Das Netz - Great Documentary on Ted Kaczynski and His Ideas


This is probably one of the most mindblowing documentaries I've seen to date. I stumbled across it a couple of weeks back and thought about posting it, but forgot it. Roosh's new post brought it back and here you go.

It's hard to describe what it's about, so I won't even try. It won't be an easy ride, but it's worth it.



I watched this on Saturday, and learned a lot. I knew about some of these movements, some of the players, but I didn't know how interconnected it all was. It definitely got me thinking about how these movements and organizations are playing out today.

My grandparents were connected to the commune culture in Oregon during the 60s, so I've met people who wrote for the whole earth catalog, played with the grateful dead, etc. There's a black sheep on my mom's side of the family who was a conspiracy nut, used to rant about the uni-bomber, etc. If she was still alive, I'd love to chat with my grandma about some of this stuff.

Max Roscoe

Surprised there is not a thread on Uncle Ted here. I have only seen bits and pieces of his manifesto and they are eye opening. Sure, you can critique him for using violence to foment his ideas but that's what our government does every day. Video is now banned. What was the title, or do you have another link? Maybe this one?



Gold Member
Surprised there is not a thread on Uncle Ted here. I have only seen bits and pieces of his manifesto and they are eye opening. Sure, you can critique him for using violence to foment his ideas but that's what our government does every day. Video is now banned. What was the title, or do you have another link? Maybe this one?

That looks like the one the OP mentioned.

The randomness and arbitrary choice of victims, which included two small computer store owners, engineering graduate students and faculty, and passenger airplanes totally discredits him in terms of his judgment, it's the kill list of a deranged man. I mean anyone acting on a kill list is a murderer, but his legacy might have been slightly less compromised had he stuck with lobbyists and other evil types...

The first person killed by the Unabomber was 38-year-old Hugh Scrutton, a Sacramento, Calif., computer store owner who picked up a block of wood behind his shop on Dec. 11, 1985. It exploded, spewing shrapnel into his chest and up to 150 yards away.
The attack came on the heels of three others that year. Less than a month earlier, on Nov. 15, Nicklaus Suino, a graduate student at the University of Michigan, was injured when he opened a package bomb addressed to his boss, psychology professor James McConnell. A second bomb, mailed to Boeing Co. in Auburn, Wash., was defused June 13.
On May 15, John Hauser, a graduate engineering student at the University of California at Berkeley, was working on his personal computer in a Cory Hall laboratory when he noticed a three-ring binder attached to a small box with a rubber band.
He picked it up to see if he could find out who it belonged to, and when he opened the box, the explosion blew off four fingers on his right hand and severed two arteries in his forearm.
Diogenes Angelakos, who taught electrical engineering, had an office across the hall and was the first to come to Hauser's aid, Hauser remembers. Using a colleague's tie, he fashioned a tourniquet around Hauser's arm.
Angelakos suffered injuries to his right hand on July 2, 1982, in another attack attributed to the Unabomber, when he picked up "something that looked like it belonged to a construction worker" in a common room faculty members used for coffee breaks.
Cory Hall was the only place the Unabomber struck twice. Kaczynski taught math at Berkeley from 1967 until early 1969, but Hauser and Angelakos said they did not know him.
Hauser had to abandon his goal of becoming an astronaut and now teaches engineering at the University of Colorado in Boulder. "It would be nice to know that he is not going to bring harm to anybody else," he said.

Angelakos said, "I would like to ask the guy . . . if he believes in making changes for the good, why would he be hurting people? That's the only thing I'd like to know."

Kaczynski might have been the last real major terrorist on American soil, Timothy McVeigh, 9/11 and so forth being false flags.
Last edited:

Max Roscoe

Perhaps it stems from my libertarian years, but I'm a very anti-violent / pacifist person. In my view, the US military has never been used justly once in my lifetime, other than maybe the Somali pirate thing that Tom Hanks made a movie about. That said, viewing Uncle Ted from an ideological perspective, he was at least consistent, which is more than one can say for the US government who can't even keep their enemy straight and has caused hundreds of thousands of innocents to die over the past decade.

Yes, he targeted people that most would say did nothing wrong. But under Ted's ideology that technology was some evil destructive force that was ripping society apart, they were all parts of that system. Yes, it sounds bizarre, but is it really more bizarre than saying "man with a gun defending his home in Afghanistan = ISIS" and using that as a justification to kill him? The USG killed orders of magnitude of people that under any unbiased observation would be normal innocent people (likely many engineers, teachers, store owners, students, themselves). So it is a bit hypocritical to view him as some horrible demon and go on normally with our life where our government does essentially the same thing around the world.

I always considered that the last real terrorist (and perhaps the only one other than Ted in my lifetime) was the DC Sniper. That one actually met the definition of TERROR ism, ie using FEAR as a primary weapon, and random violence in order to terrify the larger group. He didn't really bother anyone outside the beltway, but the way he would murder people from blocks away while they were pumping gas would have made me terrified to fill up.

The other events that people think of when they hear "terrorism", even if you believe the mainstream narrative, were merely acts of sabotage, not terrorism. The 911 hijackings didn't make me fear flying, they were merely violent isolated acts (The TSA did that, ba-da-BOOM!) Likewise, the Oklahoma City building didn't make people terrified to go to work the next day. Real terrorism is not about the direct damage done to the dozen or so victims you target. It is about the indirect fear and control you enact over the millions that are reacting to your direct action. I'm not sure the US Gov even understands the power and meaning of terrorism, they have so perverted its definition.

Anyway I'm mostly interested in his ideas, and whether he had any answers or solutions. For someone as genius as he was, it's hard to believe he couldnt see how his violent actions were incredibly harmful and destined to fail, not to mention immoral.

I also view him the same way I viewed Osama Binladen (playing devils advocate that the mainstream narrative is correct). Both these men did horrible things that were indirectly caused by the US Government. OBL was driven to hate the US because we brought armies to his holy lands, and disrespected his religion and people. Uncle Ted was psychologically damaged by the CIA in mind altering operations in college. Therefore, even under the official narratives, I view the government as responsible as they were the indirect proximate cause of both. It wouldn't really be any worse if OBL was a CIA agent and Ted was working for the FBI would it? Direct vs indirect cause makes no difference to the outcome.

Also, while the drugs and psychological tampering permanently harmed Ted, I have to think the isolation and anti-social effects of living alone in a cabin for years also heavily contributed. How many other dangerous cases are we creating with this covid lockdown?
Last edited:


Gold Member
I've been slowly working through his manifesto. He's really on point with his analysis of leftist pyschology.

First, his definition of what a leftist is

But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by "leftism" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology.

According to Ted, a big part of leftist psychology is "feelings of inferiority"

By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

These feelings of inferiority is why they identify with groups that are seen commonly seen as inferior. Ted makes the point in other parts of his writing that he isn't saying that these groups are or aren't actually inferior. The important part is that they are identified as being inferior and that identification is why leftists beatify these people and raise them up to secular sainthood.

13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)

14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist's real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

Max Roscoe

Murdering people because of your beliefs is a basic tenet of almost every major movement in history. It is an uncomfortable part of Ted's story, but the reality is none of us would have ever heard of him if he had been a pacifist with the same philosophy. Likewise with a lot of other ideas around today. Buddhism is the only thing that comes to mind that wasn't heavily promulgated by violence and killing, but killing is still part of Buddhist history.

Would Christianity exist today without the Crusades? Yet hardly any Christian would defend the Crusades today. Likewise we can view the ideas of Ted without going on a killing spree ourselves.