\documentclass[DIV=12,%
               BCOR=0mm,%
               headinclude=false,%
               footinclude=false,open=any,%
               fontsize=11pt,%
               oneside,%
               paper=210mm:11in]%
               {scrbook}






\usepackage[noautomatic]{imakeidx}



\usepackage{microtype}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{alltt}
\usepackage{verbatim}
\usepackage[shortlabels]{enumitem}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\def\hsout{\bgroup \ULdepth=-.55ex \ULset}
% https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/22410/strikethrough-in-section-title
% Unclear if \protect \hsout is needed. Doesn't looks so
\DeclareRobustCommand{\sout}[1]{\texorpdfstring{\hsout{#1}}{#1}}
\usepackage{wrapfig}

% avoid breakage on multiple <br><br> and avoid the next [] to be eaten
\newcommand*{\forcelinebreak}{\strut\\*{}}

\newcommand*{\hairline}{%
  \bigskip%
  \noindent \hrulefill%
  \bigskip%
}

% reverse indentation for biblio and play

\newenvironment*{amusebiblio}{
  \leftskip=\parindent
  \parindent=-\parindent
  \smallskip
  \indent
}{\smallskip}

\newenvironment*{amuseplay}{
  \leftskip=\parindent
  \parindent=-\parindent
  \smallskip
  \indent
}{\smallskip}

\newcommand*{\Slash}{\slash\hspace{0pt}}


% http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/3033/forcing-linebreaks-in-url
\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}\usepackage[hyperfootnotes=false,hidelinks,breaklinks=true]{hyperref}
\usepackage{bookmark}

\usepackage[english,shorthands=off]{babel}
\babelfont{rm}[Path=/usr/share/fonts/truetype/cmu/,%
 BoldFont=cmunbx.ttf,%
 BoldItalicFont=cmunbi.ttf,%
 ItalicFont=cmunti.ttf]{cmunrm.ttf}
\babelfont{tt}[Scale=MatchLowercase,%
 Path=/usr/share/fonts/truetype/cmu/,%
 BoldFont=cmuntb.ttf,%
 BoldItalicFont=cmuntx.ttf,%
 ItalicFont=cmunit.ttf]{cmuntt.ttf}
\babelfont{sf}[Scale=MatchLowercase,%
 Path=/usr/share/fonts/truetype/cmu/,%
 BoldFont=cmunsx.ttf,%
 BoldItalicFont=cmunso.ttf,%
 ItalicFont=cmunsi.ttf]{cmunss.ttf}



\renewcommand*{\partpagestyle}{empty}


% global style

\pagestyle{plain}




\usepackage{indentfirst}

% remove the numbering
\setcounter{secnumdepth}{-2}

% remove labels from the captions
\renewcommand*{\captionformat}{}
\renewcommand*{\figureformat}{}
\renewcommand*{\tableformat}{}
\KOMAoption{captions}{belowfigure,nooneline}
\addtokomafont{caption}{\centering}







\deffootnote[3em]{0em}{3em}{\textsuperscript{\thefootnotemark}~}


\addtokomafont{disposition}{\rmfamily}
\addtokomafont{descriptionlabel}{\rmfamily}


\frenchspacing
% avoid vertical glue
\raggedbottom

% this will generate overfull boxes, so we need to set a tolerance
% \pretolerance=1000
% pretolerance is what is accepted for a paragraph without
% hyphenation, so it makes sense to be strict here and let the user
% accept tweak the tolerance instead.
\tolerance=200
% Additional tolerance for bad paragraphs only
\setlength{\emergencystretch}{30pt}

% (try to) forbid widows/orphans
\clubpenalty=10000
\widowpenalty=10000





% given that we said footinclude=false, this should be safe
\setlength{\footskip}{2\baselineskip}
\setlength{\parindent}{15pt}

\title{High-IQ serial bomber}
\date{July 23, 2025}
\author{Shuangtong}
\subtitle{The criminal who declares himself “betrayed.”}






% https://groups.google.com/d/topic/comp.text.tex/6fYmcVMbSbQ/discussion
\hypersetup{%
pdfencoding=auto,
pdftitle={High-IQ serial bomber},%
pdfauthor={Shuangtong},%
pdfsubject={The criminal who declares himself “betrayed.”},%
pdfkeywords={IQ; analysis of Ted’s ideas \& actions; podcasts}%
}


\begin{document}









  \begin{titlepage}


  \strut\vskip 2em
  \begin{center}

  {\usekomafont{title}{\huge High-IQ serial bomber\par}}%
  \vskip 1em
  
  {\usekomafont{subtitle}{The criminal who declares himself “betrayed.”\par}}%
  
  \vskip 2em
  
  {\usekomafont{author}{Shuangtong\par}}%
  
  \vskip 1.5em



   
   \vfill



  
  {\usekomafont{date}{July 23, 2025\par}}%
  


  \end{center}


     \end{titlepage}
     
     \cleardoublepage





\tableofcontents
% start a new right-handed page

\cleardoublepage



\section{Case summary}


From 1978 to 1995, over a span of 17 years, a high-IQ loner hiding deep in the forest launched a series of sophisticated, cold, and highly symbolic attacks on universities, airlines, and corporate executives in the form of mail bombs. For 17 years, the FBI was completely led by the nose by the killers; their inability to solve cases caused long-term panic in American society. This is not just a serial murder case, but a declaration against industrial society written through violence.


Besides reconstructing the details of the crime and the FBI pursuit, I want to explore further,


Why did the killer direct his hatred toward the modern technological system?


How did I interpret that 35,000-word essay “Industrial Society and Its Future”,


And what exactly does so-called IQ mean?


Special thanks to: Producer @OrangeBigHead

\section{Timeline}


\href{https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/\%E9\%9C\%9C\%E7\%99\%BD\%E4\%B9\%8B\%E4\%B9\%A6/13\%E9\%AB\%98\%E6\%99\%BA\%E5\%95\%86\%E8\%BF\%9E\%E7\%8E\%AF\%E7\%82\%B8\%E5\%BC\%B9\%E5\%AE\%A2\%E8\%A2\%AB\%E8\%87\%AA\%E5\%B7\%B1\%E5\%AE\%A3\%E8\%A8\%80\%E5\%87\%BA\%E5\%8D\%96\%E7\%9A\%84\%E7\%8A\%AF\%E4\%BA\%BA-em2IPVjkNTS/\#66}{1:06–28}\href{https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/\%E9\%9C\%9C\%E7\%99\%BD\%E4\%B9\%8B\%E4\%B9\%A6/13\%E9\%AB\%98\%E6\%99\%BA\%E5\%95\%86\%E8\%BF\%9E\%E7\%8E\%AF\%E7\%82\%B8\%E5\%BC\%B9\%E5\%AE\%A2\%E8\%A2\%AB\%E8\%87\%AA\%E5\%B7\%B1\%E5\%AE\%A3\%E8\%A8\%80\%E5\%87\%BA\%E5\%8D\%96\%E7\%9A\%84\%E7\%8A\%AF\%E4\%BA\%BA-em2IPVjkNTS/\#1685}{:05}: Chain bombings occur nationwide


\href{https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/\%E9\%9C\%9C\%E7\%99\%BD\%E4\%B9\%8B\%E4\%B9\%A6/13\%E9\%AB\%98\%E6\%99\%BA\%E5\%95\%86\%E8\%BF\%9E\%E7\%8E\%AF\%E7\%82\%B8\%E5\%BC\%B9\%E5\%AE\%A2\%E8\%A2\%AB\%E8\%87\%AA\%E5\%B7\%B1\%E5\%AE\%A3\%E8\%A8\%80\%E5\%87\%BA\%E5\%8D\%96\%E7\%9A\%84\%E7\%8A\%AF\%E4\%BA\%BA-em2IPVjkNTS/\#1686}{28:06–31}\href{https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/\%E9\%9C\%9C\%E7\%99\%BD\%E4\%B9\%8B\%E4\%B9\%A6/13\%E9\%AB\%98\%E6\%99\%BA\%E5\%95\%86\%E8\%BF\%9E\%E7\%8E\%AF\%E7\%82\%B8\%E5\%BC\%B9\%E5\%AE\%A2\%E8\%A2\%AB\%E8\%87\%AA\%E5\%B7\%B1\%E5\%AE\%A3\%E8\%A8\%80\%E5\%87\%BA\%E5\%8D\%96\%E7\%9A\%84\%E7\%8A\%AF\%E4\%BA\%BA-em2IPVjkNTS/\#1918}{:58} The bomber voluntarily appears


\href{https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/\%E9\%9C\%9C\%E7\%99\%BD\%E4\%B9\%8B\%E4\%B9\%A6/13\%E9\%AB\%98\%E6\%99\%BA\%E5\%95\%86\%E8\%BF\%9E\%E7\%8E\%AF\%E7\%82\%B8\%E5\%BC\%B9\%E5\%AE\%A2\%E8\%A2\%AB\%E8\%87\%AA\%E5\%B7\%B1\%E5\%AE\%A3\%E8\%A8\%80\%E5\%87\%BA\%E5\%8D\%96\%E7\%9A\%84\%E7\%8A\%AF\%E4\%BA\%BA-em2IPVjkNTS/\#1919}{31:59–33}\href{https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/\%E9\%9C\%9C\%E7\%99\%BD\%E4\%B9\%8B\%E4\%B9\%A6/13\%E9\%AB\%98\%E6\%99\%BA\%E5\%95\%86\%E8\%BF\%9E\%E7\%8E\%AF\%E7\%82\%B8\%E5\%BC\%B9\%E5\%AE\%A2\%E8\%A2\%AB\%E8\%87\%AA\%E5\%B7\%B1\%E5\%AE\%A3\%E8\%A8\%80\%E5\%87\%BA\%E5\%8D\%96\%E7\%9A\%84\%E7\%8A\%AF\%E4\%BA\%BA-em2IPVjkNTS/\#1984}{:04}: Bombers threaten Los Angeles International Airport


\href{https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/\%E9\%9C\%9C\%E7\%99\%BD\%E4\%B9\%8B\%E4\%B9\%A6/13\%E9\%AB\%98\%E6\%99\%BA\%E5\%95\%86\%E8\%BF\%9E\%E7\%8E\%AF\%E7\%82\%B8\%E5\%BC\%B9\%E5\%AE\%A2\%E8\%A2\%AB\%E8\%87\%AA\%E5\%B7\%B1\%E5\%AE\%A3\%E8\%A8\%80\%E5\%87\%BA\%E5\%8D\%96\%E7\%9A\%84\%E7\%8A\%AF\%E4\%BA\%BA-em2IPVjkNTS/\#1985}{33:05–37}\href{https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/\%E9\%9C\%9C\%E7\%99\%BD\%E4\%B9\%8B\%E4\%B9\%A6/13\%E9\%AB\%98\%E6\%99\%BA\%E5\%95\%86\%E8\%BF\%9E\%E7\%8E\%AF\%E7\%82\%B8\%E5\%BC\%B9\%E5\%AE\%A2\%E8\%A2\%AB\%E8\%87\%AA\%E5\%B7\%B1\%E5\%AE\%A3\%E8\%A8\%80\%E5\%87\%BA\%E5\%8D\%96\%E7\%9A\%84\%E7\%8A\%AF\%E4\%BA\%BA-em2IPVjkNTS/\#2231}{:11}: Bomber Declaration presented


\href{https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/\%E9\%9C\%9C\%E7\%99\%BD\%E4\%B9\%8B\%E4\%B9\%A6/13\%E9\%AB\%98\%E6\%99\%BA\%E5\%95\%86\%E8\%BF\%9E\%E7\%8E\%AF\%E7\%82\%B8\%E5\%BC\%B9\%E5\%AE\%A2\%E8\%A2\%AB\%E8\%87\%AA\%E5\%B7\%B1\%E5\%AE\%A3\%E8\%A8\%80\%E5\%87\%BA\%E5\%8D\%96\%E7\%9A\%84\%E7\%8A\%AF\%E4\%BA\%BA-em2IPVjkNTS/\#2240}{37:20–43}\href{https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/\%E9\%9C\%9C\%E7\%99\%BD\%E4\%B9\%8B\%E4\%B9\%A6/13\%E9\%AB\%98\%E6\%99\%BA\%E5\%95\%86\%E8\%BF\%9E\%E7\%8E\%AF\%E7\%82\%B8\%E5\%BC\%B9\%E5\%AE\%A2\%E8\%A2\%AB\%E8\%87\%AA\%E5\%B7\%B1\%E5\%AE\%A3\%E8\%A8\%80\%E5\%87\%BA\%E5\%8D\%96\%E7\%9A\%84\%E7\%8A\%AF\%E4\%BA\%BA-em2IPVjkNTS/\#2583}{:03}: The identity of the bomber finally emerged


\href{https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/\%E9\%9C\%9C\%E7\%99\%BD\%E4\%B9\%8B\%E4\%B9\%A6/13\%E9\%AB\%98\%E6\%99\%BA\%E5\%95\%86\%E8\%BF\%9E\%E7\%8E\%AF\%E7\%82\%B8\%E5\%BC\%B9\%E5\%AE\%A2\%E8\%A2\%AB\%E8\%87\%AA\%E5\%B7\%B1\%E5\%AE\%A3\%E8\%A8\%80\%E5\%87\%BA\%E5\%8D\%96\%E7\%9A\%84\%E7\%8A\%AF\%E4\%BA\%BA-em2IPVjkNTS/\#2584}{43:04–48}:47: Arrest and trial


\href{https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/\%E9\%9C\%9C\%E7\%99\%BD\%E4\%B9\%8B\%E4\%B9\%A6/13\%E9\%AB\%98\%E6\%99\%BA\%E5\%95\%86\%E8\%BF\%9E\%E7\%8E\%AF\%E7\%82\%B8\%E5\%BC\%B9\%E5\%AE\%A2\%E8\%A2\%AB\%E8\%87\%AA\%E5\%B7\%B1\%E5\%AE\%A3\%E8\%A8\%80\%E5\%87\%BA\%E5\%8D\%96\%E7\%9A\%84\%E7\%8A\%AF\%E4\%BA\%BA-em2IPVjkNTS/\#2928}{48:48–1}\href{https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/\%E9\%9C\%9C\%E7\%99\%BD\%E4\%B9\%8B\%E4\%B9\%A6/13\%E9\%AB\%98\%E6\%99\%BA\%E5\%95\%86\%E8\%BF\%9E\%E7\%8E\%AF\%E7\%82\%B8\%E5\%BC\%B9\%E5\%AE\%A2\%E8\%A2\%AB\%E8\%87\%AA\%E5\%B7\%B1\%E5\%AE\%A3\%E8\%A8\%80\%E5\%87\%BA\%E5\%8D\%96\%E7\%9A\%84\%E7\%8A\%AF\%E4\%BA\%BA-em2IPVjkNTS/\#4158}{:09:18}: Who is the Bomber?


\href{https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/\%E9\%9C\%9C\%E7\%99\%BD\%E4\%B9\%8B\%E4\%B9\%A6/13\%E9\%AB\%98\%E6\%99\%BA\%E5\%95\%86\%E8\%BF\%9E\%E7\%8E\%AF\%E7\%82\%B8\%E5\%BC\%B9\%E5\%AE\%A2\%E8\%A2\%AB\%E8\%87\%AA\%E5\%B7\%B1\%E5\%AE\%A3\%E8\%A8\%80\%E5\%87\%BA\%E5\%8D\%96\%E7\%9A\%84\%E7\%8A\%AF\%E4\%BA\%BA-em2IPVjkNTS/\#4170}{1:09:30–1}\href{https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/\%E9\%9C\%9C\%E7\%99\%BD\%E4\%B9\%8B\%E4\%B9\%A6/13\%E9\%AB\%98\%E6\%99\%BA\%E5\%95\%86\%E8\%BF\%9E\%E7\%8E\%AF\%E7\%82\%B8\%E5\%BC\%B9\%E5\%AE\%A2\%E8\%A2\%AB\%E8\%87\%AA\%E5\%B7\%B1\%E5\%AE\%A3\%E8\%A8\%80\%E5\%87\%BA\%E5\%8D\%96\%E7\%9A\%84\%E7\%8A\%AF\%E4\%BA\%BA-em2IPVjkNTS/\#5076}{:24:36}: My views and discussion on the Bomber Manifesto


\href{https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/\%E9\%9C\%9C\%E7\%99\%BD\%E4\%B9\%8B\%E4\%B9\%A6/13\%E9\%AB\%98\%E6\%99\%BA\%E5\%95\%86\%E8\%BF\%9E\%E7\%8E\%AF\%E7\%82\%B8\%E5\%BC\%B9\%E5\%AE\%A2\%E8\%A2\%AB\%E8\%87\%AA\%E5\%B7\%B1\%E5\%AE\%A3\%E8\%A8\%80\%E5\%87\%BA\%E5\%8D\%96\%E7\%9A\%84\%E7\%8A\%AF\%E4\%BA\%BA-em2IPVjkNTS/\#5077}{1:24:37–1}\href{https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/\%E9\%9C\%9C\%E7\%99\%BD\%E4\%B9\%8B\%E4\%B9\%A6/13\%E9\%AB\%98\%E6\%99\%BA\%E5\%95\%86\%E8\%BF\%9E\%E7\%8E\%AF\%E7\%82\%B8\%E5\%BC\%B9\%E5\%AE\%A2\%E8\%A2\%AB\%E8\%87\%AA\%E5\%B7\%B1\%E5\%AE\%A3\%E8\%A8\%80\%E5\%87\%BA\%E5\%8D\%96\%E7\%9A\%84\%E7\%8A\%AF\%E4\%BA\%BA-em2IPVjkNTS/\#5376}{:29:36}: My view on the concept of “IQ.”

\section{References}


\begin{itemize}
\item\relax 
Ted Kaczynski — Wikipedia
\forcelinebreak link: \href{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted\_Kaczynsk}{en.wikipedia.org}



\item\relax 
“Unabomber Case Overview”
\forcelinebreak Original title: The Unabomber \textbar{} FBI
\forcelinebreak link: \href{https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/unabomber}{www.fbi.gov}



\item\relax 
Industrial Society and Its Future
\forcelinebreak Link: \href{https://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/\%7Erogaway/classes/188/materials/Industrial\%20Society\%20and\%20Its\%20Future.pdf}{web.cs.ucdavis.edu}



\item\relax 
Harvard and the Unabomber: The Education of an American Terrorist
\forcelinebreak Alston Chase
\forcelinebreak Publication Information: W. W. Norton \& Company, 2003



\item\relax 
Unabomber in His Own Words
\forcelinebreak Netflix documentary
\forcelinebreak Link: \href{https://www.netflix.com/title/81002216}{www.netflix.com}



\item\relax 
Turchie’s Affidavit in Support of a Search Warrant on Ted Kaczynski’s Cabin
\forcelinebreak \textbar{} The Ted K Archive
\forcelinebreak link: \href{https://www.thetedkarchive.com/library/terry-d-turchie-turchie-s-affidavit-in-support-of-a-search-warrant-on-ted-kaczynski-s-cabin}{www.thetedkarchive.com}



\item\relax 
The Bombings \& Communications of Ted Kaczynski as part of his Terror Campaign (1978–1995)
\forcelinebreak \textbar{} The Ted K Archive
\forcelinebreak link: \href{https://www.thetedkarchive.com/library/theo-slade-the-bombings-communications-of-ted-kaczynski-as-part-of-his-terror-campaign}{www.thetedkarchive.com}



\item\relax 
Kaczynski’s Journals May Be Star of Trial — Los Angeles Times
\forcelinebreak Link: \href{https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-nov-10-mn-52309-story.html}{www.latimes.com}



\item\relax 
Why Unabomber Ted Kaczynski’s Manifesto was published by The Post — The WashingtonPost
\forcelinebreak Original title: Why The Washington Post Decided to Publish Unabomber’s Manifesto
\forcelinebreak link: \href{https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2023/06/11/ted-kaczynski-unabomber-manifesto-published/}{www.washingtonpost.com}



\item\relax 
“AD EXECUTIVE AS MAIL BOMBER HITS FOR THE 24TH TIME – ADEXECUTIVE DIES AS MAIL BOMBER HITS FOR THE 24TH TIME”
\forcelinebreak Original title: ADEXECUTIVE DIES AS MAIL BOMBER HITS FOR THE 24TH TIME – Deseret News
\forcelinebreak link: \href{https://www.deseret.com/1994/12/12/19147539/ad-executive-dies-as-mail-bomber-hits-for-the-24\%3Csup\%3Eth\%3C/sup\%3E-time/}{www.deseret.com}



\item\relax 
Bomb Squad Blows Up False Alarm
\forcelinebreak link: \href{https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1994/vp941218/12180075.htm}{scholar.lib.vt.edu}



\item\relax 
ADVERTISING EXECUTIVE KILLED BY MAIL BOMB AT N.J. HOME — The Washington Post
\forcelinebreak Link: \href{https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1994/12/11/advertising-executive-killed-by-mail-bomb-at-nj-home/}{www.washingtonpost.com}



\item\relax 
Serial Bomber Is Linked to Fatal New Jersey Bombings — Los Angeles Times
\forcelinebreak Link: \href{https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-12-12-mn-8151-story.html}{www.latimes.com}



\item\relax 
“A Serial Bomber Strikes Again”
\forcelinebreak \textbar{} TIME
\forcelinebreak link: \href{https://time.com/archive/6726568/a-serial-bomber-strikes-again/}{time.com}



\item\relax 
“2ND SCIENTIST HURT IN BLAST LINKED TO SERIAL BOMBER — The Washington Post”
\forcelinebreak Link: \href{https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/06/25/2\%3Csup\%3End\%3C/sup\%3E-scientist-hurt-in-blast-linked-to-serial-bomber/795eec95-9101-419d-acb8-8cb6d5359596/}{www.washingtonpost.com}



\item\relax 
MailBomb Attack Leaves Yale Computer Scientist in Critical Condition — Los Angeles Times
\forcelinebreak Link: \href{https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-06-25-mn-7044-story.html}{www.latimes.com}



\item\relax 
THEORIES ABOUND ON MAIL BOMBINGS — The Washington Post
\forcelinebreak Link: \href{https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/06/26/theories-abound-on-mail-bombings/d572849b-58a5-47ae-8485-ff363584e513/}{www.washingtonpost.com}




\end{itemize}

\hairline


Hello everyone This is The Book of White Frost, I am Shuangtong, and this case is happening today. Or rather, this series of crimes is a classic example of high-IQ crime. It is not only one of the most shocking bombings in American history, but also the longest-running bombing in the history of the FBI. The largest manhunt operation lasted from 1978 to 1995. For nearly 20 years, American university professors airline Company executives were repeatedly targeted by bombs disguised as ordinary mail, resulting in numerous casualties. The series of bombings across the United States, which caused widespread social panic, were not acts of impulsive violence, but rather a calm and calculated response. The ongoing plan, between China and Peru, is an anti-industrial manifesto written in blood.


We begin with the first bombing incident: in May 1978, a package was found in the parking lot of the engineering building at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). The package, from the same campus as UIC (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) where the Zhang Yingying case occurred in the previous episode, is located in Chicago, Illinois. The package was addressed to “Professor Bakley Christ of Northwestern University.” Northwestern University, also located near Chicago, is one of the top private research universities in the United States, renowned for its medical, law, and business schools, and consistently high academic reputation. In 2004, Northwestern University ranked sixth in the US News \& World Report’s national university rankings.


Returning to the package, after it was discovered, it was returned to Professor Christ of Northwestern University due to unclear recipient information. The professor immediately found it suspicious, as he had never sent a package. Being cautious, he didn’t open it directly but handed it to the university’s security department. Campus police officer Terry Marker, following procedure, checked the contents. Upon opening the package, the explosive device inside was detonated. Fortunately, the explosion was not powerful enough to be fatal, but it produced sparks and a shockwave. Some metal fragments were ejected, and Terry was injured. The victim sustained mild to moderate burns and lacerations to his hands and face, and recovered quickly after being taken to the hospital.


The FBI then intervened in the case. In the previous Zhang Yinying case, we mentioned some principles of federal law. In this case, because the suspect used an explosive device, even if the explosion occurred within a week, federal agencies have jurisdiction. Furthermore, the university is a publicly funded institution, and the explosion involving federal property falls under the scope of federal crimes. After investigation, the FBI and local law enforcement determined that the device was a handmade improvised explosive device. Its structure was very primitive, even crude. The bomb used homemade battery circuits and detonators. The wooden casing, the metal parts, and the assembly marks inside the bomb clearly indicated that it was handmade, but no fingerprints or other evidence were found inside. Because no witnesses could describe the suspect who placed the bomb, and the package material was of very ordinary origin, and no traceable serial number was found on the bomb, the case was treated as an isolated incident. Investigators initially speculated that it might be a series of acts of violence stemming from some kind of malicious intent, or a revenge act planned by a mentally unstable person out of personal grudge. The police preserved the remains of the bomb but found no clues about the perpetrator.


Until a year after the first bombing, on May 9, 1979, another perpetrator appeared at Northwestern University. This time, the device was placed in a public area inside the Northwestern University Science Building, a place frequented by students and researchers. The bomb, located in a frequently visited area, looks like a small, abandoned package box with no external address, tags, or infrastructure information. It’s very common for people to see him put it on the ground. No one claimed the victim, a graduate student named John Harris. He may have been acting out of kindness or pure curiosity, attempting to open the unclaimed box to see what was inside. When John opened the device, it triggered an explosion, releasing a small shockwave and metal fragments that caused lacerations and burns to John’s hands and face. His injuries were similar to those of the victim in the previous case, requiring treatment but not life-threatening. Police and the FBI investigation revealed that the device’s design was extremely similar to the first explosion—a crude, handmade bomb, still using wires, batteries, homemade detonators, wood, and a metal casing. There were no traceable part numbers, and no fingerprints or hair were found. Given that both cases occurred at Northwestern University, the FBI immediately labeled them a serial case but did not pursue further action, nor did it yield any further clues. The investigation remained largely unresolved.


Half a year later, on November 15, 1979, American Airlines Flight 444 took off from Chicago O’Hare International Airport. During a flight scheduled to depart for Washington, D.C., smoke and fire suddenly began to appear in the cargo hold, triggering the aircraft’s smoke alarms. The cabin quickly filled with acrid smoke. The crew immediately declared an emergency and contacted air traffic control for a bomb disposal operation. Fortunately, the operation was successful, and no major explosion occurred. Technicians later discovered that the bomb had been placed in checked baggage and sent via the postal system, eventually ending up in the cargo hold along with other luggage. Bomb experts believe the bomber’s intention was to detonate the explosives in the cargo hold, attempting to destroy the aircraft. Because the cargo hold is an enclosed space, a full detonation could have caused structural damage, fire, or even a crash. Fortunately, only a partial explosion occurred, preventing serious casualties. However, 12 crew members and passengers experienced respiratory irritation due to smoke inhalation, and the aircraft and cabin were damaged. An investigation of the remaining explosives at the scene led the FBI to conclude that this bombing, along with a previous explosion on the Northwestern University campus, was carried out by the same person. Public panic quickly escalated because this bomb was sent via regular mail, meaning every individual and company could potentially become the next target. The FBI and the ATF (Office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) officially classified this series of cases as aviation terrorism. They launched a top-level interstate federal investigation and named the series of bombings UNABOM, referring to the suspect as UNABOMER (University and Airlines). The attempted bombing, also known as the bombing of a college bombing course, severely impacted aviation security systems. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) began strengthening security checks on carry-on and checked baggage, including enhanced X-ray inspections, increased manual baggage checks, and stricter marking and interception of packages of unknown origin. The FBI established a national task force, collaborating with the Postal Service and local police to conduct multiple rounds of random checks and record verifications on packages nationwide. This case put the entire country on high alert. Simultaneously, the FBI began conducting blood tests on suspects. Because all three incidents occurred in the Chicago area, investigators speculated that the suspect grew up near Chicago or currently lives there. The relatively crude design and construction of the bomb devices, primarily made from recycled materials, led the FBI to believe the suspect was not a highly educated professional, but rather someone with practical skills but limited formal education. The suspects were likely skilled workers, mechanics, or manufacturing workers. Investigators tended to believe the perpetrator was a white male because historical data showed that suspects in self-destructive bombings in the United States, especially those involving the head down, were almost always white males.


The fourth bombing occurred a year later, on October 8, 1981, at the University of Utah in Utah. Utah University is located in Lake City, which is very far from the Chicago area— approximately 2,000 kilometers as the crow flies, taking over 20 hours by car and nearly 4 hours by plane. This time, the package used a typical bomber’s tail-loading method; it appeared as an ordinary box, like regular academic mail. Fortunately, the staff at Utah University were very cautious and did not open the package directly. At that time, the entire nation was on high alert due to American Airlines and previous university bombings. Someone at the university immediately reported the incident. Upon arrival, Hyo-kyung cordoned off part of the area and contacted the local Utah bomb disposal team. The bomb disposal team arrived and used specialized equipment to confirm that the package did indeed contain explosives. They successfully defused the package, preventing casualties and allowing investigators to study the bomb’s internal structure. During the analysis, they discovered a detail. The accomplice used a tool to carve the capital letters “FC” into a fake metal part. Investigators thought this might be a clue, perhaps the initials of the suspect or an organization’s name, but their investigation yielded no results and the case was closed. However, the case did bring a relatively valuable clue: the bomb package was not sent by mail, but personally delivered by the suspect to the Department of Computer Science at the University of Utah. As mentioned, the University of Utah is very far from the university, meaning the suspect had ample time and transportation to move freely throughout the country, and he was very likely present at the scene of the crime. Unfortunately, no witnesses could provide any description of the suspect, and this lead ended there. At this stage, three years had passed since the first incident. Although the case had been fully upgraded, the pressure and scale of the investigation had expanded, and the FBI seemed to have a better understanding of the suspect, there was still no breakthrough on the most crucial issue of solving the case, and the bomb threat continued.


In May 1982, an accomplice sent a bomb to Vanderbilt University in Tennessee. Vanderbilt University has a strong academic reputation in medicine, law, engineering, and education, and it is one of the top universities in the entire southern United States. In 2024, the US Vanderbilt University is ranked 18\textsuperscript{th} in the nation according to the news. Located in the southeastern United States, Tennessee is far from Lake West, Uttara, the site of the previous explosion, which occurred in the western United States. The straight-line distance between Nashville, where Vanderbilt University is located, and Lake West is over 2,500 kilometers; it would take at least a full day to drive there. Clearly, the accomplices were increasing the difficulty of solving the case by constantly changing the crime scene. This time, the recipient of the package was Professor Patrick Fisher of the Computer Science Department. Although Professor Fisher himself was unharmed, his assistant Janice\dots{} Smith was injured in the hand and face by an explosion while opening mail in his office. The bomber then turned his attention to California. His attacks in California were the most important and representative part of the entire series of bombings because he not only carried out the first truly deadly explosion in California, but he also repeatedly targeted the same university.


The first attack in California occurred on July 2, 1982, at the engineering building of the University of California, Berkeley. Berkeley, located in Northern California, is undoubtedly one of the top engineering universities in the United States. It is a global leader in natural sciences, engineering, computer science, and many other fields, including sociology. It is also one of the public universities with the most Nobel laureates. Beyond academic excellence, UC Berkeley is known for its free, diverse, radical, and vibrant campus culture. Returning to the case, the victim this time was Professor Diogenes of the Department of Electrical Engineering. Angelacos saw the ordinary little box in his workspace. Without any warning, he instinctively picked it up to examine it, triggering the internal battery circuitry and detonator, causing an immediate explosion. DO and Professor [Name] suffered severe hand injuries and facial burns, leaving them with permanent disabilities. Later, the FBI analyzed the debris and found that the internal circuitry and tangled wires were identical to those in previous cases in Chicago, Yutthaya, and Tennessee. Furthermore, investigators analyzed all the fragments at the scene and found no mailing labels, stamps, or address information. If it were a mailed bomb, there would be obvious mailing evidence, as it would have gone through the US Postal Service. The lack of any mailing traces indicated that the package was brought to the scene by the suspect himself. Because the series of bombings occurred on university campuses, the FBI began its investigation\dots{} The focus shifted to university students or academic staff. Blood tests suggested the suspect was very familiar with the university environment and was likely a current student, a recent graduate, or someone with some connection to the academic system. Because multiple bomb targets were concentrated in computer science departments or related technical research, the investigation team tended to believe the suspect worked in computer or engineering technology. Blood tests indicated the suspect was very cautious, leaving no traceable clues. However, due to the crude construction of the explosive device, investigators speculated the suspect might be a technician, research assistant, or lab worker with some hands-on skills but no professional engineering background.


Three years later, on May 15, 1985, the bomber returned to Berkeley and planted another bomb in the engineering building. This time, the victim was graduate student John Hauser. Hauser found the box, which looked like something you’d find in a lab. He opened it and detonated the bomb. Hauser’s injuries were extremely severe; one hand was blown off, the other was seriously injured, and he suffered multiple lacerations and burns to his face, requiring multiple reconstructive surgeries to recover. The explosions in this case\dots{} The more complex setup than before indicated that the suspect’s technology was constantly improving; he was beginning to more precisely control the range and timing of the explosions to ensure greater damage. After this incident, the FBI updated its assessment of the bomber. He was no longer just a skilled but poorly organized technician, but more likely a highly educated person with a solid scientific foundation and systematic knowledge, perhaps even with a research background. The bombings continued.


Ten months later, on November 15, 1985, a bomb disguised as an academic package was delivered to the psychology department of the University of Michigan. The University of Michigan is one of the top universities in the United States, with its engineering, medicine, business, and social sciences consistently ranking among the best in the nation. The University of Michigan is located in Annaburg, Michigan, in the Midwestern United States, very far from California, where the previous attack occurred. The straight-line distance from Annaburg to Berkeley is over 3,200 kilometers, requiring about 30 hours of driving. This attack once again highlighted the bomber’s wide reach, traversing from California in the western United States to Michigan in the Midwest with virtually no geographical limitations, truly extending the reach of terror across the entire country. The recipient of this package was James. Professor McConnell is a renowned figure in the field of behavioral psychology, with research focusing primarily on memory and conditioned reflexes. That day, the package was opened in James’s laboratory. His research assistant, Nicolas Vino, opened the package first, and the device inside immediately exploded. Both men were injured. Professor James suffered hearing loss for a period, while Nicolas suffered a severe hand injury. This attack baffled investigators because all previous victims, from airlines to computer engineering professors, were almost all related to industrial technology and modern science. However, James was a behavioral psychologist, belonging to the social sciences, seemingly unrelated to engineering or technology. At this stage, the FBI still couldn’t understand the bomber’s attack logic; they couldn’t explain his chosen victims with a clear and definite motive.


Just one month later, on December 11, 1985, the bomber carried out his first truly deadly attack in Sacramento, California. Sacramento is the capital of California and located in Northern California. This time, the bomb appeared in a commercial parking lot. The victim was Heal Scraden. Skruton was the owner of a computer store, running a small computer rental and repair shop. One day, he found a seemingly abandoned small box in the parking lot outside his home. Motivated by cleaning or perhaps trying to dispose of a mistake, he went to examine it and tried to pick it up. As soon as the box was touched, it exploded violently, killing Skruton instantly. Skruton thus became Una. The first victim of the Bomber attacks was killed. Judging from the explosive device itself, this bomb, equipped with nails, had significantly increased explosive power, far exceeding previous devices. It not only detonated precisely but also possessed greater lethality, demonstrating a very high level of technological sophistication. Based on this, the LBI further updated its analysis of the bomb disposal unit. They believed the suspect was someone with systematic knowledge in multiple fields such as electronic engineering, chemistry, and mechanical structures. This suggested that the suspect may have received a good STEM education, or it might be due to his intense dedication to research. Compared to the earlier image of a marginalized, angry youth, the development of this case led investigators to believe that the suspect was more like a reclusive criminal with a highly systematic mind.


On June 13, 1985, another bomber was dispatched, targeting a Boeing company in Auburn, Washington. Fortunately, the bomb was successfully defused without causing any casualties. The successive occurrence of these two cases\dots{} The sound further expanded the FBI’s understanding of the bomber’s targets. His attacks on ordinary businessmen and airlines made the FBI realize that the bomber’s retaliatory actions had extended to a wider civilian population. Investigators were even more convinced that this was not just hatred against a particular professional circle, but a systemic retaliation against the entire modern society. Seven years have passed since the bomber’s first attack. He has committed a total of nine incidents, seven of which resulted in casualties. The police and IBI have virtually no information about the suspect; their profiling is too general. There may be hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people in the United States who fit those occupational, age, and gender characteristics. And the crimes continue.


In February 1987, the bombing returned to Lake West. Zadank placed the package on the pedestrian walkway in front of a computer company called Computer Innovations. This was a place the owner and customers passed by every day. In the morning, when the store opened, the owner, Gary\dots{} Wright saw an unfamiliar box by the door and, assuming it was something someone had left behind or trash, kindly tried to clean it up. However, as he bent down to pick it up, the bomb detonated instantly, blasting him several meters away. Numerous shrapnel fragments embedded themselves in his face and arms, including one that grazed his nose and nearly struck his head. Although he survived, he suffered severe injuries and, after multiple surgeries, was left with permanent scars. This case is very similar to one that occurred two years prior in Acramantor, Sacramento, California, also near a computer resistance company. This case is crucial to the investigation because it is the only case in the entire Bomber series that was reported by a third party. On the day of the incident, a store clerk saw a white man suspiciously appear near the store before the explosion and then quickly leave. The man was dressed in a shawl, had a large beard, wore aviator sunglasses, and had hair between blonde and red. However, the clerk was busy with work and did not realize he was witnessing the prelude to a Bomber crime, nor did he intervene. Based on the described information, police later created a widely circulated portrait of Yanwood and posted it in post offices, universities, and public places across the country. This became the only lead the FBI could show to the public. However, this portrait did not help investigators find the suspect.


After that, the Bomber suddenly fell silent, with no new bombings occurring for a full six years. The NBI even suspected that he might be dead, imprisoned, or had completely given up the operation. However, the Bomber Task Force did not disband. They continued to analyze the similarities between past explosive devices, the suspect’s behavioral patterns, and the characteristics of the victims, trying to continue to piece together the suspect’s profile from the records. The investigation team reviewed known cases and noticed that the explosive devices made by the Bomber were constantly improving in technology. Not only did he use metal casings more and more frequently, but he also developed sophisticated circuits, showing that the suspect was constantly improving in mechanical craftsmanship and electronic technology. In addition, his style was extremely cautious. In many cases, the Bomber deliberately removed the casing of the bomb battery to prevent the police from tracing his whereabouts through the battery model and source. Moreover, in so many bombing incidents, the Bomber never left any fingerprints, hair, or other DNA traces, and no one knew his whereabouts. All of this demonstrated the Bomber’s high degree of secrecy and ability to evade investigation.


After six years of success, the Bomber reappeared. On June 22, 1993, Charles Abston, a geneticist at Stanford University Medical Center, received a seemingly ordinary package at home. I won’t elaborate on Stanford University’s influence. The recipient, Charles, resides in Northern California and is a renowned scientist in the field of genetic disease research. Perhaps because there hadn’t been any similar bombings for years, Charles lowered his guard. He opened the package with his bare hands without suspicion, and the bomb exploded instantly. Charles lost one hand on the spot, suffered severe facial burns, and was permanently disabled. This attack also greatly puzzled the FBI. Like the previous case targeting psychological agents, this attack seemed out of place, like an anomaly in the entire series of attacks. Charles, as a genetic researcher, didn’t have a strong direct connection to the technology industry. The FBI initially struggled to incorporate this case into their existing attack logic. Meanwhile, in the middle of this, he was also acting as a legal intermediary. He was also acting as a mediator in the legal field. He was also acting as a mediator in the legal field\dots{} Glenter, a professor in the Department of Computer Science at Yale University, has made outstanding contributions to parallel computing and programming languages. Beyond academia, he is an author; his bestselling book, \emph{Mirror Worlds}, depicts a future where human society and computers are deeply integrated. On the morning of the incident, David received a package in his office that looked like ordinary mail. He opened it without suspicion, and it immediately exploded. His right hand was severely injured and ultimately had to be amputated. David also suffered extensive facial injuries, and multiple parts of his body were pierced by shrapnel, so severely that he nearly died.


A year and a half later, in December 1994, the bomber sent a bomb to New Jersey, also located on the East Coast of the United States, killing Thomas Mouser, an executive at the globally renowned advertising company Burson Marshaler. The selection pattern of this victim differed from previous victims, which inevitably puzzled investigators and the public. The FBI’s investigation report pointed out that the bomb’s construction structure was consistent with previous bombs, but they still could not determine why the suspect chose these victims, nor could they understand his motives. By April 1995, this nationwide large-scale terrorist attack\dots{} The Bomber remained a complete ghost. The FBI had a general idea of his criminal patterns, but no way to map their blood samples onto any real person.


In the spring of 1995, as the investigation stalled and national anxiety and panic gripped the country, the Bomber suddenly reappeared. On April 20\textsuperscript{th}, he sent a letter to The New York Times and The Washington Post under the name Freedom Club (FC). If you recall, the metal pieces removed from the bomb earlier were engraved with the letters “FC.” It wasn’t until this point that investigators finally understood the meaning of “FC.” But this was entirely the bomber’s own doing. In this letter, the bomber publicly admitted for the first time that he was the perpetrator of the bombing. He specifically pointed out that the death of Thomas, an advertising executive last year, was his doing. In addition, he further clarified his targets. He emphasized that he did not indiscriminately attack intellectuals or scholars, but rather targeted specific fields, especially engineers, computer experts, genetic researchers, and other technical elites who, in his view, were driving the expansion of industrial society and technology. He also mocked the FBI, saying that the FBI misled the public and was inefficient and incompetent. He wrote “FBI is a joke” directly in his name. He also reviewed how he gradually improved his bomb technology, claiming that the bombs he now creates are powerful enough to easily penetrate the structural integrity of buildings. In this letter, the bomber first proposed a condition for action: he claimed to possess a 35,000-word manifesto and demanded that the New York Times and other national media outlets publish it verbatim, or he would continue killing. The arrival of this letter shocked the nation. The New York Times and the Washington Post immediately forwarded it to the FBI. However, the FBI couldn’t glean much information from the letter; their focus was solely on the bombing mission’s condition for publication. There was considerable internal debate within the NBI regarding whether to publish the article. Some pointed out that granting his request might encourage copycats to use violence to invite the media, while others worried about the contents of the 30,000-word manifesto—whether it was a bombing tutorial or incitement to further violence. A more practical concern was whether the government’s agreement to publication would make the nation believe they were bowing to terrorists.


But all these debates were almost completely crushed by reality four days later: the bomber actually killed people. On April 24, 1995, the California Forestry Society headquarters in Sacramento, California, received a package. Association president Gilbert Murray received the package in his office and opened it without warning. He was killed instantly. The bomb was so powerful that Gilbert was almost completely destroyed. When his family buried him, they only managed to retrieve his foot.


At this point, let’s briefly summarize the entire bombing operation. From May 1978 to April 1995, the bomber planned and carried out 16 bomb attacks. Except for two successfully defused, the other 14 resulted in casualties. The crimes spanned 17 years and were geographically distributed across multiple states in the US, from Illinois to California, from Utah to Connecticut, Tennessee, and other states, targeting university campuses, airlines, and businesses. A total of 23 people were injured and 3 died. After the third victim was killed, public opinion was completely shaken. Everyone understood that this person was not bluffing; he really would kill, and was fully capable of continuing to kill. Nationwide panic escalated further, and the pressure on the FBI reached its peak.


In July 1995, the bomber further fueled the anxieties of officials and the public by targeting Los Angeles International Airport. A bomb threat was issued, and a letter was sent to the media claiming that he had planted a bomb at Los Angeles Airport. This letter raised serious concerns among authorities. It’s worth noting that prior to 9\Slash{}11, airport security in the US was extremely lax; passengers could wear shoes and coats, pass through metal detectors, and almost everyone could walk directly to the gate without a boarding pass or identification. However, after the bomb threat, the FBI and airport authorities immediately launched a massive search. Police presence at Los Angeles Airport was increased to its highest level since the Gulf War, leading to numerous flight delays, temporary terminal closures, and passenger evacuations. Los Angeles International Airport was thrown into a state of tension and chaos. Although no explosives were ultimately found, the chaos was undeniable. The national atmosphere was extremely tense, and the FBI task force faced immense pressure, with many criticizing their handling of the situation. Utterly powerless under this pressure, the FBI finally began to change its approach. They realized that if they published this long article in a nationally renowned newspaper, millions, even tens of millions, of readers would see it, and perhaps some would recognize who wrote it. After several months of comprehensive and internal discussions, the U.S. Department of Justice finally\dots{} The publication plan was unified, and on September 19, 1995, The Washington Post and The New York Times jointly published the article in full on print and online at the time. The official title of the article was “Industrial Society and its Future,” but within the FBI and the media, it quickly acquired a more concise and criminal name: UNABOMER. The manifesto of the “Manifesto” left me with a multitude of thoughts and ideas, which I will discuss later. In general, the manifesto’s main theme is the dismantling and critique of modern industrial society. Its core argument is that industrialization and modern technology inevitably deprive people of their freedom. Modern society, through regulations, standards, and technological systems, turns people into obedient cogs. This self-expansion of the system cannot be controlled through laws, ethics, or radical reforms. All human societies will be forced to adopt the most advanced and oppressive technologies due to competitive pressure. Therefore, the only way out is to completely destroy the industrial system, causing it to collapse and return to a small-scale, decentralized, low-tech human life. Zadank even openly called for direct action to dismantle industrial infrastructure and use violence to stop the continued expansion of technology. At this stage, the FBI still cannot find the suspect, so they can only further Westernize their investigation. Their investigation indicates the suspect is a white male aged approximately 35 to 45. Received higher education Technical investigations led the FBI to speculate that the suspect was likely an unmarried, isolated individual with extremely limited social connections. This conclusion was based on the fact that to continuously manufacture and test bombs for nearly 20 years while concealing all his tools, materials, and blueprints from discovery, his lifestyle had to be highly secretive. Furthermore, his motive clearly pointed to hatred of modern industrial society as a whole, rather than personal grudges against the victims. This highly ideological hostility is typically associated with extreme social isolation and a lack of intimacy. Based on the geographical location of the crime scene, investigators believed the bomber likely lived in Northern California. Based on this hypothesis, they conducted a large-scale search and information gathering effort in Northern California.


After its publication, “Industrial Society and Its Future” sparked a huge reaction across the United States. It not only became one of the most controversial publications of the year but also quickly spread within underground culture and extremist circles. Some began to see the bomber as a hero of the system, believing he exposed the ills of modern society. Others imitated his ideas, paying tribute to his anti-industrial ideals in online forums and publications. Even years after his arrest, T-shirts, mugs, and other merchandise bearing his image were still being sold online. Some extremists even imitated his writing style, issuing threatening statements and spreading hate speech. Although mainstream opinion generally condemned his violent acts, it cannot be denied that this manifesto struck a nerve with many people’s anxieties about modern society and reflected a profound unease about the tension between technology and freedom. This complex social reaction transformed the bomber from a serial bomber into a cultural symbol, a dangerous and distorted image of a thinker.


However, at the same time, the FBI’s plan finally succeeded. Shortly after the manifesto was published, someone recognized its author, and the bomber who had carried out 17 bombings across the United States over a period of nearly 20 years finally surfaced for the first time. David, a resident of Texas\dots{} Kaczynski originally lived a peaceful life with his own small family. He had an older brother named Ted. Growing up, David and Ted had a very close relationship, but a few years ago Ted broke off contact with David. The reason was that Ted was extremely dissatisfied with David’s marriage to Linda. Ted believed that David had been completely brainwashed by Linda’s middle-class mindset. Linda and Ted\dots{} David was completely brainwashed by Linda’s middle-class mindset. Linda and Ted had never met, but Linda had read the letter Ted sent to David before he cut off his face. She keenly sensed something was wrong and told David that his brother might have psychological problems and was prone to violence.


In late 1994, Linda and David first noticed the news about Una Bomber. By 1995, the media was almost constantly reporting on the Bomber case and his manifesto. Linda gradually became uneasy because the Bomber’s anti-technology, back-to-nature radical ideas were strikingly similar to the content of Ted’s early letters to his family. But every time Linda mentioned her suspicions to David, David refused to believe it until the article “Industrial Society and Its Future” was published in full in 1995. Linda insisted that David buy a copy, but unfortunately, the local convenience store was sold out of newspapers, so David and Linda\dots{}


When Linda went to the library and searched for the article online, she was immediately struck by a series of familiar details when she saw the declaration. First, the format of the declaration was very special. The entire article was divided into different chapters, but the author numbered each paragraph from 1 to 232. These numbers were continuous throughout the text. Second, the calm analysis was very similar to Ted’s writing style. Ted’s letters to them were also in this style, densely packed and neatly structured. Each paragraph had its own proposition or argument, followed by an explanation. The viewpoints were clear and rich, but they lacked emotion. This newspaper declaration was not only evil, but its core viewpoint appeared almost verbatim in Ted’s letter to Ji Hui’s family. Modern industrial society is a huge machine that enslaves human freedom. Technological progress is not a blessing, but an inevitable step towards total control, which will deprive human freedom. The only way out for humanity is to completely destroy this system and let society collapse back to a primitive, small-scale state. Moreover, there was almost irrefutable evidence in this article. Ted had always insisted on using the wrong phrase, always writing “You can eat your cake and have it too.” The correct way to say it is “have your cake and eat it too,” meaning you can’t have your cake and eat it too. But Ted always deliberately wrote it backwards. They’d seen this phrase many times in Ted’s letters home, and it appeared exactly the same in the bomb-class manifesto. Catching this detail was like seeing Ted’s signature on the article for David.


Despair, sadness, shame, and anger surged through him like a tide. In the cabinet, David finally began to confront an almost unbearable reality: the serial killer who created widespread terror and killed innocent people might be his own brother. For David, this was not merely a political and economic issue, but a profound emotional turmoil. He couldn’t imagine that his once shy, intelligent, and proud brother, who had grown up alongside him, would become America’s most wanted criminal. During that time, David struggled incessantly. On one hand, he couldn’t overcome the guilt of betraying his family; he remembered the promise he had made to his brother as a child that he would never abandon him. On the other hand, he couldn’t ignore the victims—those whose fingers had been blown off, whose faces were disfigured, and whose lives had been taken by the bomb, and their families whose members suffered mental breakdowns. He kept asking himself, “If I pretend not to see it now, will the next bomb end up in the hands of another unsuspecting person? Will another family be plunged into a nightmare?” It was an extremely painful moral dilemma; the weight of family ties and the call of justice tore David’s heart and mind to shreds. In the end, David chose to report Ted.


David and Linda, through Linda’s private investigator friend, contacted a forensic psychologist. An expert compared and analyzed the writing style of the Bomb Class declaration with Ted’s previous letters, judging from multiple dimensions such as language habits, macroscopic structure, and argumentation logic that the two were highly similar and likely written by the same person. Linda then asked her friend to call the FBI to submit clues, but after several weeks, she received no response. While Linda and David were still passively waiting, David’s mother fell ill, and David returned to his hometown to take care of her. He found a large number of manuscripts left by Ted, including an old manuscript that was 2.3 billion words long. The core viewpoints, trend expressions, and structural arrangements in the old manuscript were almost identical to those in the Bomb Class declaration. It was practically a draft of that declaration, which became overwhelming evidence. David felt that he could no longer wait passively, so he immediately submitted the manuscript and other materials to the FBI. It was at this time that David realized why his previous tip-off calls had been so ineffective. After the declaration was published, the FBI received a flood of tip-offs from all over the country. They had 2,417 suspects on their register at the time, and Ted happened to be number 2,416. After reading Ted’s letter, the FBI was almost 100\% certain that this was the person they were looking for. David provided the police with more than just a name; he also told the FBI that his brother had been living in the forests of Montana. Remember the description of the bomber’s living area in the FBI’s previous tests? They had initially speculated that the bomber lived in Northern California. When the real bomber surfaced, it could be said that many of the FBI’s previous assumptions were completely wrong.


After obtaining the clues, the FBI began its operation. The investigation team cooperated with the Minority Bureau to confirm the exact location of the missing parts. Before the search warrant was issued, the FBI initiated a three-week surveillance operation. They planned to use a small cabin nearby as a surveillance base, deploying agents on round-the-clock shifts. Due to the remote location and weak Wi-Fi signal, they also modified a Forest Service communications tower to provide ultimate support. Afterwards, the FBI assembled a larger operation team. They implemented a blockade around the site, and bomb disposal experts, negotiators, and personnel from other agencies were also present. The FBI’s original plan was to drop the package on the roadside in the town of Taedeok Road, but because the news was leaked to the media beforehand, the FBI feared that media attention would alert them and had to accelerate the operation, launching a raid 24 hours before the news broadcast. By this time, more than six months had passed since the declaration was made.


That morning, three FBI agents, posing as mining company personnel, claimed they were going to conduct mineral exploration on Ted’s land. They stood outside shouting and holding maps, successfully enraging Ted. He emerged from his cabin to confront them. At that moment, the agents moved in and swiftly subdued him. When arrested, Ted’s hair was long and messy, his beard unshaven, making him look like a hermit from the depths of the forest.


After the arrest, the FBI immediately began searching the cabin. The cabin was very small, only about 30–40 meters wide, a mere dozen square meters. It had no electricity, no running water, and was filled with dust, sap, and wood. But in this primitive environment, the FBI found all the crucial evidence in the serial bombings: unfinished explosive devices and materials, homemade detonators, circuit trigger switches, handwritten notes detailing past attack plans, mailing boxes, labels, and wind. In the cabin, they found wigs Ted had purchased, including the gold-red wig used in the Salt Lake City bombing. Ted’s real hair color was brown. Even more chilling, investigators discovered a notebook detailing past attack plans. It not only recorded the targets, times, and results of each attack, but also systematically numbered each bomb, from Experiment 1 to over 200. This included bombs he had memorized and those he had experimented with in the cabin. Each experiment assistant wrote down the explosive effects and suggestions for improvement after failures. In other words, Ted treated every case as an experiment; human lives were merely numbers to him. When the agents opened a storage compartment under the bed, they found a gleaming cube wrapped in aluminum foil. When they carefully removed it, a chill ran through the room — it was an undelivered bomb. If Linda and David hadn’t provided the timely clue, this bomb might already be waiting to detonate on the delivery route. Speaking of this, I really feel a chill run down my spine. If Ted hadn’t published that manifesto, if Linda and David hadn’t seen it, or if Linda had been even slightly slow to react, the FBI would still be completely unaware of this serial bombing ring. He would still be hiding in his cabin, making bombs and sending them out to kill even more innocent people. The national media exploded in just a few days. This ghostly killer, who had embarrassed law enforcement across the country for nearly 20 years, had been hiding in a dilapidated cabin in Montana, surviving on firewood, water, and canned food. Yet, he single-handedly carried out 17 bombings, killing 3 people and injuring 23.


Ted’s legal team had been trying to argue for him to avoid the death penalty on the grounds of mental illness. They brought in a psychologist to evaluate Ted. The results showed that Ted had clear judgment and was capable of participating in the evaluation. However, the expert also diagnosed him with schizophrenia. Subsequently, the defense lawyer also revealed a psychological experiment that Ted participated in during his time at Harvard, believing that this experience had a profound negative impact on his mental state. I will discuss the specific details later. However, Ted himself was extremely dissatisfied with this defense strategy. He firmly refused to admit that he had a mental illness. His main concern was that once everyone thought he was crazy, his written declarations, all his claims and protests would become rumors and completely lose the realistic significance he hoped for. After several preliminary hearings, Ted requested a change of defense attorney, but the judge ruled that the case had entered a critical stage, and changing attorneys would require a new defense team to familiarize themselves with the case and the defendant, which would seriously delay the trial process. Therefore, the request was rejected. Ted then proposed to defend himself, but this was also denied by the court. Ultimately, his lawyer continued to argue for mental illness as the main defense strategy. Faced with a possible death sentence, Ted accepted a plea agreement. He confessed to the crime and was ultimately sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.


The following section will focus on the man himself, Theodore John Kaczynski. He wasn’t a typical street criminal, nor was he simply insane. On the contrary, his past life was completely contrary to the traditional definition of a criminal. Theodore, commonly known as Ted, was born in 1942 into an ordinary working-class family in Chicago. He was 53 years old when he was arrested. This is significantly different from the earlier assessment that the suspect was between 35 and 45 years old. Ted spent his childhood and adolescence in Illinois. This also partially explains why the earliest machine bombings were concentrated in Illinois, especially around the universities of Chicago, because these were the familiar environments where he grew up and studied. Ted was considered a genius from a young age. Public records show that his IQ was as high as 167, and he had amazing talent in logic and mathematics. In the 17-year investigation, the FBI never guessed that the person who made the agreement would be a genius with an extremely high IQ. Ted attended the famous Evergreen Park Community High School in Chicago, where he excelled academically and was quick-witted. He skipped two episodes and in 1958, at the age of 16, Ted was admitted to Harvard University, majoring in mathematics, becoming one of the youngest undergraduates in the entire school at the time. However, despite his smooth academic journey, Ted’s childhood and adolescence were not happy. He was introverted, sensitive, and found it difficult to build deep relationships with one person. During his time at Harvard, he had almost no real friends, and his emotional life was basically blank. Ted’s father was a factory foreman, but\dots{} Ted loved reading immensely. His family’s cultural atmosphere was very different from other families in the surrounding community. His father placed great emphasis on intellectual stimulation and free exploration. He loved nature, enjoying hiking in the forest and observing flora and fauna. Ted’s preference for nature and his aversion to industrial society were likely influenced by his father in his early years.


From 1962 to 1967, Ted pursued his doctorate in mathematics at the University of Michigan. His research area was the extremely abstract theory of geometric functions. His doctoral dissertation was titled “Boundary Function.” Even his advisor admitted that this was a highly advanced mathematical work that only a select few could understand. In fact, Ted’s advisor even bluntly stated, “I don’t know what further academic guidance I can provide him; his level has far surpassed mine.” The depth of Ted’s research in his dissertation far exceeded the requirements for graduation. The professor in the film said that even without writing this final doctoral dissertation, his previous research reports alone would have been enough for him to obtain his doctorate.


In 1967, at the age of 25, Ted was hired as an assistant professor in the mathematics department at the University of California, Berkeley, becoming the youngest assistant professor in Berkeley’s history at the time. It could be said that Ted’s educational background was severely underestimated during the FBI’s testing; they mistakenly imagined the suspect as a frustrated technologist rather than a high-quality, philosophically minded extremist. Returning to Ted’s life, after entering Berkeley, he was completely unsuited to lecturing and had a strong sense of unease about social interaction and interpersonal relationships. He felt he could not tolerate the institutionalized academic environment. After only two years, in 1969, Ted suddenly resigned, completely leaving behind what seemed like a promising academic path. This seems to explain why Ted repeatedly chose\dots{} He completely abandoned the seemingly promising academic path, which might explain why Ted repeatedly chose to attack Berkeley.


In 1971, Ted went alone to the mountains of Montana, bought a piece of land, built a small cabin without electricity or water, and began a life of almost primitive seclusion. He chopped wood, fetched water, grew his own vegetables, and rejected any modern conveniences. His idea was very clear: to break free from\dots{} All the constraints of modern industrial society returned to the simplest and most natural state, but Ted was not a rebel. On the contrary, as we mentioned earlier, he had received extremely rigorous academic training and was a highly cultured person. Ted not only published short stories, but was also fluent in Spanish and German. He had studied Arabic, Russian, French, Old Egyptian, and even Chinese. Ted’s cabin was filled with hundreds of books and academic papers, covering a wide range of topics. From Pescott’s history of Mexican-American relations to relativity, Greek mythology, the history of Indo-European languages, and George O’Shea’s \emph{1984} and \emph{The Last of the Mexicans}, he read a vast array of literary classics, including Dostoevsky, Shakespeare, and Dickens, as well as Spanish and German literature. His intellectual nourishment was incredibly diverse, but none of these books seemed to offer him answers. Instead, during his time in the mountains, working in film, Ted’s thinking became increasingly extreme and narrow. He constantly wrote notes and reflected, ultimately forming a very thorough concept: he believed that modern industrial technology not only had problems but was also a tool that fundamentally enslaved humanity, and that this system was\dots{} The only way to amend or improve the law is to completely destroy it. Ted would go to the town library to research and carefully select the targets for his bombs. His target list was densely packed in his notes, mostly scientists, engineers, and corporate executives—people he saw as the maintainers of the modern technological system. To track him closely, he would make a special trip to the Helena post office, dozens of miles from his cabin, every time he sent a package. Ted was extremely cautious and never left any trace near his residence. The bombs he chose to drop himself were all carried out by him from Helena on a Greyhound bus. If he wanted to go to California, this route would inevitably pass through\dots{} The fact that Lake City became the location of the attack explains why Ted chose his targets and transported the bombs in such an orderly and unsettling manner. He hoped to create panic and shake society’s blind faith in technological progress in the most direct and brutal way. In Ted’s eyes, these victims were not innocent individuals, but accomplices in promoting technological expansion and oppressing human freedom. He fantasized about forcing society to start questioning technological civilization through a series of attacks, thereby saving so-called human freedom.


Of course, Ted was far from being as righteous as he claimed. In daily life, he was a difficult person to get along with and very vengeful. After moving to Montana, he had many conflicts with his neighbors and would even spy on others from a distance in the forest because of his deep distrust of others and suspicion of everything. The thing that best represents his character is that he immediately felt very ashamed and began to write down strong resentment in his private notebook. During this period, he fell in love with a female colleague but was rejected. He immediately felt very ashamed and began to write down strong resentment in his private notebook. She then wrote a malicious poem and posted it on the company’s break room bulletin board. David, Ted’s boss at the time, fired her. Ted’s behavior was a blatant act of revenge and humiliation, which led to his further rejection by others. This incident reveals a lot about Ted’s character. On one hand, he had poor social skills and was very lonely. On the other hand, when rejected, he would resort to extreme revenge.


In his diary after his arrest, Ted wrote about his intense hatred for psychologists. He felt that psychology was a discipline that manipulated people’s minds, a tool used by modern society to shape obedient citizens and control their thoughts. Ted’s personal motives in his crimes are also very clear. In his diary, he wrote that during his doctoral entrance exam at the University of Michigan, his unpleasant experience with psychological counseling led to a great sense of humiliation and anger towards the psychology department. He even wrote that at that time, he had the first thought of killing a psychologist. Therefore, his choice of a psychology professor at the University of Michigan was not random, nor was it a symbol of the technological expansion of industrial society. For Ted, psychologists were the group that most directly humiliated and angered him; they were people he had long hated and wanted to punish. This was true in his personal life, and it was also true when he targeted society as a whole. His anger and humiliation were packaged into a grand political violence plan.


Moreover, this self-proclaimed recluse, who opposed modern institutions, actually relied heavily on his family, especially his parents. Ted would often go home and tell his parents he was sick and needed treatment, using this as a pretext to ask for money. His mother, out of concern, frequently sent him money to support his so-called reclusive life in his cabin. But this money was ultimately used to buy raw materials to make bombs and carry out those ruthless and precise attacks. Ted used destructive methods to practice his ideals. It can be said that he had a strong obsession with his theories and ideas, but where did this obsession come from?


It may be difficult to give a definitive reason, but two experiences of Ted’s are considered by many to be important factors influencing his personality. The first occurred when Ted was only nine months old. He was hospitalized due to illness, and the hospital’s regulations at the time were extremely strict: family members could only visit twice a week, each visit not exceeding two hours. Ted’s mother recalled that after this hospitalization, Ted’s personality changed significantly; he became extremely introverted. Lacking a sense of security, Ted believed that no matter how much love and care his family gave him afterward, he would always retain a deep-seated fear of abandonment. This is why, when he was young, Ted once asked David not to abandon him. When Harvard University and the book by Chadank point out that this early hospitalization memory mainly comes from the narratives of Ted’s mother and younger brother David, Ted himself has always maintained a cold or even negative attitude towards this matter. He stated that his mother told this story out of fear of the image of a bad mother, and that it was a narrative reconstructed by his mother out of self-protection. In Ted’s view, this experience was not a real psychological trauma, but rather an explanation intentionally constructed by his mother. The author points out that Ted’s family was not always full of warmth and love as his mother described, but it was definitely not a cold and terrible family environment either. This family atmosphere, coupled with the constant misunderstandings between mother and children, put the emotional relationship within the family in a state of misunderstanding. I would say that this disagreement about early traumatic memories actually reflects the complexity of Ted’s family relationships and reveals part of the reason for his gradually forming isolated and self-enclosed personality. But of course, this cannot be the whole reason. After all, David grew up under the same slander, but did not become like Ted at all.


So we have to talk about his second experience of personality reconstruction. During his time at Harvard, Ted participated in a very controversial psychology experiment. Between 1959 and 1962, Ted, who was only 16 years old, was involved in a psychology experiment with Professor Henry Murray led a study called the Multifactorial Personality Assessment, an experiment that lasted three years and recruited 22 student volunteers. Ted’s code name was Lofo. This psychological experiment can be said to have no academic ethics whatsoever.


Speaking of which, I’d like to ask Luo Su to provide some background information about an important process in American scientific research: the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and why it’s important. In the United States, the IRB is used to review and supervise all research projects involving human subjects, ensuring that the research design complies with ethical requirements and does not cause unnecessary harm to participants or conceal risks. Currently, if you are conducting research at an American university, and the research participants are people—such as through questionnaires, psychological tests, or blood tests—researchers must write a very detailed plan outlining what questions will be asked, how to inform the participants, what data will be collected, how to analyze it, and what the positive and negative impacts will be on the participants. This plan must then be submitted to the university’s IRB committee for review. Only after approval can volunteers be recruited for the experiment. The modern IRB was only truly institutionalized and promoted nationwide in the United States after 1974. In other words, in Ted Doohaf’s time, there was no such thing as an IRB. At that time, these students were not clearly informed of the true purpose of the research; they only knew that they were participating in a study to solve a psychological problem. The infamous Stanford Prison The experiment was conducted before the widespread adoption of RB.


The experimental procedure Ted participated in was as follows: First, students were required to write a detailed personal philosophical statement outlining their values and worldview. Next, they were taken alone to a brightly lit room with one-way mirrors, connected to radio waves recording their thoughts and breathing. The researchers told them they would discuss their philosophical views with another student, but in reality, they were met with a trained lawyer-type opponent who would use sharp, humiliating, and aggressive language to dismantle their ideas. The entire process was recorded, and researchers closely monitored their reactions. The experiment’s initiator, Henry, himself admitted that the purpose of the experiment was to create powerful, comprehensive, and personally insulting attacks. He wanted to see what psychological and physiological changes would occur when these young people were subjected to intense psychological pressure. Many later recalled\dots{} The participants all said the experience was very unpleasant and even caused them significant trauma. Today, such an experimental design would absolutely not pass the IRB, but half a century ago these protective mechanisms had not yet been formed. So it can be said that Ted and that group of Harvard undergraduates encountered this experiment precisely during a vacuum of ethical review; they became the gray experimental subjects of that era.


Henry was a heavyweight figure in Harvard psychology at the time. He not only made pioneering contributions to the fields of personality psychology theory and personality assessment, but also had in-depth cooperation with the CIA’s psychological strategy research. He had an extremely high academic output and was one of the most authoritative figures in the Harvard psychology department. His students were spread throughout academia, and many scholars who later became Harvard professors were his disciples in their early years. Henry’s presence in the academic system was almost unshakeable. Perhaps it is precisely because of this that many people suspect that Harvard’s decision to investigate this experiment was based on a vacuum of ethical review. The psychological experiment was kept largely silent, even deliberately avoiding scrutiny and reflection, likely to protect Henry Morley’s personal reputation. Years later, when Ted’s lawyers and investigators attempted to obtain the complete recordings of the experiment, Harvard University responded that Ted’s recordings had been permanently sealed. Judging from the partially disclosed recordings, the entire process was indeed extremely uncomfortable. Almost every word Ted uttered was immediately met with suppression and denial. Moreover, this denial was not about discussing the right or wrong of his views, but rather a direct attack on Ted’s abilities, judgment, and cognitive level. We cannot piece together the complete picture of that experiment, but given the fact that the main recordings were intentionally sealed, I can perhaps imagine the terrible verbal humiliation Ted endured. How much self-esteem was stripped away in that laboratory, and how many unpredictable cracks were planted? Harvard University has never truly responded to these questions.


So, how much psychological impact did this experiment have on Ted? This is actually a highly controversial question. We must acknowledge that Ted was only 16 years old when he first participated in the experiment; he was not even an adult. A person’s experiences during adolescence have a profound impact on neurodevelopment. Ted’s intelligence and thinking abilities, which he had always prided himself on, were repeatedly negated in this experiment. The harsh verbal humiliation must have affected his self-esteem and personality. Some researchers believe that this experience may have been a turning point in Ted’s life. In fact, Steve Horowitz, a friend of Ted’s from Harvard University, said that Ted was originally a very introverted person, but after participating in the experiment, he became even more isolated and introverted. The psychiatric evaluation report given to the court by federal French-American psychiatrist Sally Johnson also mentioned that Ted’s behavior was relatively normal before entering the Harvard experiment, but he began to show obvious emotional distress during the experiment, namely that deep distrust and isolation.


In fact, many people began to reflect on and criticize Harvard’s elite education system after the bombing. The book “Harvard and Zhadank” put forward a thought-provoking point of view, saying that Ted’s own development in the Harvard environment In this book, Alston Chase presents a thought-provoking viewpoint: he argues that Ted’s own development was amplified step by step in the Harvard environment, ultimately being molded into the person he would become through this cold system. Harvard’s undergraduate education in the late 1950s placed extreme emphasis on intellectual superiority, logical analysis, and rational training, with little regard for students’ emotional growth and psychological support. Ted was only 16 years old at the time, the youngest student in his class. He was withdrawn and sensitive, coming from a Polish-American family in the upper class. Suddenly thrown into this environment known for its high pressure, competition, and indifference, he lacked a sense of belonging and found it difficult to establish stable social connections. The author, Alston Chase, states in the book that Harvard’s rational, emotion-suppressing educational style could itself cause profound, hidden harm to some students, especially those already emotionally vulnerable like Ted.


However, just as Ted strongly denies having a mental illness, he has always refused to acknowledge that his Harvard experience had a negative impact on him. After his arrest, Ted repeatedly emphasized that he had no bad memories of Harvard and even claimed that his academic performance there was very successful. He specifically denied that psychological experiments had harmed him, instead criticizing the media and the public for exaggerating the role of that experience. He believed that people were trying to explain him with a story, which was a result of his years of rational thinking and anti-industrial civilization ideas. In other words, Ted himself strongly opposed the psychological or pathological interpretation of his extreme behavior and opposed attributing the blame to Harvard education or a particular experiment. He hoped that the outside world would view his actions as political actions or philosophical struggles rather than products of personal psychological trauma.


I personally tend to think that the Harvard experience did exacerbate Ted’s original sense of isolation, but this was by no means the only root cause of his extreme behavior. His personality traits, the breakdown of social relationships, and the gradual formation of anti-technology sentiments were all important factors intertwined with this. Moreover, after reading Ted’s article, I felt a very strong tendency: Ted himself almost completely denied, and even was hostile to, mental health and human emotional states. In his article, he constantly emphasized rationality, order, and systemic logic, and defined so-called freedom. To pursue absolute self-sufficiency, reject dependence, and resist all emotional connections and compromises—in my view, this perspective is actually a highly paradoxical worldview that instrumentalizes all human experiences, defines humans as means to achieve goals, devalues emotional expression, suppresses vulnerability, and rejects connections between people. Ted used the will of the strong to package his substantial loneliness, and the struggle for freedom to mask his indifference to emotions. This freedom is a disguise for qualitative loneliness, using the struggle for freedom to mask his emotional nihilism. This freedom is a disguise for repression, a rejection of the complexity of human nature. I believe that Ted’s failure in interpersonal relationships led him to develop extreme rationalism. Because Ted could not face his own emotional failures, he completely denied emotions. His solitary life further reinforced this logic, leading Ted to ultimately be unable to understand or care about human suffering, ultimately resulting in complete extremism. Ted’s so-called rebellion, ostensibly an indictment of technological society, was actually a denial of humanity.


On the morning of June 10, 2023, Ted died in a federal prison hospital in North Carolina. He was 81 years old, and his death was officially ruled a suicide. This man, who once plunged the entire nation into panic, ultimately ended his life quietly in a closed hospital room. (My own heart)(My own heart)(My own heart)(My own heart)(My own heart) That concludes the section on the case for now.


Next, I want to discuss Ted’s 35,000-word manifesto. The reason I’m elaborating on it is because its content was so captivating; almost every chapter made me want to comment. However, this attraction doesn’t stem from agreement; on the contrary, his writing caused me intense discomfort. It should be noted that the following section will involve Ted’s views, as well as my personal subjective opinions, because the manifesto itself is full of ideological color. My response will inevitably carry a stance and value judgment. First, I must admit that Ted is indeed very skilled at writing. This article reads like a rigorous academic paper while maintaining strong readability and appeal. The language is concise and powerful, brimming with an almost obsessive confidence. This manifesto possesses a very strong personal style; no wonder those familiar with the work can recognize it immediately. As we mentioned earlier, each paragraph is numbered, creating a coherent flow from beginning to end, resulting in a structured feel akin to a legal document—very rigorous. I had never seen such a writing style before; one could say that this form itself reflects the author’s intellectual style.


Although I’m reluctant to admit it, I must say that many of the manifesto’s points resonated with me. For example, Ted criticizes the erosion of individual freedom by modern industrial society, arguing that in a highly technologically advanced world\dots{} In a society with a high-powered, rule-based structure, individual rights are constantly being compressed and even deprived. The system operates at high speed through organized and standardized methods, while people within it increasingly resemble replaceable parts. Often, what we call choices are merely options preset by the system. They may seem like a manifestation of personal will, but they are actually allowed by the system. I believe that in this era of devalued education, difficult employment, and life guided by algorithms, many people can feel the powerlessness of not being able to change their fate no matter how hard they try. Ordinary people find it difficult to truly change their own circumstances, and this state of being unable to control one’s life may be the core manifestation of the so-called “system coercing the individual” in the Ted Manifesto.


In addition, there is another point in the manifesto that impressed me. Ted pointed out that technological development in modern society is autonomous. That is to say, even if a certain technology may produce serious negative social consequences, as long as it has sufficient economic benefits, it will be promoted irresistibly. Ted believes that the expansion of technology is no longer a choice of human will, but a self-reinforcing and self-replicating process, eventually gradually getting out of human control. I think this point also has strong practical significance in the context of the expansion of AI technology, data collection, and automated homes we face today. I completely disagree with Ted’s extreme claims and methods, but I must admit that his critique of certain inherent ills of industrial society is indeed accurate and profound.


Next, I want to express my critique of this manifesto. In my view, Ted seems to be deeply entrenched in his own constructed value system, constantly arguing, repeating, and profiting within a closed logic. However, Ted is also very clever; he blends existing real-world problems with his personal interpretation of history. He intersperses factual observations in his descriptions and uses phrases like “We believe we can get the impression” when expressing personal judgments. Using “we” at the beginning is a common expression in academic writing, but it also easily misleads readers into believing these judgments are a general consensus or objective statements. Undeniably, Ted strives to create a logically self-consistent illusion, making the article highly inflammatory. However, this article didn’t really sway me. It’s not that I’m particularly good at independent thinking, but as a non-white woman, I was immediately stung by the author’s arrogant white male perspective when I read this manifesto. The article doesn’t begin with industrial society or discuss the core issues the author wants to explore; instead, it immediately criticizes the left, devoting a full 30 paragraphs to it. To briefly explain the left, they typically advocate for protecting the rights of minority women and marginalized groups like the LGBTQ + community, arguing that these rights are deprived of anti-discrimination, equal opportunity, and inclusion policies. They believe the state and society have a responsibility to correct historical structural injustices and oppression. Frankly, I lean left on the political spectrum, so when I read his views, it felt like he was pointing his finger at me. He devoted considerable space to condemning leftists, saying their so-called political correctness is meaningless. He gave very specific examples, such as discussing terms like “Chic” and “Negro,” trying to show that these terms are not fundamentally different from “Guy” or “White” —they are all names for the same group of people with no negative connotations. He argued that leftists deliberately imbued them with special offensive meanings. Here, I’ll make a simple analogy: Now\dots{} It is generally believed that words related to women should not be stigmatized. For example, words like “Miss” or “woman” are not inherently derogatory. However, the reason they have gradually acquired a derogatory or stigmatizing connotation in reality is not because women are innocent or overly sensitive, but because these words have been deliberately used by some to belittle women over a long period of time. In other words, what really distorted these words may be women themselves, and it is the repeated and systematic use of these words to belittle women in a male-dominated discourse system that gradually acquired a discriminatory connotation. Meanwhile, the words “young man” and “sir” have no such negative connotations at all. The example I gave is exactly the same as the example Ted mentioned earlier. This is not an innocent phenomenon of the left, but a manifestation of the evolution of language in the power structure. Ted repeatedly denies that ethnic minorities and women do suffer structural oppression in society, using a sophistry to politicize the left. The logic of portraying the efforts made by Black people for the disadvantaged as a result of industrial societal affectation left me speechless.


Another part of the article that made me strongly uncomfortable was his commentary on the left’s support for Black people. Ted argued that the left’s emphasis on empowering Black people was actually a way of depriving them of their original culture. He criticized the left for trying to make Black people accept the mainstream standards of the white middle class, such as studying technical majors, becoming scientists or corporate executives, and climbing the social ladder to become responsible, forceful, and violent individuals. In his view, these visions were essentially the white left’s desire for Black people to conform to the system and accept the norms and values of industrial society. But what I read in his writing was a deep-seated prejudice against Black people. One of his concerns was that technical skills, social status, and a sense of responsibility are qualities that naturally belong to white people, and that Black people do not possess these abilities and should not have such a future. This viewpoint is clearly tainted with racial prejudice. Furthermore, Tyler is not only arrogant but also completely disregards basic facts. The social predicament faced by Americans does not stem from their own culture, but is the result of centuries of slavery, racial segregation, structural discrimination, and economic exploitation. The so-called “lower-class Black culture” that people talk about—such as lack of educational resources, violence, gang problems, and fragile family structures—is not a reflection of Black people’s own cultural choices or disadvantages, but rather a product of oppression and deprivation by a white-dominated system. The fundamental purpose of left-wing intervention is not to make Black people white or subjugate them to the system, but to break down long-standing structural injustices and give Black people genuine choices, the freedom to determine their own lifestyles and cultural expression. This is the struggle for equality. Rather than cultural assimilation, this struggle is distorted into a kind of regulation in Ted’s narrative. Even the oppression he couldn’t see the underlying demand for power, only interpreting it as a white middle-class attempt to mold a qualified Black person. This interpretation itself reflects that he has never truly understood the oppression and injustice faced by the Black community.


Even more absurdly, Ted claims in his article that primitive people experienced less pressure and frustration than modern people and were more satisfied with their way of life. He then goes on to say that primitive societies were not perfect; for example, women in Australian Aboriginal communities often suffered abuse. In other words, he is aware of the serious gender violence that existed in primitive societies but selectively ignores this phenomenon. I can only say that in his idealized vision of primitive life, he always includes those who possess power and a voice, while those groups who are sacrificed and suffer in reality are never his concern. According to Ted’s article\dots{} I can almost certainly say that Ted’s descriptions of Black people and women in the chapter make him a thorough racist and sexist. But the danger lies in the subtle, understated discrimination he displays in his writing, hidden within seemingly objective arguments, cloaked in rational analysis, using logical deduction and value judgments as a pretext to explain structural oppression as a natural state, and portraying the struggle for equality by minority groups as an overreaction or the result of systemic manipulation. Because his writing is so blatantly illogical, those without similar experiences or those in privileged social positions can easily be misled by his logic, perceiving it as profound social insight. In the Netflix documentary “Bomb Class,” a white male scholar appeared and stated that Ted’s manifesto was very reasonable. However, if you are from a minority group, you will quickly perceive the cold arrogance and annihilation embedded in his writing.


In Ted’s view, the solutions to oppression and inequality proposed by the left can only be achieved through stronger totalitarianism, more complex management, and more advanced technological systems. He believed that such reforms would only provide new legitimacy and impetus for the expansion of the industrial system, binding humanity even more tightly. He accused the left of failing to grasp the root of the problem and becoming accomplices to the system. Ultimately, Ted distrusted all social reforms, believing the real problem lay not in political decisions but in technology itself. The oppression and control of industrial society were not determined by the personal will of any politician or the decision-making of any government, but by the self-expansion and inherent logic of the entire technological system. In his manifesto, Ted repeatedly emphasized a core point: regardless of leadership changes or political systems—democratic, authoritarian, socialist, or capitalist—the ultimate outcome would remain unchanged: humanity would be forced to rely on technology and organized management, exchanging freedom for efficiency. In his view, politicians were merely executors in this vast system; they lacked true independence and creativity, serving only as management tools to maintain the technological system’s operation. Those who truly drove the system’s expansion and deepening were those who researched, disseminated, and deployed technology—engineers, scientists, scholars, and technological decision-makers within enterprises. This is why he focused his attention on these individuals. The logical chain he described may have considerable merit. After all, we have no way of verifying whether these assumptions necessarily hold true in reality. The question is, can his proposed solution — completely destroying industrial society and returning humanity to a low-tech, primitive state—truly solve these predicaments? The answer is almost certainly no. Looking back at history, we find that in primitive societies, productivity was extremely low, and people relied on natural resources for survival. Although many primitive tribes did have relatively equal distribution of resources, seemingly achieving the freedom without oppression that Ted, as a man, desired, humanity could only barely survive, lacking security, healthcare, education, and stability. I would like to ask, what practical meaning does such freedom truly have? Ted himself, who has read extensively, also repeatedly mentioned the history of primitive societies in his manifesto. I believe he must be familiar with this history, but his admiration for primitive society is entirely based on an assumption. His so-called freedom is an abstract philosophical freedom, completely ignoring humanity’s survival needs for safety, health, development, and creation. At the same time, his disregard for the reality of women’s oppression in primitive society proves that he imagines himself as someone who wields power in that simple social structure. Ted’s concern has never been the well-being of all humanity, nor the plight of the oppressed, but rather whether he himself can become an oppressor.


Ted’s statements after joining the military further prove this point. He once expressed a desire to cooperate with some Arab anti-industrial terrorist organizations. However, in his manifesto, Ted repeatedly criticized the suppression of individual free will by these organizations. If he were to actually join these organizations, would the blind obedience he so vehemently denounced be repeated in his own life? I can easily imagine that in his envisioned free order, he is the one who upholds the evil rights, while he doesn’t care about those passively obeying individuals. What he truly opposes is never oppression itself, but rather his exclusion from the control of the oppressive machine.


Personally, I find Ted’s ideology utterly repulsive. I feel his entire theoretical system is filled with narcissism and paranoia, exhibiting an extremely cold-blooded and detached attitude. It was conceived in a state far removed from reality. More importantly, even if we temporarily set aside the validity of its ideas, and even if it were truly reasonable, too many have forgotten, or rather, lost the ability to think about this point. No matter how reasonable an idea is, it cannot supersede the lives of others. The establishment and development of human society is not solely due to technological progress or the evolution of social systems; its most fundamental foundation is individual, concrete, and vibrant people. What makes Ted most disgusting is that, under the guise of striving for the greatest human freedom, he openly deprives others of their lives. He claims to destroy industrial society and oppose the enslavement of people by technology, yet he uses the most modern technology to manufacture bombs, making these weapons even more lethal through repeated experiments and improvements. He not only fails to resist the expansion of technology but also imitates his logic, pursuing lethality as a form of progress. On the one hand, Ted hates the alienation of people by modern society; on the other hand, he completely ignores the real injustices that exist in reality. Those marginalized groups struggling within the system never receive any attention from his theories. What he cares about is always himself—a white male who has lost his way within the system, unable to realize his self-worth, and thus resorting to violence to try to achieve his ideals. In the end, Ted has never truly cared about human freedom. What he was fighting for was nothing more than his lost rights. The most ironic thing is that Ted’s words, actions, and theories precisely confirmed the alienation of people in industrial society, which he vehemently denounced. He constantly proclaims his resistance to the exploitation of people by technology, yet he himself has long become an alienated individual. He is indifferent, resolute, and treats human lives as mere numbers. He is not resisting alienation at all, but rather the ultimate manifestation of alienation itself.


Finally, I want to discuss the issue of IQ. Under the IQ testing system, Ted Wu is undoubtedly highly intelligent, and his neighbors all say he excels in math. However, my skepticism about IQ testing dates back many years. Later, I entered the field of educational psychology, researching the impact of family involvement on children’s academic and socio-emotional development. After reading a large amount of literature, I became increasingly aware that so-called IQ is largely just an artificially constructed measurement tool. It cannot truly and comprehensively measure a person’s intelligence. First, the essence of IQ testing is a test of questions formed within a standardized educational context. It measures a person’s logical reasoning ability, spatial cognition, and chronological memory in a specific context, but this does not mean it can measure creativity, emotional intelligence, moral judgment, and systems thinking. It may not even truly test a person’s judgment and adaptability when facing complex realities—which are precisely what I prefer to call\dots{}


Firstly, intelligence is deeply influenced by education level. If a child grows up in a family with abundant books and language interaction and receives a good early education, they will naturally perform better on IQ tests. In other words, their education makes them better at answering questions. However, this does not mean that a child growing up in a resource-scarce environment is inherently less intelligent. IQ scores are largely a reflection of educational opportunities and cultural capital, rather than the ultimate proof of innate talent. It is undeniable that intelligence is related to genetic inheritance, but if we think that intelligence is entirely innate, we ignore a large number of environmental factors that affect cognitive development. For a very simple example, if a pregnant woman suffers from severe malnutrition during pregnancy, such as some people in the United States who are even drinking or using drugs during pregnancy, the impact on her is significant, and the long-term effects will also seriously affect the cognitive development of the child after birth. Therefore, the so-called problem of congenital deficiency is likely to be significantly related to the parents’ socioeconomic status and cannot be simply attributed to heredity.


Finally, even if a person has a very high IQ, it does not mean that he has the ability to understand complex systems. Ted is a typical example. He is undoubtedly a genius with extremely strong mathematical ability, but his way of thinking is extremely binary. He habitually divides the world into black and white, enemy and friend, industrial society and natural society, oppression and freedom. His understanding of systemic problems was very simple, even fortunate. In the book “Harvard and Zadank,” the author points out that Ted’s binary thinking in mathematical training made it difficult for him to see the gray areas. Reality, however, is full of ambiguity and uncertainty. In this respect, Ted’s high intelligence may not be an advantage, but rather an amplification of cognitive narrowness. We’ve discussed earlier that Ted’s logic and behavior contain many contradictions, but because of his narrow understanding and seemingly lack of empathy, he may not have realized how contradictory he was.


What does high intelligence really mean? I’ve always felt that the public’s understanding of intelligence is extremely narrow. In mainstream discourse, we often consider those who are logical, capable, good at exams, and able to solve complex problems as intelligent. But if someone has amazing musical talent, excellent motor coordination, or strong empathy and a compassionate heart, we rarely use “intelligent” to describe them. This narrow definition ignores the fact emphasized by the theory of multiple intelligences: human intelligence is\dots{} Multidimensional physical activity, interpersonal skills, introspection, and natural observation—these abilities also reflect the depth and breadth of cognition. When we simplify intelligence to the ability to quickly deconstruct standardized tests, we are actually using an extremely limited standard to evaluate a person’s value. Therefore, when re-examining people like Ted who are often considered to have high IQs, perhaps we should consider whether true wisdom should encompass more dimensions and be built upon a deeper understanding and observation of humanity, society, and the world. If a person can easily solve logical problems but cannot perceive the suffering of others, cannot see the world from multiple perspectives, and lacks understanding and empathy for the complexities of reality, then what is the meaning of their intelligence? In my view, such intelligence is merely a layer of indifference and narcissism. Ted’s experience has convinced me that a person can indeed construct an intricate value system and express their thoughts with highly persuasive language. This undeniably demonstrates his extraordinary talent. But if such a person loses their humanity, then this intelligence is no longer an admirable ability, but rather becomes the flesh and blood nourishment for a cold-blooded monster. True wisdom should not merely shine in the mind, but should be rooted in conscience and compassion.


You have just listened to The Book of White Frost. I am Shuang Tong. See you next time.

\section{Comments}


\textbf{Dochdoch}


\textbf{2025.7.25}


Compared to other crime podcasts that dry and sloppy about the events themselves, Shuangtong’s content is excellent, deeply analyzing and diverging the background, environment, and extended content, making it very satisfying to listen to!


\textbf{Frost crimson}


Too much praise, so much for the praise, thank you for your recognition, I’m so happy!!


\hairline


\textbf{Galara}


\textbf{2025.7.23}


1:15:19 Yes, how could a white guy at the top of the class understand (whispering a little BB) The verbal abuse in that experiment doubles the attack power on white men, which is also a boomerang that white men rarely encounter or get criticized in daily life


\textbf{Frost crimson}


Yes, I think he is truly both hateful and pitiable. Because he has social barriers, even if he is very smart, it is difficult for him to gain widespread recognition in American society. In fact, from this perspective, he himself is also a vulnerable group. But even so, his identity as a white man still overshadowed everything. I think if he had some empathy, maybe he could empathize with his past self and wouldn’t be so obsessive.


\textbf{Strawberry \_V9dx}


Why do I always feel sorry for the male criminal?


\emph{A total of 11 replies}


\hairline


\textbf{A big piece of good candy}


\textbf{2025.7.23}


1:09:28 Smart people combined with psychological issues and arrogance can easily get themselves killed


\textbf{Frost crimson}


If he hadn’t placed such importance on his “ideals” and hadn’t made a statement, he could have continued committing crimes\dots{}


\hairline


\textbf{Sichuan-style beef baguette sandwich}


\textbf{2025.7.29}


1:17:31 So good at expressing myself! I also feel the phenomenon and reasons behind the gradual stigma of terms aimed at women, but I can’t describe it as precisely as Shuangtong, in just a few words! Your mouth is my dream 😆


\textbf{Frost crimson}


Oh my, thank you for the sandwich support!! Many of my expressions have actually been carefully polished and polished many times, and I can’t explain them all at once. I think trying to record your thoughts more often can be helpful!


\hairline


\textbf{Willowwww}


\textbf{2025.7.25}


Absolutely loved this episode! It was the first time I’d heard a podcast that combined crime with his own knowledge and values. It wasn’t just a superficial way to express his own views, but a well-reasoned and well-founded story. His critique of Kaczyński was very enjoyable to listen to, completely clearing his nerves. I hope Shuangtong keeps up the good work and keeps getting better 👏


\textbf{Frost crimson}


Wow, I’m so embarrassed. Actually, I think many of my opinions and evaluations are subjective, just lucky enough to resonate with everyone. Thank you for your encouragement ❤️, I’m working hard!!


\hairline


\textbf{RayRayRaaay}


\textbf{2025.7.25}


So Kaczyński is the biggest incel\dots{}


\textbf{Frost crimson}


It kind of means that, but I don’t think it’s entirely true. The messages expressed in his manifesto are layered, including expressing his disdain for the right because the right supports technological development. I started from the point that hit me most, so my perspective inevitably had its limitations.


\textbf{RayRayRaaay}


1:21:47 That’s right, my previous sentence was actually sarcastic, using his binary approach. Shuangtong’s final remarks were truly excellent—sending hearts to heart. I had similar feelings after reading that previous article about the knight trapped in the algorithm. If after changing my fate through reading, I would rather use various means to enslave others and gain so-called superiority, then I’d rather be illiterate [\dots{}]


\emph{A total of 3 replies}


\hairline


\textbf{RileOooy}


\textbf{2025.8.02}


1:18:28 A narcissist with a severe lack of understanding and action, saying one thing but doing another


\hairline


\textbf{One hundred thousand \_mx}


\textbf{2025.7.27}


1:22:01 Ha, such people are above themselves and equal to others, but below themselves, with strict hierarchies. Criticizing this system is only because you are not the main power holder within it


\hairline


\textbf{Where’s Sister Meow Meow?}


\textbf{2025.8.29}


Exactly—he should have been at the top of the system’s pyramid and enjoyed the benefits, but lost out in competition and isolation. The motivation for criticizing the system is obvious without a hint of frustration: his interests were not realized, and his frustration and anger caused by not sitting in it. His philosophy was not designed for the masses, but for his own personal call


\textbf{Frost crimson}


Here’s the situation!


\hairline


\textbf{The belly is round}


\textbf{2026.1.28}


1:21:55 It’s quite laughable—primitive people are the happiest\textasciitilde{} because before they even had time to think about the pain, they starved or froze to death before being oppressed\textasciitilde{} It feels like this person resonates deeply with local writers like Jia Pingwa. In the end, the so-called oppression of industrial society is that he can’t find a place to be a local emperor—an American version of a man’s unique homesickness.


\textbf{Frost crimson}


Hhhhh, what you said is hilarious. Insightful


\textbf{Round belly}


😘😘😘😘😘 Looking forward to stories from February\textasciitilde{}


\emph{A total of 3 replies}


\hairline


\textbf{HD42639z}


\textbf{2025.10.07}


1:20:11 I quite agree with this. No matter how things change, as long as it’s still a patriarchal society, oppression will never stop. But this old man only hates that he’s not the big boss, so he uses technological pressure as an excuse and bombs to force himself into the big boss


\hairline


\textbf{Spicy Paprika}


\textbf{2025.7.24}


1:24:37 Hearing this, the title of this episode really feels like a double entendre. He was not only found because of Xuanxuan, but also because Xuanxuan completely exposed his ignorance and arrogance. It’s amazing!


\textbf{Frost crimson}


:Spicy and sticky~


\textbf{Spicy Paprika}


Sticky and close!


\hairline


\textbf{Good morning, Lilian}


\textbf{2025.8.01}


This is the best explanation of this case I’ve ever heard—bar none! I love the parts of each issue where Shuang Tong shares her own insights!


\textbf{Frost crimson}


Thank you to Lilian for your love and recognition!!


\hairline


\textbf{zilala}


\textbf{2025.7.28}


I really love hearing Shuangtong pronounce the “L” sound, haha


\textbf{Frost crimson}


I can’t tell what makes the ‘L’ I pronounce differently, but several listeners have already said my nasal pronunciation is unusual 😂


\hairline


\textbf{Dimanch}


\textbf{2025.7.28}


Shuang Tong’s rebuttal to Kaczyński’s views is very meaningful and she strongly agrees with her views on IQ. Some people are always just talking about IQ, even treating IQ as a tool to show superiority—truly arrogant.


\textbf{Frost crimson}


Let’s brainstorm together!


\hairline


\textbf{Subisubi}


\textbf{2025.7.27}


1:04:16 Isn’t this the norm 🤧 for Chinese parents and teachers toward their children and students?


\textbf{Frost crimson}


😂 So our average psychological resilience is strong


\hairline


\textbf{En-J is me}


\textbf{2025.7.24}


The best account of this case I’ve ever heard! From the detailed process, the comprehensive background knowledge, to the sharp viewpoints and profound reflections that follow, I was deeply moved! Thank you, Shuangtong, for presenting us with such a thoughtful work! Strong support!!


\textbf{Frost crimson}


:Such a high rating, thank you for your recognition!! Happy ❤️


\hairline


\textbf{Ling Yi, ling Yi}


\textbf{2025.7.25}


1:14:41 A classic elite white man


\textbf{Frost crimson}


Yes!


\hairline


\textbf{HD42639z}


\textbf{2025.10.07}


56:40 Haha, just as I thought at the start—a little Deng who feels the whole world owes him turns dark and rushes in to take revenge on society while shouting grand narratives. Yaozu realized that he was not the center of the universe and was truly on the verge of collapse


\hairline


\textbf{Lily Cat has been playing all along}


\textbf{2025.9.04}


55:52 So it really is Incel. And again, he dragged women out to blame them









% begin final page

\clearpage



% new page for the colophon

\thispagestyle{empty}

\begin{center}

The Ted K Archive





\strut

\end{center}

\strut

\vfill

\begin{center}


Shuangtong

High-IQ serial bomber

The criminal who declares himself “betrayed.”

July 23, 2025


\bigskip


The Book of White Frost, Episode 13. <\href{https://www.xiaoyuzhoufm.com/episode/68804544a9dec92500b11893}{www.xiaoyuzhoufm.com}>
   

       

       

       

       

       

       

   



\bigskip
\textbf{www.thetedkarchive.com}


\end{center}

% end final page with colophon


% end closing pages



\end{document}


% No format ID passed.



