouackian journey ended grimly in a broken down bus in the Alaskan woods where he died of malnutrition. Kaczynski made himself world-famous and forced the public to reckon with his ideas. He hasn’t even seemed to mind prison, from where he has exchanged letters with supporters and even fallen in love with a female pen pal. He’s continued to influence politics; a 2018 story in New York Magazine described his dealings with a faction of radical environmentalists.

That view — of the Unabomber as a John Brown-esque maverick driven by a higher ideal — is one way to look at it. Another way is to consider Kaczynski as a deeply lonely man driven to violence as much by personal grievance as by principle. He was unable to form relationships with women, an incel in other words. Kaczynski’s bonds with his family were strained and he eventually cut his parents out of his life entirely, blaming them for pushing him to attend Harvard before he was mature enough to handle it. His brother David’s 2015 memoir is an often gut-wrenching read.

It’s hard not to feel for young Ted, so unprepared and unformed. “His confidence in his intellect was not matched by any visceral confidence in his worth as a person, and over time the divide would only grow larger,” David writes, describing Ted on his way off to Harvard. “His self-confidence became infected with doubt, recoiled, and then redoubled toward arrogance and grandiosity.” It’s poignant to read, in a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation Kaczynski underwent in 1998, that as late as age 45 he still held out hope of meeting a partner and even contacted a local psychologist in Montana to help him learn to build a relationship. Apparently the bombing campaign wasn’t enough to fill a deep emotional vacuum.

Knowing this history gives a new dimension to the Ted trend. In valorising him, fans get to feel edgy and subversive for portraying him as a freedom fighter. But they can also relate to the bitter, friendless individual Kaczynski really was. Some are aware of this. “Ted Kaczynski AKA The Unabomber was one of our brethren,” wrote poster “Redpill Robert” on a large incel forum in 2020.

It’s difficult to empathise with Kaczynski as a person, even if one were willing to set aside his murders to do so. David Kaczynski writes of Ted’s cruelty towards their parents, of hateful letters written over a period of years as he minimised contact. He didn’t attend his father’s funeral after the elder Kaczynski killed himself. Wanda Kaczynski coped by concluding that Ted had been warped by trauma stemming from a hospitalisation as an infant. Ted refused to reconcile with her even as she lay on her deathbed. His resentment towards his parents is an obvious subtext to his manifesto, in sections where he deplores modern child-rearing and schooling. “It isn’t natural for an adolescent human being to spend the bulk of his time sitting at a desk absorbed in study,” Kaczynski complains.

Even in his journals, Kaczynski acknowledged the personal nature of his plans. “My motive for doing what I am going to do is simply personal revenge,” he wrote in 1971. “ I do not expect to accomplish anything by it.” He considered the possibility that his crimes would “stimulate public interest in the technology question”, but equally mused that they would “repel” most people and cause a backlash. In the end, of course, they did both. Kaczynski came across as morally repugnant and arrogant, but he succeeded in forcing his ideas into the mainstream.

There’s a mini-Ted inside all of us. Fumbling at an automated self-checkout kiosk while a computerised voice chirps at you; clicking impotently to make a YouTube ad go away; receiving an email about one’s information being compromised in a widespread data breach; being served a targeted Instagram ad moments after googling something related: we all know the kind of helpless rage these moments inspire. For members of the younger generations, whose development and social lives have been shaped to a degree unprecedented in human history by technology, Kaczynski represents a lost alternative. Most of them will never commit a violent act; Tedposting will have to do for now.

More and more, it’s becoming conventional wisdom that our constant exposure to screens and digital stimuli is bad. Efforts to do something about it crop here and there: some Silicon Valley parents forbid their children from using the very same devices that industry sells to others, and the Chinese government announced last year that it would limit children to three hours of online gaming per week. Among adults, phone addiction is so commonplace that people have begun to lock their phones in boxes to get even a small respite from them — the necessity of this an example of the kind of technological servitude Kaczynski feared. There’s an increasing sense of having lost touch with nature, a sense of the world and its societies being diseased. The Unabomber nostalgia wave is a symptom.


Rosie Gray is a journalist who has previously worked for Buzzfeed News and The Atlantic

RosieGray

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

24 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago

Kaczynski and the other participants were subjected to degrading interrogations disguised as intellectual debates and aimed at breaking their confidence. Kaczynski later called it the worst experience he’d ever had.

I never knew this about Ted Kaczynski. I had a similar experience about fifteen years ago at a college I taught at during my twenties. Me and some other coworkers were picked to attend a five-day training session out in the middle of nowhere where we had to deconstruct ourselves (i.e. unearth our deep-seated traumas) in order to find out what was behind our social masks (not very much it turned out). Almost every female colleague had some kind of breakdown and one male colleague ended up locking himself in his room the entire time. I ‘survived’ the experience by falling back into humor and pretending not to take it all too seriously.
That Ted Kaczynski ‘fell out’ of society doesn’t surprise me now that I’ve learned about this. He underwent a form of brainwashing and it damaged him.
While I absolutely loathed my own experiences with this kind of ‘interrogative debate’, I am forever grateful for it as I’m better able to recognize the techniques. They are very similar to those performed by Critical Theory professors: the breakdown of students’ identities and then the subsequent division of them into victim or oppressor groups dependent on their skin color, gender, or sexuality in order to prime them for ‘social justice’ ends. This is now rife in American education and needs to stop. Unfortunately, those doing it gaslight others by claiming that they are merely teaching students about racial or gender injustices, while weaponizing compassion against those who speak out against it. It is psychological abuse on such a massive scale that few are willing to see it. It is only now that parents and politicians are starting to catch on.

Last edited 1 year ago by Julian Farrows
charles bradshaw
charles bradshaw
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

Your experience was bad, but Ted’s was far, far worse. Henry Murray, the sadistic psychiatrist who was his mentor-turned-tormentor subjected him to 200 hours of verbal abuse and humiliation expressly designed to break down his personality. The sessions were filmed and Ted was forced to watch them repeatedly while Murray belittled him. See Alston Chase’s excellent ‘A Mind for Murder’.

John McKee
John McKee
1 year ago

Good God! This is appalling and near criminal. All responsible for this kind of experiment should be severely sanctioned.

brad adobe
brad adobe
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

How The US Government & Other Governments Around The World Run False Flag Operations:
TerrorStorm Full length version
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vrXgLhkv21Y

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zYVjF4uS320

Judge Napolitano The FBI Creates, Then Foils Terror Plots – False Flag

https://www.stuartwilde.com › 2013 › 04 › fbi-created-17-false-flag-terrorist-attacks-fox-tv

FBI Created 17 False Flag Terrorist Attacks- FOX TV – Stuart Wilde

According to Judge Andrew Napolitano, in the past 10 years, there’ve been 20 Terrorist plots in the US.
 17 were created by the FBI then stopped-by the FBI.

Last edited 1 year ago by brad adobe
John McKee
John McKee
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

Hear, Hear!

Laney R Sexton
LS
Laney R Sexton
1 year ago

My husband is the smartest person I’ve ever met and a true independent thinker.
I was reading this article while he was in a dead sleep, I nudged him awake and said,

“honey, do you know anything about the unibomber?”

“He saw the future coming”
Zzzzz

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago

His manifesto is worth reading at least once. The part where he talks about oversocialisation on the part of leftists is eerily prescient.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago

A child maths prodigy who kept skipping grades, thus losing social contacts, and went to University early – so probably autistic to some degree. Then subjected to a psychology study detailed in the article, for 3 years, meeting someone every week who berated him as part of that study. Later thought he wanted to change gender too, but realised he was wrong.
His early biography reads like one of those self help guides….’How to create a psychopathic killer’.

Last edited 1 year ago by Ian Stewart
Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

American culture in action.

Alphonse Reinhardt
Alphonse Reinhardt
1 year ago

I don’t like the trend of attempting to understand a thinker’s ideas primarily thru biography. I think that this is a good article, really better than most of the stuff being written on “Uncle Ted” rn, and I particularly like that you highlight the suffering imparted onto him at Harvard, but I think you do not adequately address his ideas.

Thinking in terms of biography, and thus attempting to understand ideas thru building a psychological profile of the author, isn’t as intellectually honest as examining his ideas. I don’t think that much is gained in understanding “cogito ergo sum” with the knowledge of Descartes’ sexual preferences (he had a fetish for cross-eyed women), or that Newton’s physics are better grasped after learning about his lifelong celibacy (he personally considered this to be his greatest achievement).

When we overemphasize the personal, we can risk forming prejudices about the author that hinder our ability to even begin to engage with their ideas. It’s highly unlikely that if you first encounter the names Sartre, Beauvoir, Foucault, Deleuze, Althusser, etc for the first time in the context of a certain petition signed in 1977, that you will want to seriously approach their work. It’s endemic on the left and the right. Think of the leftist treatment of Thomas Jefferson online (Sally Hemings). Think of the rightist treatment of Karl Marx’s personal life (lack of regular employment, serial infidelity, etc).

Biographical facts are important. Very important. But ideas should be judged by their content, not their creator.

ormondotvos
ormondotvos
1 year ago

Nope. Should be judged by both, plus past and current context.
When K was in his cabin, I was living, serially in a real Tipi (conical pole tent, plains native), boats both residential and commercial, and an operational municipal bus.
Ain’t killed nobody, but politics tempted me
Waaay retired now.

Frank Fisher
Frank Fisher
1 year ago

Well he was not wrong, was he? The manifesto still has traction because as you read it, you immediately recognize the world we live in. Like Marx’s critique, the manifesto is pointed and accurate, but like marx he then goes askew. I’m not a pacifist in any sense, violence has its place. But I cannot endorse attempting to bomb an airliner. Perhaps my rationale is too weak. We bombed Dresden and Hiroshima, there were children there and we knew it. We decided randomly killing innocents was necessary. I guess Ted thought the same. I’m not there yet, perhaps if I had encountered MK Ultra as Ted did, or if I was in the cockpit of Enola Gay, I’d think differently, but right now I do not.

But many, I think, are close to that. It surprises me that at this moment in time there is not more terrorism. When we think of the 1970s and the multiple european terrorist movements in response to the political repression and and authoritarian response to, eg, Vietnam war protests and attempts at communal living, it really is strange that post-Covid we see practically nothing. Where is this era’s Red Brigade? Where is the Angry Brigade? There is a strange passivity. Perhaps that is MK Ultra’s doing too. But I wonder how long that will last.

William Foster
WF
William Foster
1 year ago

For members of the younger generations, whose development and social lives have been shaped to a degree unprecedented in human history by technology, Kaczynski represents a lost alternative. Most of them will never commit a violent act; Tedposting will have to do for now.

most

for now.

Planting the idea that some of those who see any value in Kaczynski’s ideas will at some point commit some atrocity. Not to mention serving to reinforce the abhorrent hate term ’incel’ as a matter of fact.

It’s difficult for the writer not to conclude that ‘he was right’ in terms of forewarning what was to come, not what led to his incarceration. Even admittedly proven in at least some aspects. A clearly troubled (abused) high intellect, if not genius of our times. Yet to align yourself, even slightly, with Kaczynski’s analysis means you are branded an ‘incel’ and are therefore an enemy of society, whose ideas if not person, a human, are to be instantly denigrated and dismissed.

It’s difficult to empathise with Kaczynski as a person, even if one were willing to set aside his murders to do so.

Yet the premise of the article is exactly the opposite, ascribing an entire generation. I’d also like to point out the current trend for quoting and attributing non-person usernames and what worth that provides.

Perhaps I’m wrong but this article comes across as a classic bait and switch. Here’s a dispassionate analysis, that means your conclusions should be thus.

Let’s look at who wrote this article, I thought. Previous published by Buzzfeed and The Atlantic. Well. Hmm.

Last edited 1 year ago by William Foster
michael harris
michael harris
1 year ago
Reply to  William Foster

I am an OLD guy. Here’s my ‘Tedpost’
I never read his manifesto before but I have now (in part and I’ll get back to it).
The world and people he talks about are now completely familiar.
His concerns are now quite mainstream.
His call for revolution is only for now unfashionable.
Most of his arguments have been rehearsed since by other writers, not least on ‘Unherd’.
Many people more warped, wrongheaded and evil with a higher body count and more destruction to their name have ‘paid their debts to society’ and walked free.
He will die in jail because the ‘leaders’ of society could not bear to be so fundamentally challenged before they had prepared their defenses.

Oliver Nicholson
Oliver Nicholson
1 year ago

Lewinsky and Clinton have shown
What Kaczynski must surely have known:
That an intern is better
Than a bomb in a letter
When what you most want’s to get blown.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago

“Cue the iconic mugshot: Kaczynski in an orange jumpsuit, bearded and grizzled, a far cry from the handsome, clean-cut young professor photographed on the Berkeley campus.”
And, UnHerd, you went and did it yourself.

ormondotvos
ormondotvos
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

THAT is a seriously accurate observation.
Unherd was predicted by K and will ignore you.

Last edited 1 year ago by ormondotvos
Cisco Diaz
Cisco Diaz
1 year ago

Did I miss the point or did you-all ?
The warning was about genectic altered human beings. Changing human DNA and altering it’s normal development direction.
GATTACA the movie was built on Kaczynski’s core warning. Let’s not forget his famous defining of the ‘Liberal’ causes and their dedication to other people’s problems. Justified because they were mentally confined in their peer-group hierarchy.
This is one of the better articles but still surfing along the peripheral of his ideaology. Is that your smart-phone ringing ?
Please note: we here are all subject to an FBI raid soon. It’s the tech surveillance times we live in ….

Last edited 1 year ago by Cisco Diaz
Richard Abbot
Richard Abbot
1 year ago

He identified, as many others have before and since, that the number one obstacle to a happy and fulfilled life is Leftism.

Noel Chiappa
NC
Noel Chiappa
1 year ago

A good article. A proper response would take time I don’t have, alas; he did identify some real problems, but his proposed solution was confused.

Will Cummings
Will Cummings
1 year ago

So was he a left wing terrorist or a right wing terrorist? Or was he a victim of an MK-Ultra experiment that uses a manufactured left/right divided ideology as cover?

Mike Michaels
Mike Michaels
1 year ago

Not to condone the bombing thing but you can’t help feeling he was right about a few things.

Vince B
Vince B
1 year ago

I’m struck by how personal the political always seems with radicals, maybe all of us to some degree. He could have been just as righteously angry and worried about technology and been a leader showing is its pitfalls if he hadn’t been damaged as a young man.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

What is going on here (regarding comments, not the article)? Let’s all jump on the TK bandwagon, shall we? Sure, he was a violent nutcase who murdered 3 people and could have killed many more, but hey, he made a not-particularly-original manifesto about modern technology’s effects on modern life, and walked the walk by living in a shack, so let’s all talk about how “right” he was (and how he hated lefties, of course), and leave out those pesky murders. It’s shameful.

Last edited 1 year ago by harry storm