The dude's been sentenced to 13 years imprisonment, with a chance of parole 8 1/2 years in.
Here's a text dump of info from various news sites, plus the judge's sentencing statement:
Freedom News wrote an essay about the story that was all technically valid, about how it would be nice if every newbie anarchy sympathizing teen could be guided into becoming highly skilled, security culture respecting, poor man's James Bonds, helping bring about mother anarchy.
But, it was a bit of a weird read, considering for example that they don't mention anywhere that the kid was a wannabe school shooter. It would just be nice for there to at the very least be advice in there about the importance of not making groups online or otherwise as warm and welcoming to people who hold such homicidally domineering desires. So, in the hopes that they don't cling on to those views:
In a video on 21 June, Graham took out a machete with a red handle and tapped the blade, saying: "Can't end my life yet, I have so much carnage to commit." ...
In another video, he threatened to attack Hugh Baird College, which he attended, saying: "I'm f****** ready, f****** bring it. I don't care, I'll kill every single last one of them." ...
Graham came to idolise an American terrorist called Theodore Kaczynski - known as the Unabomber - after watching a Netflix series called Manhunt, and pledged to "finish what he started", his trial heard. ...
Also, since he was a wannabe school shooter, it could obviously be that he would have latched onto any extremist ideology.
I do remember seeing two of the telegrams the news mentioned Jacob was a part of, promoted on an anti-tech discord I joined to see what they talk about when I was writing an essay on Ted Kaczynski. I noticed there's obviously plenty of small changes anti-tech groups and forums could implement to make them less appealing for people to hold onto their terrorist desires, like not allowing people to make their profile pictures anti-anarchist terror groups as one example, which is allowed to happen in the one server I know.
For me, it's sad that society failed to offer him meaning, sad that he couldn't be discouraged from his actions, and sad that there maybe wasn't sufficient effort to critique his beliefs and actions.
There are three really great academic articles that argue in methodical detail how; when people who are anti-tech reject the view that other social justice campaigns can be complementary to their ideal end goal, then they on average become more open to using terrorism & bodily-harm violence. The point being argued is a simple one, that too many people conflate radical environmentalists with terrorists for faulty reasons, but the detail in which this point is argued I think shows a lot of fascinating glimpses into the foundational intuitions motivating various people:
Finally, there is
The Ted K Archive website that aims to in part offer people arguments for helping pull people back from ideologies like his, however unlikely the chances of that succeeding may be.
A common question some anti-tech people have about the website is 'if the most objectionable aspect to Ted K was his terrorism, why not just promote texts critiquing Ted's justification for using terrorism?' But here's, I think, a creditable argument, the website gives on the 'about' page:
1. Because we like the arguments against a lot of his ideas, so why would we aim only for such a small change? By winning someone over to a bunch of arguments, you can sometimes get them to see the value of a very different life and future. We think more people being invested in high-tech culturally-complex society means getting to experience more people expressing what motivates them in complex ways. And...
2. Because being able to have the debate at the motivating foundation of people's philosophy is important because even if we were able to argue someone out of the justification that it's ok to use terroristic means in x circumstance, because of y secondary practical reason, the next day they could just double down on their foundational philosophy, that that sacrifice needs to be made for the philosophy to flourish.
So, we hope to offer the best counter-ideal that we think it's possible to argue for. And any runner-up prize from achieving that ideal would be great too, like just encouraging a few extremists to drop their justifications for terrorism, just encouraging a few people to be a bit more anti-authoritarian, just a bit more leftist/egalitarian and/or just a bit more pro-tech.
I think I'm going to try and start up a correspondence with the dude, to see if his views have sincerely changed in any way, and if so, ask him what intervention or differences in his life he thinks could have helped put him on a better path. So, to see what other lessons can be learned.
