Hitting where it hurts (by Ted K)

We are republishing this translation by Theodore Kaczynski that appeared a few years ago on Bertrand Louart's technocritical blog, And you haven't seen anything yet. Illustration: the liver is a sensitive organ targeted during boxing matches to put the opponent into a technical knockout. Here we can see a classic blow to the liver, that is to say a left hook to the liver, launched in counterattack by avoiding the direct of the opponent.

1. Why this article?

The purpose of this article is to point out a very simple principle of human conflicts that opponents of the techno-industrial system seem to be neglecting. This principle lies in the fact that, regardless of the nature of the conflict, if you want to win you must hit your opponent where it hurts.

Let me explain myself. When I say “hitting where it hurts” I am not necessarily referring to beatings or other forms of physical abuse. In a debate, for example, “striking where it hurts” would be to put forward the arguments to which the position of your opponents is the most vulnerable. In a presidential election, “striking where it hurts” would mean winning over your rival in the states where there are the most voters. So I will only use the analogy with physical combat because it is clear and striking.

If someone hits you, you can't defend yourself by knocking on their fists: you won't hurt them that way. To win the fight, you have to hit him where it hurts. This means reaching, behind your fists, the sensitive and vulnerable parts of the opponent's body.

Imagine if a lumber company bulldozer pulled up trees next to your house. It is the bulldozer blade that pushes the ground and lays the trees on the ground. But it would be a waste of time to hit them with sledgehammers. Would you devote a long and arduous day to hacking the blade with a sledgehammer that you would surely succeed in damaging it enough to make it unusable. But compared to the rest of the machine, the blade is relatively cheap and easy to replace. In short, it is nothing but the fists with which this bulldozer hits the ground. To defeat the machine, you must attack its vital parts by looking for them behind your fists. Such a device, for example, may very well be reduced to nothing, very expeditiously, in a very short time and without effort, by all sorts of means well known to many radicals.

At this point I need to be clear that I am not encouraging anyone to demolish a bulldozer (unless you own it yourself). Nor will this article find anything that could be interpreted as an incitement to any kind of illegal activity.

I am in prison and if I were to encourage illegal activities this item would not even get permission to leave the institution. I use the bulldozer image because it is clear and striking and will be appreciated by radicals.

2. It is the technology that is the target.

It is generally accepted that the fundamental variable that determines the contemporary historical process is based on technological development (Celso Furtado). Above all, it is technology that is responsible for the current state of the world and will control its further development. So the bulldozer we need to destroy is modern technology itself.

Many radicals are aware of this and therefore realize that their task is to eliminate the entire techno-industrial system. But they unfortunately pay little attention to the need to hit the system where it hurts. Demolishing McDonalds or Starbucks is absurd. Not that I have anything to do with McDonald's or Starbucks. I don't care if they're destroyed or not. But it is not a revolutionary activity. Even if all the fast food chains in the world were destroyed, it would only be a very small harm for the techno-industrial system, which can obviously do without fast-food chains in order to survive. Lashing out at McDonald's or Starbucks is really not “hitting where it hurts.”

A few months ago I received a letter from a young Danish man who was convinced that the techno-industrial system should be eliminated because, he said, “what will happen if we continue along this path? However, it seems that his type of “revolutionary” activity consists in organizing attacks on fur farms. As a means of weakening the techno-industrial system, this is a completely useless activity. Even if animal liberation movements succeeded in completely eliminating the fur industry, they would in no way harm the system because the system can continue without furs.

I agree that caging wild animals is unacceptable and that ending these practices is a noble cause. But there are lots of noble causes: preventing traffic accidents, giving homeless people a roof over their heads, recycling trash, or helping old people cross the street. However, no one would be stupid enough to see it as revolutionary activities or to imagine that it could in any way weaken the system.

3. The forest industry is a marginal issue.

To take another example, no one, in their heart, believes that anything that resembles, in any way, wild nature (Wilderness) can survive for a long time if the techno-industrial system is perpetuated. Many radical environmentalists admit this and want the system to collapse. But practically all they do is attack the forest industry.

Certainly I have nothing to object to their attacks. This is a subject that is close to my heart and I am delighted with every success of radicals against this sector of activity. And even, for reasons that I must explain here, I am convinced that opposition to the forest industry could be one of the initiatives aimed at overthrowing the system.

But, as such, this fight is not an effective way to work against the system because, in the very unlikely event that radicals succeed in stopping all forest exploitation around the world, we would still be far from being done with the system. And that's not what would save the wilderness forever. Sooner or later the political climate would change and the forest industry would resume. Even if it were never to resume, there would inevitably be other areas where wilderness would be destroyed, or at least tamed and domesticated. Mining research and exploitation, acid rain, climate change, and the destruction of species destroy wild nature; but wild nature is also tamed and domesticated through recreation, scientific research or the exploitation of available resources, whether through the electronic tracking of animals, the dams necessary for farm fish factories or by the planting of genetically modified trees. Wilderness can only be permanently saved by eliminating the techno-industrial system, which cannot be reduced to fighting the forest industry. The system would easily survive its abolition because wood products, while very useful, could be replaced by other materials if necessary.

That shows how you don't hit the system where it hurts when you fight the forest industry. You only go after the fists (or one of the fists) that the system uses to destroy nature; and, just like in a fight, that's not how you win. Behind your fists, you must aim at the most sensitive vital organs. By legal means, of course, such as peaceful protests.

4. Why is the system tough.

The techno-industrial system is extraordinarily tough because of its allegedly “democratic” structure and the flexibility that it allows it. Because dictatorial systems tend to be rigid, social tensions and resistance can develop to the point of undermining the system, weakening it, and ending in revolution. But in a “democratic” system, when social tension and resistance increase dangerously, the system backs down and compromises enough to bring tensions back to the safe threshold.

In the 1960s, people began to realize that environmental pollution was a serious problem, in the first place because the visible and breathable grime in the atmosphere in our largest cities was beginning to make them physically uncomfortable. The protest movement was sufficient to establish an environmental protection agency; other measures were taken to reduce the problem. Of course, we all know that pollution problems are far from being solved. But what was done was enough for public complaints to subside and for the pressure on the system to ease for many years to come. Because attacking the system is like knocking on a piece of rubber. A hammer blow can break cast iron, which is rigid and brittle. But you can hit a piece of rubber at will without damaging it because rubber is soft. The system evades protests just enough for them to lose their strength and momentum; just enough to bounce back.

That's why, to hit the system where it hurts, you have to choose the angles of attack that will prevent it from bouncing back, that will make it fight to the end. Because it's a life-and-death struggle and not accommodations with the system that we need.

5. It is useless to attack the system on the ground of its own values.

It is absolutely essential to attack the system not on the basis of its technologically oriented values, but on the ground of values that are incompatible with one's own. As long as you attack him on the ground of his own values, you don't hit him where it hurts, and you allow him to retreat, to evade to make the dissent disappear. For example, if the forest industry is attacked primarily because forests are needed to conserve water resources or the potential for recreational activities, the system can give way in order to defuse the protest without calling into question its own values: water resources and leisure activities are fully in line with the values of the system, and if it recoils, if it retracts, if it restricts forest activity in the name of water resources and activities of As a leisure activity, he is in fact operating nothing but a tactical retreat and endures by no means a strategic defeat according to its own scale of values.

By highlighting themes related to discrimination (racism, sexism, sexism, homophobia or poverty) we do not shake the values of the system, we do not even force it to back down or to compose. We help him directly. The most reasonable supporters of the system recognize that racism, sexism and poverty are harmful to him and that is why he himself is working to combat them, as well as all related forms of discrimination. The “sweatshops”^[1] ” with their low salaries and appalling working conditions do not come without bringing profit to some companies. The most reasonable proponents of the system know full well that the system as a whole works much better when workers are treated decently. By focusing on “sweatshops” you help the system, you don't weaken it.

Many radicals succumb to the temptation to focus on non-essential issues like racism, sexism, and sweatshops because it's easy. They are taking on an issue on which the system can offer a compromise and on which they will get the support of people like Ralf Nader, Winona La Duke, the unions, and all the other faggots (Pink) reformers. Perhaps the system will back down a bit under pressure, so that activists see some visible results of their efforts and feel the rewarding illusion that they have done something. But in reality they did nothing at all to eliminate the techno-industrial system.

The issue of globalization is not entirely unrelated to the problem of technology. The package of economic and political measures that globalization refers to is effectively aimed at economic growth and, as a result, at technological progress. Nevertheless, globalization is a matter of marginal importance and nothing less than a well-chosen target for revolutionaries. The system can afford to give ground on the issue of globalization. Without renouncing globalization as such, the system can implement measures to mitigate the environmental and economic consequences of globalization as well as to defuse dissent. In the extreme, the system could go so far as to completely renounce globalization. Nevertheless, growth and progress would continue, on a slightly smaller scale. And when we fight globalization we are not attacking the fundamental values of the system. Opposition to globalization is based on the concern to ensure decent wages for workers and to preserve the environment, all of which are completely in line with the values of the system (the system, for its own survival, cannot let environmental degradation go too far). That is why the fight against globalization does not hit the system where it hurts. His efforts may lead to reforms, but they are useless if the aim is to overthrow the techno-industrial system.

6. Radicals must attack the system at the nerve points.

To work effectively to eliminate the techno-industrial system, revolutionaries must attack the system at points where it cannot allow itself to give way. They need to attack his vital organs. Of course, when I speak of an “attack” I am not referring to a material attack, but exclusively to legal forms of contestation and resistance.

The vital organs of the system are, among others:

1. The electrical industry. The system is totally dependent on its electricity supply network.
2. The communications industry. The system is unable to survive without rapid means of communication such as telephone, radio, television, email, and so on.
3. The computer industry. We all know that the system would quickly collapse without its computers.
4. The propaganda industry. It includes the leisure industry, the education system, journalism, advertising, public relations, and most of the mental health politics and industry. The system cannot work without people being docile enough and complying with the behaviors that it needs. It is the function of the propaganda industry to teach people these types of thoughts and behaviors.
5. The biotech industry. As far as I know, the system is not yet materially dependent on biotechnology. However, it is a subject on which he cannot afford to give in because it is of critical importance to him, as I will try to prove just now.

Again: if we attack the vital organs of the system, it is essential not to do so by respecting its values, but by relying on values that are incompatible with it. For example, if the electricity industry is attacked in the name of polluting the environment, the system can defuse the dispute by developing cleaner methods of producing electricity. And if things really got worse, it could switch entirely to solar or wind power. This could go a long way in reducing environmental damage, but it would certainly not end the techno-industrial system. Nor would it be a defeat of its core values. To do anything against the system, you have to attack all the production of electrical energy as it is a matter of principle, for the very reason that dependence on electricity makes people dependent on the system. This is terrain that is incompatible with its values.

7. Biotechnology could be the best target for a political attack.

The biotech industry is probably the most promising target in this field. Although revolutions are generally led by minorities, it is very useful to have some degree of support, sympathy, or at least agreement from the general population. Ensuring this kind of support or acquiescence is one of the challenges of political action.

If you were to launch a political attack on the electrical industry, for example, it would be extremely difficult to secure any support outside of a minority of radicals, because most people resist any change in their lifestyle, especially changes that might hinder them personally. That is why there are few who would like to give up electricity.

But people still don't feel as dependent on biotech as they are on electricity. Eliminating biotechnologies will not radically change their existence. On the contrary, it may be possible to show them that the continued development of biotechnologies will transform their way of life and destroy the oldest human values. Therefore, in this field, radicals could be in a position to mobilize natural human resistance to change in their favor.

Because biotechnologies are a subject on which the system cannot afford to lose. It is a subject that he will have to fight on to the end, and that is exactly what we need. But, to emphasize this again, it is essential to attack biotechnologies not in the field of system values, but in the name of values that are incompatible with them. For example, if the fight against biotechnology is based centrally on the fact that it can harm the environment or that genetically modified food can be harmful to health, then the system will certainly not fail to guarantee itself against such an attack by giving ground or seeking a compromise — by instituting, for example, greater control of genetic research, monitoring and more rigorous regulation of genetically modified seeds. This will reduce people's concerns and dissent will subside.

8. All biotechnologies must be attacked on the level of principles.

Therefore, instead of contesting this or that negative consequence of biotechnologies, we must attack all modern biotechnologies in terms of principles, on the fact that:

a) it is an insult to all living beings;

b) that they concentrate too much power in the hands of the system;

c) that they will radically transform fundamental human values that have been recognized for thousands of years;

And all themes of the same order, incompatible with the values of the system.

In response to these types of attacks, the system will have to stand up and fight. He will not be able to guarantee this by undertaking a retreat, regardless of the extent, because biotechnologies are far too central to the whole enterprise of technological progress and because, by giving ground, the system would not be engaging in a simple tactical retreat, but would suffer a major strategic defeat in terms of its value system. These values would be undermined and the door would be opened to subsequent political attacks that would shake the foundations of the system.

Now, it's true, the U.S. House of Representatives recently voted to ban human cloning and some members of Congress even gave something like good reasons to do so. As far as I've read, these reasons were based on religious arguments, but whatever one might think of the religious terms used, these reasons were not technologically acceptable. And that's what matters.

Thus the vote of the congressmen on human cloning was a real defeat for the system. But this was only a small, very small defeat because of the narrow scope of the prohibition — which affects only a very minimal part of biotechnologies — and because human cloning will in any case be of limited interest to the system in the near future. But the action of the House of Representatives does suggest that this is a point where the system is vulnerable, and that a wider attack by all biotechnologies could inflict severe setbacks on the system and its values.

9. Radicals have not yet effectively attacked biotechnologies.

Some radicals do attack biotechnologies, whether politically or materially, but, as far as I know, they stick to the values of the system to explain their opposition. That is, their main claims relate to environmental risks or health threats.

Also, they don't hit the biotech industry where it hurts. To use an analogy with real combat again, let's say you have to defend yourself against a giant octopus. You wouldn't be able to do this effectively by cutting off the tips of its tentacles. You would have to aim at the head.

From what I have read about their activities, I conclude that the radicals who deal with biotech are still trying to cut the ends of the tentacles. They are trying to convince individual farmers to refrain from planting genetically modified seeds. But there are thousands and thousands of farms in America, making this attempt at individual persuasion extremely ineffective in combating genetic engineering.

It would be much more fruitful to convince researchers involved in research of this type, or executives of companies like Monsanto, to abandon the biotech industry. Good researchers are people who have special talents and extensive training, making them difficult to replace. It is the same for the senior managers of these companies. Persuading even a very small number of these people to give up biotechnologies would cause much greater harm to the biotech industry than convincing a thousand farmers not to use genetically modified seeds.

10. Hitting where it hurts.

We can discuss whether I am right in thinking that biotechnology is the best subject on which to attack the system politically. But that radicals are now wasting most of their energy on topics that have little or no importance for the survival of the technological system is not worth talking about. Even when they pick good topics, radicals don't hit where it hurts.

So, instead of shuttling to the next global trade summit to strangle themselves there in a rage against globalization, radicals would do better to spend some time thinking about where to hit the system to do so would really hurt it. By legal means, of course.

Theodore Kaczynski

1. Entered in quotation marks in American text. Literally: sweat workshops. Clandestine clothing workshops, or workshops that employ clandestine or child labour, or that do not comply with current social standards. ↑