On the afternoon of June 4, 2004, Marvin Heemeyer, a local automobile repair shop owner in the town of Granby, Colorado, used his customized steel and concrete plated armored Komatsu D355A bulldozer, to demolish the Granby town hall, the house of a formal mayor and several other buildings. This rampage was motivated by a long standing zoning dispute over his land with town officials. Marvin soon had enough and planned the rampage for about eighteen months before carrying out and ultimately taking his own life. No civilians were killed or injured during this attack. This event made nationwide news and soon found its way on the internet where he was hailed a hero and affectionately given the title, the "Killdozer." Heemeyer’s rampage is often glorified on social media by young adults and teens, even decades after the event. His actions in response to those grievances against the town officials and businesses he felt wronged by is celebrated among those who hail him as a hero. Heemeyer’s rampage left a mark on the town causing millions of dollars in damage. Objectively anyone would view him and his actions as criminal but among many that is not the case. Why is that? Why is a “villain” like Heemeyer glorified and his actions justifiable?

​

On social media platforms like Instagram, Twitter, Reddit, etc., Heemeyer and his actions are celebrated among young people who look at him as a symbol of resistance against the perceived injustices that our local and federal government commit towards the people time and time again. This online idealization with characters like Heemeyer sort of overshadows the destruction and terror brought upon the community. Where legally, Heemeyer would be looked at as a domestic terrorist, due to this favored narrative of an individual vs. a corrupt government system, he’s socially looked at as a hero instead. This phenomenon highlights a disturbing trend seen online with the coming age of technology: the glorification of villains in modern society

​

Some excuse this celebration of Heemeyer with the idea and justification that his rampage is okay to celebrate because all the damage done was simply just to property and that no one got hurt. But what happens when the same scenario, (that being an individual that commits acts towards a perceived corrupt government entity) is taken to the extreme and people are hurt and even killed. Well that’s the story of Ted Kaczynski also infamously known as the Unabomber. Ted Kaczynski was an American prodigy mathematician who had a promising academic career ahead of him but soon abandoned said career to live a primitive lifestyle. In his cabin in the woods he conducted a 20 year bombing campaign where he created and mailed bombs to those he felt contributed to the progression of technology and continuous industrialization and in turn, the destruction of nature. This idea was written about in his 35,000 word manifesto titled “Industrial Society and Its Future.” In it he expresses his grievances for continuous industrialization and its destructive consequences for the human race. Kaczynski’s bombs ultimately killed 3 people and injured 23 others. Despite his crimes, various factors led to him gathering a cult following and support, celebration, and glorification online in the masses. From the mystery of his identity, primitive lifestyle to the anti-government, anti-technology ideas listed in his manifesto, it’s no wonder why a character like this would appeal to those who had similar ideas around that time.

​​

Social media, an app designed for and mainly used by the younger generation, has a massive influence on our socio-political thoughts and the way we think as a whole. As Kaczynski was caught his ideas became more viral as the decades went on. In the article “His ideas resonate’: how the Unabomber’s dangerous anti-tech manifesto lives on” from The Guardian, writer Michael Safi examines the effect the manifesto had in the decades leading after the capture of Ted Kaczynski. In it, he touches on social media and how “TikTok and other platforms [are] abound with clips that intersperse quotes from the manifesto with footage of industrial disasters and pollution, or the logos and CEOs of technology giants” (Safi 13). The description said here is one common on social media in which a message or idea is presented along with aesthetic visuals. This illustration depicts how his ideas and ultimately the image of Kaczynski himself as a hero of the people can spread to the youth, using methods that appeal to them such as aesthetic and polished imagery. It’s clear how his ideas manifests itself on social media, but how is this actually damaging to people viewing them? It all goes back to how people react to characters who commit violent crime.

​

Both Kaczynski and Heemeyer are hailed as heroes, but more specifically anti-heroes. It’s safe to say that fictional anti-heroes such as Batman, Deadpool and others, garner just as much love as typical generic heroes such as superman. But what is an anti-hero? In the article “The Villain as “Antihero: The Glorification of the Criminal Sociopath on American Television,” William Settles examines the glorification of evil fictional characters. While Ted Kaczynski is a real life villain, there's a benefit to examining the similarities between the two in hopes to determine how and why these types of characters are so loved. Settles takes time to go over the qualities an anti-hero typically presents. He starts with how “the antihero does not lack a moral center. His moral code is clear to him even if it is not apparent to us. He rejects the conventional morality of the majority who venerate the status quo while continually chafing at it” (Settles 8). Looking at the manifesto, there are many things Kaczynski said that resonate [with people] because they seem to respond to some of the crucial problems of our time” (Researcher Sean Flemmings in “His ideas Resonate”). Kaczynski rejects the socio-economic system we run on and that resistance, along with his antiheroic actions, tend to exhibit the same qualities of the fictional anti heroes people, even children, love so much. Another similar antiheroic quality Kaczynski exhibits is how “he follows his own moral imperative, which leads him to do whatever damage is required to people and institutions whose interests he must (often unwillingly) oppose for a greater good” (Settles 8). This depiction directly connects to the Unabombers actions with the brutal bombing attacks he carried out. It’s these characteristics that draw people to favor the Unabomber and his actions and ideas while completely undermining the immense loss and pain felt by the families of his victims.

​

The romanticization and love of Kacyznski is muddled by an idea and love for rebellion against corrupt government systems. Wendigoon, a youtuber known for making extensive researched based videos, created a video titled, “The Internet's favorite Terrorist: The Unabombers Life & Legacy.” In it he talks about every minute detail regarding Kaczynski’s life and the ideas he promoted as well as how it affects society. While looking at funny images created with Ted’s face, he mentions how despite the insensitivity possibly perceived at first glance, “people don't really focus on Ted Kaczynski the person, they focus on Ted Kaczynski the zeitgeist…the idea or the image of anti-technological belief. It’s not the Terrorist they’re proliferating, it's the idea that society…is working too much the way it's supposed to” (Wendigoon 1:44:00 to 1:50:00). This further depicts the idea that people don’t purposefully want to identify with a criminal who’s taken innocent lives, but with ideas that are subversive to our government system. It’s important to note that these same ideas can be found in different philosophers and scholars though, those people are not virally revered as they heard about said ideas from the manifesto through a nationwide domestic terrorist event.

​

It’s understandable to want to identify with those who rebel against a broken and corrupt system but idolizing and glorifying figures such as Heemeyer or Kaczynski can soon normalize violent behavior which can be detrimental to our current society. This way of thinking can promote harmful ideas that glorify and normalize toxic masculinity and antisocial behavior, and can increase real-world violence and aggressive thoughts and actions. By recognizing the damage of villain glorification, we can begin to draw a line between the figure and the damage/suffering they caused and the ideas they pushed, that of which could be found within the writings of other non-criminal philosophers and scholars.