Submitted by TheTedKArchive in Anarchism

The Ted K Archive

This is a newly released huge archive on Ted Kaczynski.

The website works just like wikipedia, where anyone can submit new texts to the website and new edits of texts currently on the website.

We, everyone who has contributed, have archived:

  • A ton of primary source documents on Ted's life and ideas.
  • Documents analyzing the effect he had on the public's understanding of radical environmentalists, anarchists, terrorists, criminals, the mentally ill & simple mental neurodivergence.
  • Lots of great suggested reading on anarchism & other issues.

We, the librarians who bought the website domain, are pro-tech anarchists, but we just find his life story and impact really interesting.

So, we’re hoping the website can work to draw people in with similar politics to him and similar mental health issues frankly. Then for the cold hard reality of the primary source reading material, the epic-ness of the suggested reading material and the inviting discussion spaces connected to the website, to all have a deprogramming effect and be a mental health support.

For example, a popular text on the website for a while was simply a book on how to Unfuck Your Friendships and the discord has already played host to a discussion between people encouraging each other to think rationally about their depression diagnosis.

Which texts go up on the website is decided by a small collective of librarians, but all decisions will be put to a debate that anyone can join, in the live chat discussion spaces linked below.

Discussion Spaces

On the discord and matrix live chat spaces you’ll get:

  • Updates on when new texts go live.
  • Help with how to request rare documents from university archives.
  • The chance to co-ordinate with others on copy typing up handwritten documents onto the website.
  • The option to debate what new texts go up on the website.

Ethical steps taken by this project

We have a list of essays critiquing Ted’s politics & philosophy on the front page of the website.

There are long critiques and disclaimers added to some texts and we aim to add more.

When collecting together research on misanthropic groups and projects, we simply title the text ‘a text dump on ______’. That way for example we don’t dignify fictional stories terror groups weave when they write their own press releases and title them as communiqués.

Anyone can join the debate over which texts should go up on the website, obviously if you join just to troll or spam though, you will be removed.

A record will be kept of all texts that were rejected, whether for minor formatting reasons or deeply held political reasons.

A record will also be kept of controversial texts that were approved, where for example there was a sizable disagreement.

Ideally, in the future we will have popular sorting mechanisms directly under the main search box, such as a check box for 'only anarchist texts' that would exclude texts labelled 'not anarchist'.

Frequently asked questions

Why idolize Ted by naming the website after him?

People who are curious about his life and impact are just the main audience we hope to draw in with this website.

Since we think he's going to be remembered as a true crime curiosity anyways, we might as well capitalize on that and use it as a space to promote critiques of people with similar politics to him and help with similar mental health issues to him.

Was Ted K ever an anarchist?

He definitely identified as an anarchist in the 1990s at least. His first letter to the media, in June 1993, began with the words: "We are an anarchist group calling ourselves FC." A later communiqué from April 1995 repeated: "We call ourselves anarchists." The Manifesto discusses "our particular brand of anarchism".

How easy was the website to set up?

We just bought the domain then asked the good folks at Anarchist to set up the Amuse Wiki software. They did it all for us for free, had it running virtually right away and have helped answer any questions.

If you're curious to live chat to them, there's a channel on the Hexchat program under Libera.Chat channels #amusewiki and #anarchistlibrary.

If you'd like to set up your own anarchist library you can attempt to follow the steps described here and/or email [email protected].



You must log in or register to comment.

__0 wrote

Didn’t ted more use the anarchist angle as a way to fuck with the feds? Like they would put effort into looking into a loosely connected group of radicals instead of some guy building bombs in a cabin? …


Ishkah wrote

I think similar statements he made after he was arrested make it more likely he honestly thought of himself as an anarchist.

That's not to say I necessarily think he was an anarchist or that the way he thought of anarchism is anything like the way I do. For further reading on this issue see: Is the Unabomber an Anarchist?

Before his arrest:

We call ourselves anarchists because we would like, ideally, to break down all society into very small, completely autonomous units. Regrettably, we don’t see any clear road to this goal, so we leave it to the indefinite future. Our more immediate goal, which we think may be attainable at some time during the next several decades, is the destruction of the worldwide industrial system. Through our bombings we hope to promote social instability in industrial society, propagate anti-industrial ideas and give encouragement to those who hate the industrial system.


Man is a social animal, meant to live in groups. But only in SMALL groups, say up to 100 people, in which all members know one another intimately. Man is not meant to live as an insignificant atom in a vast organization, which is the only way he can live in any form of industrialized society.


Leftism is unlikely ever to give up technology, because technology is too valuable a source of collective power.

  1. The anarchist[34] too seeks power, but he seeks it on an individual or small-group basis; he wants individuals and small groups to be able to control the circumstances of their own lives. He opposes technology because it makes small groups dependent on large organizations.


  1. This statement refers to our particular brand of anarchism. A wide variety of social attitudes have been called “anarchist,” and it may be that many who consider themselves anarchists would not accept our statement of paragraph 215. It should be noted, by the way, that there is a nonviolent anarchist movement whose members probably would not accept FC as anarchist and certainly would not approve of FC’s violent methods.

After his arrest:

I would like to comment on some statements that were made in reference to the Unabomber’s manifesto in GA 40–41. In an article on pages 21–22, Anti-Authoritarians Anonymous wrote:

"[A] return to undomesticated autonomous ways of living would not be achieved by the removal of industrialism alone. Such removal would still leave domination of nature, subjugation of women, war, religion, the state, and division of labour, to cite some basic social pathologies. It is civilization itself that must be undone to go where Unabomber wants to go."

I agree with much of this. ...

But the removal of civilization itself is a far more difficult proposition, because civilization in its pre-industrial forms does not require an elaborate and highly-organized technological structure. A pre-industrial civilization requires only a relatively simple technology, the most important element of which is agriculture.

How does one prevent people from practicing agriculture? And given that people practice agriculture, how does one prevent them from living in densely-populated communities and forming social hierarchies? It is a very difficult matter and I don’t see any way of accomplishing it.

I am not suggesting that the elimination of civilization should be abandoned as an ideal or as an eventual goal. I merely point out that no one knows of any plausible means of reaching that goal in the foreseeable future. In contrast, the elimination of the industrial system is a plausible goal for the next several decades, and, in a general way, we can see how to go about attaining it. Therefore, the goal on which we should set our sights for the present is the destruction of the industrial system. After that has been accomplished we can think about eliminating civilization.


After the techno-industrial system has been eliminated, people can and should fight injustice wherever they find it. ...


__0 wrote

Ok damn i love that second quote … i think what confused me was it was based just an interpretation i had like 5-6 years ago, where i kinda simplified teds takes on things, i think also kind of seeing some of the more problematic stuff in the manifesto, and his pretty anti left take on things, but also as someone who identifies as anarchist leaning, and also not as stongly leaning towards traditional leftism … i kind of understand a bit more that traditional leftism isn’t the only route to social justice etc…


Ishkah wrote

There's certainly a lot to dislike about his political theory too, for example it's an open question whether in Ted's view some forms of racial and religious conflicts should be encouraged in the short-term, so long as they are stresses useful in breaking down the industrial system:

It seems to me, that there are discontented groups that could be very useful if we could, so to speak, recruit them.

Then when the right moment comes, they will be in a position to strike. The thing is that people will tend to be attracted to a movement not only on the basis of agreeing with its ideas, but if they see it as effective, having a clear-cut agenda, cohesive, purposeful and active.

In certain quarters, there is a rejection of modernity, among muslim militants, and I’m wondering what extent it might be useful to our movement to carry on discussions with the Muslim militants and see whether there is sufficient common ground there for any sort of alliance.

If he were simply that, I might be inclined to support him, but my guess is that his motive is less an opposition to modernity than a desire to create an Islamic ‘great power’ that would be able to compete on equal terms with other great powers of the world. If that is true, then he is just another ruthless and power-hungry politician, and I have no use for him …

Concerning the recent terrorist action in Britain: Quite apart from any humanitarian considerations, the radical Islamics' approach seems senseless. They take a hostile stance toward whole nations, such as the US. or Britain, and they indiscriminately kill ordinary citizens of those countries. In doing so they only strengthen the countries in question, because they provide the politicians with what they most need: a feared external enemy to unite the people behind their leaders. The Islamics seem to have forgotten the principle of "divide and conquer": Their best policy would have been to profess friendship for the American, British, etc. people and limit their expressed hostility to the elite groups of those countries, while portraying the ordinary people as victims or dupes of their leaders. (Notice that this is the position that the US. usually adopts toward hostile countries.)

So the terrorists' acts of mass slaughter seem stupid. But there may be an explanation other than stupidity for their actions: The radical Islamic leaders may be less interested in the effect that the bombings have on the US. or the UK. than in their effect within the Islamic world. The leaders' main goal may be to build a strong and fanatical Islamic movement, and for this purpose they may feel that spectacular acts of mass destruction arc more effective than assassinations of single individuals, however important the latter may be. I've found some support for this hypothesis:

“[A] radical remake of the faith is indeed the underlying intention of bin Laden and his followers. Attacking America and its allies is merely a tactic, intended to provoke a backlash strong enough to alert Muslims to the supposed truth of their predicament, and so rally them to purge their faith of all that is alien to its essence. Promoting a clash of civilizations is merely stage one. The more difficult part, as the radicals see it, is convincing fellow Muslims to reject the modern world absolutely (including such aberrations as democracy), topple their own insidiously secularizing quisling governments, and return to the pure path.”


"134. For all of the foregoing reasons, technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom. But this statement requires an important qualification. It appears that during the next several decades the industrial-technological system will be undergoing severe stresses due to economic and environmental problems, and especially due to problems of human behavior (alienation, rebellion, hostility, a variety of social and psychological difficulties). We hope that the stresses through which the system is likely to pass will cause it to break down, or at least weaken it sufficiently so that a revolution occurs and is successful, then at that particular moment the aspiration for freedom will have proved more powerful than technology." [Emphasis added.]


"150. As we mentioned in paragraph 134, industrial society seems likely to be entering a period of severe stress, due in part to problems of human behavior and in part to economic and environmental problems. And a considerable proportion of the system's economic and environmental problems result from the way human beings behave. Alienation, low self-esteem, depression, hostility, rebellion; children who won't study, youth gangs, illegal drug use, rape, child abuse , other crimes, unsafe sex, teen pregnancy, population growth, political corruption, race hatred, ethnic rivalry, bitter ideological conflict (i.e., pro-choice vs. pro-life), political extremism, terrorism, sabotage, anti-government groups, hate groups. All these threaten the very survival of the system. The system will be FORCED to use every practical means of controlling human behavior."

As well he is now a kind of Machiavellian vanguardist:

(ii) If a member of the anti-tech organization can find a place on the editorial board of a radical environmentalist periodical (for instance, the Earth First! journal ), he will be able to influence the content of the periodical. If a majority of anti-tech people can be placed on the editorial board, they will be able in effect to take the periodical over, minimize its leftist content, and use it systematically for the propagation of anti-tech ideas. ...

How can anti-tech revolutionaries get themselves into positions of power and influence in radical environmentalist groups? The most important way will be through the moral authority of hard work. In every organization which they seek to capture, the communists are the readiest volunteers, the most devoted committee workers, the most alert and active participants. In many groups, this is in itself sufficient to gain the leadership; it is almost always enough to justify candidacy [for leadership].

The [Communists] in penetrating an organization... become the 'best workers' for whatever goals the organization seeks to attain.


The current political turmoil provides an environment in which a revolutionary movement should be able to gain a foothold. … Present situation looks a lot like situation (19th century) leading up to Russian Revolution, or (pre-1911) to Chinese Revolution. You have all these different factions, mostly goofy and unrealistic, and in disagreement if not in conflict with one another, but all agreeing that the situation is intolerable and that change of the most radical kind is necessary and inevitable. To this mix add one leader of genius.


  1. Prior to that final struggle, the revolutionaries should not expect to have a majority of people on their side. History is made by active, determined minorities, not by the majority, which seldom has a clear and consistent idea of what it really wants.


When the system becomes sufficiently stressed and unstable, a revolution against technology may be possible. The pattern would be similar to that of the French and Russian Revolutions. French society and Russian society, for several decades prior to their respective revolutions, showed increasing signs of stress and weakness. Meanwhile, ideologies were being developed that offered a new world-view that was quite different from the old one. In the Russian case revolutionaries were actively working to undermine the old order. Then, when the old system was put under sufficient additional stress (by financial crisis in France, by military defeat in Russia) it was swept away by revolution. What we propose is something along the same lines.


wuwuw wrote

hey i think i'll start an archive called and fill it with a load of my own shitty writing and a ton of other writing that noam chomsky would obviously not want attached to his name


TheTedKArchive OP wrote (edited )

It is comical how calling the website 'the' ted k archive and including social anarchist texts has made it possible for teddites to relate to how pissed off the social anarchists were when ITS texts got added to 'the' anarchist library.

But, yeah go off, I would prefer to read Chomsky over Chomsky haters, but if the first person to have the energy to create an archive of Chomsky's writing happened to desire to load the site with Chomsky critiques and suggested reading Chomsky wouldn't like, I would still appreciate the work that went into archiving his writing.


wuwuw wrote

except... ted k is an actual person (an anarchist POW, no less) who you're shitting all over.

i wonder if you ever considered that someone like daniel mcgowan (an ex anarchist POW) would not want their writing on a website like yours? where are those 'ethics' that you're always going on about, ishkah?

your website includes doxes of people who you don't like, which i guess you think is fine because you're 'doing good' or something, but how can you also dox their spouse? is a woman guilty of the crimes her husband committed in your eyes?

probably you have no idea what i'm talking about because you haven't read any of the texts you've uploaded.


TheTedKArchive OP wrote

Suggested Reading critiquing Ted

Arguments for deleting: Ted is an anarchist POW, so he deserves not to be shit all over.

Counter argument: Even if I were to grant he's an anarchist POW, it wouldn't make the 'war' he fought any more justifiable, it would just mean some anarchist POWs deserve to be shit all over. Ted is an asshole who planted a bomb on a public airliner, took a knife to meet a romantic interest who turned him down, with the plan to disfigure her face for it, and slowly tortured animals to death for eating food in his cabin.

Texts by Daniel McGowen

Argument for deleting: Daniel is an ex anarchist POW, so he might deserve special treatment in being asked whether he wants his texts published.

Counter argument: There are countless witness testimonies of the time and place Daniel was radicalized also being a hotbed of interest in the Unabomber manifesto. So when using the website to learn about these events, it's useful to have writing by the ELF members themselves to look through in the same topic. He acknowledges himself he made some dumb decisions like burning down a tree farm due to thinking they were genetically modified trees when they weren't, and so hopes others can learn not to make the kind of mistakes he made, this website can attempt to in part serve that purpose.

Doxes of the eco-extremist writer/translator/publisher Abe Cabrera and his vivisectionist wife

Argument for deleting: No good is being achieved. And even if the husband did commit an unethical act, the wife can't be guilty of the crimes her husband committed.

Counter argument: When I feel like it I'll take screenshots of the sources, black out the names in the images, post them and replace the names in the text on the website with '[censored]'. The net good is being able to understand the history of a group who started out slavishly walking in Ted's ideological footsteps and how they became way, way more misanthropic and hopeless than him, plus their supporters and promoters.


theishkaharchive wrote

Doxes of the eco-extremist writer/translator/publisher Abe Cabrera and his vivisectionist wife

Your website includes doxes of more people than just those two (who might just be two random latinx people for all you know).

You'd know which doxes I was talking about if you'd actually read any of the texts you've been uploading.


TheTedKArchive OP wrote

Yeah bullshit about that not being Abe, there were enough sources, confirmations and witness descriptions.

And of course I don't read every single word of every text I upload, some are literally text dumps of 8 year long podcast transcripts for word searching, and a lot is just utter trash ideology, but it's there to be a primary source for people to be able to reference in relation to other texts.

If you want to say any doxxes you think exist and should be taken down you're more than welcome, I already censored the doxxes on Abe and his wife last night:


yourhonor wrote

different anon here, coming to this conversation late.

there were enough sources, confirmations and witness descriptions.

what are you talking about? ''witness descriptions''? there was literally one source. one site -- only one -- said it was him. he, via his legal representative, said it was mistaken identity.

no other anarchist site touched the subject because they didn't want to risk ruining a guy and his wife's lives over a fucking rumor on the internet.

you don't seem to have any such qualms.


yrhonor wrote

'I don't have time to go back and find the stuff to prove it to you' is internet speak for 'i can not answer your question so i'll just pretend to be busy and hide.'

Yes, I've read the 325 piece. We've all read it. It's four years old now. You're very late to the party, Brit dude.

There is nothing to confirm anything L at 325 wrote in any of the other pieces you've linked. Obviously John H Richardson of the New York Magazine didn't doxx anyone. He knows the serious legal consequences of doxing people when you're a public figure. Likewise, Aragorn! and Bellamy didn't dox anyone either. Ever. That's not their style, as anyone who'd ever listened to their podcast would know.

So you've literally got one source, not 'enough sources, confirmations and witness descriptions.'


Gardon00765 wrote

Why should people care if others don't want stuff they said to be known? Seems somebody just should watch what they say if they dont want people to know of it


asterism wrote

Unironically a great idea.

Anything to smear the name of Chompsky!