But where do you draw the line? I'm not going to read Mein Kampf looking for constructive ideas. Why? Because Hitler's position is so destructive that trying to untangle constructive ideas from the destructive seems like a fool's errand. (Also dangerous - I don't want to miss some of the destructiveness and incorporate it into my thinking.)

So the question is, did the Unabomber have good ideas, but follow them to bad conclusions? Or is the destructiveness more pervasive in his writing?

For me, the destructiveness was too vivid and too personal.