But to address that:
>Terrorists who murder for acclaim aren't necessarily the most insightful writers cuz like if they were, they wouldn't need to murder.
Its hardly the case that insightful writing will naturally spread; you yourself provide an example of why it might: you know his murders had little to do with his actual arguments (if you believe his claims), but use it as a reason to not even consider the argument. More generally, a solid argument can easily be publicly ignored for reasons unrelated to it, including style, origin, author's personal traits or behavior, media lambasting, politics, etc. We hardly live in a world where reason alone is sufficient.
That he resorted to terrorism was likely an unreasonable escalation to popularize his writing is irrelevant in all ways I can figure to whether or not he his ideas were insightful, or better yet, interesting. And given the history behind the document (which apparently grabbed your interest too), it seems unreasonable to me to expect nothing of value from it. It might be wrong, but its clearly going to be interesting.
And pretending the bombings never happened, would you have read it?
Now as to your question, I didn't judge his writing; I judged him. Terrorists who murder for acclaim aren't necessarily the most insightful writers cuz like if they were, they wouldn't need to murder.
It's apparent that you somehow think there is value or merit to his writing and by extension, him. Then that would be your task, to show that. I don't need to prove the negative. You need to show this great idea that Mr. Kaczynski proffered.
Cuz like I'm not seeing it.
BTW, if by the book you meant Conrad's The Secret Agent, no I didn't know the book. Conrad is a great writer but this isn't his best which to me would be Heart of Darkness. It's still worth a read, irrespective of Kaczynski.