Yep, he should have never told anyone. On one hand, I can see how using the deaths of people who were creating the very technology he was warning us about to draw attention to his cause, but I just don't see how it could have really been effective given that, at the time, the manifesto wasn't widely available. Did it work to get me to read it? Maybe, but I know from experience in talking to the average person, that I'm a bit different. Most won't read it, most wouldn't read it even if he blew up their own mothers. Another reason is that the manner in which he did it could have caused the death and injury of innocents, instead of his intended targets, and I think that alone is my biggest problem with it. If one has a beef with someone, fine, but what if a kid had found one of those packages? Sure, it would have drawn attention to what he wanted to say, but from a moral standpoint, I have issues with "the end justifies the means" point of view. Did he actually tell his brother, or was it only after the manifesto was printed that his brother recognized the writings to be familiar with what he knew about Ted? Either way, he compromised himself, but having the mindset as a younger man to hide what he would later write as he went about doing the things he did seems almost impossible. As for whether or not I agree with him: In some ways yes. His point about technology always ending up being used for evil was spot on, and the way he saw how computer tech would be used in the future to monitor and control us was spot on, and it's not yet near where I believe he saw it going. If the tech oligarchs get their way, this will not end well for any of us.