The System's Greatest Trick (by Ted K)

We are publishing this translation of an enlightening article by the mathematician Theodore Kaczynski that can be found in the collection of texts Technological Slavery by the same author published by Éditions Libre. The text probably dates from the beginning of the 2000s, during the presidency of George W. Bush. The “System” that Theodore Kaczynski refers to is the techno-industrial system, that is, the system formed by large urban centers, states, infrastructures and machines, a system that emerged from the first industrial revolution in Europe around two centuries ago. For a revolutionary movement whose goals are the improvement of the human condition and the immediate end of the devastation of ecosystems, Theodore Kaczynski's strategic reflections are invaluable.

The System's most beautiful trick

“The supreme luxury of this civilization of necessity is to grant me the superfluous of a sterile revolt and a willing smile.^[1].”

— Jacques Ellul

The System played a sleight of hand with today's revolutionaries and rebels. The ruse is so beautiful that if it had been consciously planned, it should be admired for its almost mathematical elegance.

1. WHAT THE SYSTEM IS NOT

Let's start by clarifying what the System is not. The System is not George W. Bush, his advisers and the people he appointed, it is not the cops who abuse the demonstrators, it is not the CEOs of multinationals, nor is it Professor Frankenstein who, in their laboratories, criminally manipulate the genes of living beings. All of these people are servants of the System, but they themselves do not constitute the System. More specifically, the personal and individual values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of each of these individuals may be in significant conflict with the needs of the System.

To illustrate this with an example, the System requires respect for property rights, and yet CEOs, police officers, scientists, and politicians sometimes steal. (Speaking of theft, we should not limit ourselves to the actual theft of physical objects. We can include all illegal ways of acquiring assets, such as cheating on income tax returns, accepting bribes, and any other form of gift or bribery). But the fact that CEOs, cops, scientists, and politicians sometimes steal doesn't mean that theft is intrinsic to the System. On the contrary, when a police officer or politician steals something, they rebel against the System's requirement to respect law and property. Yet even when they steal, these people remain servants of the System as long as they publicly maintain their support for law and property.

Regardless of the illegal acts committed by politicians, cops, or CEOs as individuals, theft, bribery, and bribery are not part of the System. These are diseases that are harmful to the System. The fewer thefts, the better the System is, and that is why the servants and promoters of the System always advocate obeying the law in public, even though they may sometimes find it convenient to break the law in private.

Let's take another example. While the police are the enforcing agent of the system, police brutality is not systemic. When police beat up a suspect, they're not doing the System's work, they're just expressing their own anger and individual hostility. The aim of the System is not brutality or the expression of anger. When it comes to police work, the aim of the system is to enforce compliance with its rules and to do so with as little disruption, violence, and bad publicity as possible. So from a System perspective, the ideal police officer is one who never gets angry, who never uses more violence than necessary, and who, whenever possible, relies on manipulation rather than force to keep people under control. Police brutality is just another disease of the System, but it is not part of the System.

To be convinced of this, you only have to look at the attitude of the media. Mainstream media condemn police brutality almost universally. Of course, in general, the attitude of the mainstream media represents the consensus of opinion found among the powerful classes in our society, a consensus on what is good for the System.

What has just been said about theft, corruption, and police brutality also applies to issues of discrimination and victimization such as racism, sexism, homophobia, poverty, and Sweatshops [clandestine workshops in the textile industry where poor workers, often women and children, are crammed into deplorable conditions to perform slave labor, NdT]. All of these are bad for the system. For example, the more Black people feel despised or excluded, the more likely they are to turn to crime and the less likely they are to train for careers that will make them useful to the System. With its rapid transport over long distances and its disruption of traditional lifestyles, modern technology has led to the mixing of populations, so that today people of different races, nationalities, cultures, and religions have to live and work side by side. If people hate or reject each other on the basis of race, ethnicity, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, etc., the resulting conflicts interfere with the way the system works. Apart from a few old fossilized relics from the past like Jesse Helms [a very conservative former American politician, NdT], the leaders of the System know this very well, and that is why we are taught at school and by the media to believe that racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. are social evils that need to be eliminated.

Undoubtedly, some of the System's leaders, politicians, scientists, and CEOs privately think that women's place is in the home, or that homosexuality and interracial marriage are repulsive. And even if the majority of them were of this opinion, it would not mean that racism, sexism, and homophobia are part of the System, any more than the existence of larceny among leaders does not mean that stealing is part of the System. The System should promote respect for the law and property for its own safety, similarly the System should also discourage racism and other forms of victimization, for the same reason. That is why the System, despite the publicly hidden individual deviances of some members of the elite, is deeply committed to the removal of discrimination and victimization.

To have proof of this, it is enough to analyze again the attitude of the mainstream media. Despite the occasional timid dissent by a few bolder and reactionary commentators, media propaganda overwhelmingly promotes racial and gender equality and the acceptance of homosexuality and interracial marriage.^[2].

The System needs a population that is tolerant, non-violent, domesticated, docile, and obedient. It must avoid any conflicts or disturbances that could interfere with the orderly functioning of the social machine. In addition to suppressing racial, ethnic, religious, and hostilities from other groups, it must also remove or exploit to its advantage any other tendencies that could cause disturbances or disorders, such as machismo, aggressive impulses, and any inclination to violence.

Naturally, traditional racial and ethnic antagonisms are slowly dying, machismo, aggression, and violent urges are not easy to suppress, and attitudes about sex and gender identity don't change overnight. This is why many individuals are resisting these changes, and the System is therefore facing a problem: overcoming this resistance.^[3].

2. HOW DOES THE SYSTEM EXPLOIT THE IMPULSIVE DESIRE FOR REBELLION

In modern society, we are all surrounded by a dense network of norms and regulations. We are at the mercy of big organizations such as businesses, governments, governments, unions, unions, universities, churches, and political parties, and as a result we are powerless. Because of the servitude, powerlessness, and other indignities that the System inflicts on us, there is widespread frustration, leading to an impulsive desire for rebellion. And this is where the System comes up with its most elaborate ruse: by a brilliant trick of hand, it turns the rebellion to its own advantage.

Many people don't understand the roots of their own frustration, so their rebellion doesn't make sense. They know they want to rebel, but they don't know what they want to rebel against. Fortunately, the system can fill this need by providing them with a list of standardized and stereotyped grievances in the name of which they can rebel: racism, homophobia, women's issues, poverty, sweatshops... the full range of issues addressed by “activists.”

A large number of powerful rebels are taking the bait. By fighting racism, sexism, etc., etc., etc., all they contribute to is doing the work of the System for it. But they nevertheless imagine themselves in rebellion against the System. How is that possible?

First, 50 years ago, the System was not yet committed to equality for black people, women, and gay people, so working for these causes was really a form of rebellion. As a result, these causes have been referred to by convention as causes supported by rebels. They have maintained this status today because of simple tradition, that is, because each rebellious generation imitates previous generations.

Second, as I pointed out earlier, there is still a significant number of people who are resisting the social changes required by the System, and some of these people are even authority figures such as cops, judges, or politicians. These resisters provide a target for potential rebels, someone they can rebel against. Commentators like Rush Limbaugh [former radio presenter and conservative political columnist in the United States, NdT] contribute to the process by ranting at activists: seeing that they have made someone angry reinforces the illusion among activists that they are waging a genuine rebellion against the system.

Third, in order to conflict even with the majority of System leaders who fully accept the social changes required by the System, potential rebels insist on solutions that go further than what System leaders consider prudent, and they show exaggerated anger over trivial matters. For example, they demand compensation from people of black color, and any criticism of a minority group, no matter how careful and reasonable, makes them mad.

In this way, activists can maintain the illusion that they are rebelling against the system. But this illusion is absurd. Agitation against racism, sexism, homophobia and such topics is no more a rebellion against the System than an agitation against political corruption. Those who fight corruption do not rebel, but act as executors of the system: they work for the politicians discipline themselves and obey the rules of the System. Those who fight racism, sexism, and homophobia act in the same way as System implementers: they help the system remove deviant racist, sexist, and homophobic attitudes that disrupt the functioning of the System.

But activists don't just act as system implementers. They also serve as a lightning rod that protects the System by drawing public resentment against the System and its institutions. For example, there were several reasons for the System to get women out of the home and into the workforce. Fifty years ago, if the System, represented by the government or the media, had unexpectedly launched a propaganda campaign to make it socially acceptable for women to focus their lives on their careers rather than on their homes, the natural human resistance to change would have caused widespread resentment. In reality, the changes were triggered by radical feminists, behind whom the institutions of the system kept a good distance. The resentment of the most conservative members of society was directed primarily against radical feminists rather than against the System and its institutions, as the changes supported by the System seemed slow and moderate compared to the more radical solutions advocated by feminists, and even these relatively slow changes were considered to have been imposed on the System by pressure from the radicals.

3. THE MOST BEAUTIFUL TRICK IN THE SYSTEM

In summary, the most beautiful trick of the System can be summed up as follows:

(a) For its effectiveness and security, the System must bring about profound and radical social changes to meet the new conditions resulting from technological progress.

(b) Life's frustration under the circumstances imposed by the System leads to rebellious impulses.

(c) Rebel impulses are co-opted by the System in the service of the social changes it requires; activists “rebel” against old and outdated values that are no longer useful to the System and in favor of the new values that the System wants us to adopt.

(d) In this way, rebellious impulses, which otherwise could have been dangerous for the System, find an outlet that is both harmless to the System but also useful to it.

(e) Much of the public resentment resulting from the imposition of social changes is being diverted from the System and its institutions to be directed instead at the radicals who are spearheading societal change.

Obviously, this sleight of hand was not planned in advance by the leaders of the System, who are completely unaware that they had developed a ruse. The way it works is pretty much the following:

When deciding what position to take on an issue, editors, editors, and media owners must, consciously or unconsciously, weigh a number of factors. They should consider the potential reaction of their readers or viewers to printed or broadcast information on the issue, the reaction of their advertisers, media peers, and other influencers, and the effect of this information on the security of the System.

These practical considerations generally outweigh the personal feelings of editorialists on the issue. The personal feelings of media executives, their advertisers, and other powerful people are varied. They can be liberal or conservative, religious or atheist. The only universal commonality between leaders is their commitment to the System, its security, and its power. Therefore, within the limits imposed by what the public is willing to accept, the main factor determining the attitudes propagated by the media is a rough consensus of opinion, among leaders as well as other powerful people, on what is good for the System.

So when an editor or other media manager decides what attitude to take with respect to a movement or cause, their first concern is to detect whether the movement conveys something good or bad for the System. It may be said that his decision was based on moral, philosophical or religious reasons, but it is an observable fact that in practice, the security of the System takes precedence over all other factors in determining the attitude of the media.

For example, if the editor-in-chief of a news magazine is interested in the militia movement (Militia movement, an armed far-right anti-government movement in the United States), he may or may not personally empathize with some of his grievances and goals. But he also sees that there will be a strong consensus among his advertisers and his peers in the media that the militiamen movement is potentially dangerous for the System and should therefore be discouraged. Under these circumstances, he knows that his magazine has interest to adopt a negative attitude towards the militia movement. The negative attitude of the media undoubtedly explains in part why the militia movement has run out of steam.

When the same editor looks at radical feminism, he finds that some of its most extreme proposals would be dangerous for the System, but he also sees that feminism contains a lot of things that are useful for the System. Women's participation in business, engineering, and science better integrates them and their families into the System. Their talents are useful to the System in the areas of business and technology. The feminists' focus on ending domestic violence and rape also meets the needs of the System, as rape and violence, like other forms of violence, are dangerous for the System. Perhaps most importantly, it is the editor's recognition that the pettiness and insignificance of modern household chores and the social isolation of the modern housewife can lead to serious frustration for many women; a frustration that will cause problems for the System if women are not allowed to get away with careers in business and techno-science.

Even though this editor-in-chief is a macho who personally feels more comfortable with women in a subordinate position, he knows that feminism, at least in a relatively moderate form, is good for the System. He knows that his editorial position must be in favor of moderate feminism, otherwise he will face disapproval from his advertisers and other powerful people. That is why the attitude of the mainstream media has generally been favorable to moderate feminism, mixed to radical feminism, and consistently hostile only to the most extreme feminist positions.

Through this type of process, rebel movements that are dangerous to the System are subject to negative propaganda, while rebel movements believed to be useful to the System are cautiously encouraged by the media. The unconscious absorption of media propaganda influences potential rebels to “rebel” in ways that serve the interests of the System. Academic intellectuals also play an important role in carrying out this System sleight of hand. Although they like to think they are independent thinkers, intellectuals are (with few exceptions) the most oversocialized group^[4], the most conformist, the most docile and the most domesticated, the most insipid, the most dependent and the softest of the contemporary United States. That is why their tendency to rebellion is particularly marked. But because they are unable to produce independent thought, true rebellion is impossible for them. As a result, they get caught up in the System, which allows them to irritate people and enjoy the illusion of rebelling without ever having to question the core values of the System.

Because they teach young people, academic thinkers are in a position to help the System play a sleight of hand with young people. They proceed by directing the rebellious intentions of young people towards traditional and stereotyped targets: racism, colonialism, women's issues, etc. Young people who are not students learn through the media, or through interpersonal contact, the “social justice” issues that students rebel for. They then imitate the students.

This is how a youth culture develops in which there is a stereotypical mode of rebellion that is spread through the imitation of peers, just as hairstyles, clothing styles, and other fashions are spread through imitation.

4. THE RUSE IS NOT PERFECT

Of course, the System's ruse does not work perfectly. Not all positions taken by the “activist” community are compatible with the needs of the System. In this respect, some of the most significant challenges facing the System relate to the conflict between the two different types of propaganda that the System must use, integration propaganda and agitational propaganda.^[5].

La integration propaganda is the main socialization mechanism in modern society. It is propaganda designed to instill in people the attitudes, beliefs, values, and habits that they must have in order to become safe and useful tools for the System. It teaches people to constantly suppress or sublimate emotional impulses that are dangerous to the System. It focuses on long-term attitudes and deep-seated values with broad applications, rather than attitudes toward specific, current issues.

La agitational propaganda plays on people's emotions in order to highlight certain attitudes or behaviors in specific and current situations. Instead of teaching people to suppress dangerous emotional urges, she seeks to stimulate certain emotions for well-defined purposes and at specific times in the story.

The System needs a disciplined, docile, cooperative, passive, and dependent population. Above all, it needs a non-violent population, because it needs the government to have a monopoly on the use of physical force. That is why integration propaganda should teach us to be horrified, frightened, and appalled by violence, so that we are not tempted to use it even when we are very angry (by “violence,” I mean physical attacks on human beings).

More generally, integration propaganda should teach us soft and soft values that emphasize non-aggression, interdependence, and cooperation.

On the other hand, in some contexts, the System itself finds it useful or necessary to use brutal and aggressive methods to achieve its own goals. The most obvious example of these methods is war. In times of war, the System relies on agitational propaganda: in order to gain public approval for military action, it plays on people's emotions to make them afraid and angry at a real or perceived enemy.

In this situation, there is a conflict between integration and agitational propaganda. Those in whom soft values and an aversion to violence have been most deeply entrenched cannot easily be persuaded to approve of a bloody military operation.

Here, the System's trick is in part backfiring. Activists, who have always “rebelled” in favor of the values of integration propaganda, continue to do so in times of war. They oppose the war effort not only because it is violent but also because it is “racist”, “colonialist”, “imperialist”, etc., all of which are contrary to the soft and gentle values promoted by integration propaganda.

The trick of the System also backfires when it comes to treating animals. Inevitably, many people extend to animals the gentle values and aversion to violence that they are taught to humans. They are horrified by the slaughter of animals for meat and other practices that are harmful to animals, such as reducing chickens to egg-laying machines in tiny cages or using animals for scientific experimentation. To some extent, the resulting opposition to animal abuse may be useful to the system: because a vegan diet is more efficient in terms of resource use than a carnivorous diet, veganism, if widely adopted, will help alleviate the burden that human population growth places on Earth's limited resources. But activists' insistence on ending the use of animals in scientific experiments is squarely at odds with the needs of the system, since in the foreseeable future, there is likely to be no viable substitute for living animals as research subjects.

Be that as it may, the fact that the System's trick turns against it here and there does not prevent it from being, overall, a remarkably effective device for diverting rebel impulses and putting them at the service of the System.

It must be admitted that the trick described here is not the only factor determining the direction that rebel impulses take in our society. Many people today feel weak and powerless (for the very good reason that the System really makes us weak and powerless), and therefore obsessively identify with the victims, the weak, and the oppressed. This is part of the reason why issues of victimization, such as racism, sexism, homophobia, and neocolonialism, have become classic themes of activism.

5. AN EXAMPLE

I have an anthropology manual with me^[6] in which I noticed several good examples of how academic intellectuals are helping the System in its ruse by disguising conformity as a criticism of modern society. The most sympathetic of these examples is found on pages 132-136, where the author cites, in “adapted” form, an article by a certain Rhonda Kay Williamson, an intersex person (that is, a person born with both male and female physical characteristics).

Williamson says that American Indians not only accepted intersex people but especially liked them.^[7]. She opposes this attitude to that of Euro-Americans, which she assimilates to the attitude that her own parents adopted towards her.

Williamson's parents cruelly abused her. They despised her for being intersex. They told her that she was “cursed and left to the devil” and took her to charismatic churches to drive out the “demon” in her. She was even given napkins in which she was supposed to “spit the demon.”

But it is obviously ridiculous to equate this attitude with that of modern Euro-Americans. This may be similar to the Euro-American attitude of 150 years ago, but nowadays almost any American educator, psychologist, or clergyman would be horrified by this type of treatment of an intersex person. The media would never dream of presenting such treatment in a favourable light. Average middle class Americans today may not accept the condition of intersex as Indians did, but there are few who would not recognize the cruelty of Williamson's treatment.

Williamson's parents were clearly deviant people, religious lunatics whose attitudes and beliefs did not correspond at all to the values of the System. Thus, while pretending to be critical of modern Euro-American society, Williamson is actually only attacking deviant and culturally backward minorities who have not yet adapted to the dominant values of modern America.

On page 12, Haviland, the author of the book, depicts cultural anthropology as iconoclastic; it would challenge the postulates of modern Western society. It is so contrary to the truth that one could laugh at it, but above all it is very pathetic. The mainstream of modern American anthropology is abjectly subject to the values and postulates of the System. When anthropologists today pretend to question the values of their society, they generally only question the values of the past — outdated and outdated values that are now only defended by deviants and laggards refusing to comply with the cultural changes that the System requires of us.

Haviland's use of Williamson's article illustrates this very well and fits into the overall thrust of Haviland's book. Haviland plays on ethnographic facts that teach its readers lessons that are politically correct, but it downplays or completely omits ethnographic facts that are politically incorrect. Thus, while he cites Williamson's account to emphasize the Indians' acceptance of intersex people, he does not mention, for example, that in many Indian tribes, women who committed adultery had their noses cut off^[8], while no such punishment was meted out to men responsible for adultery; nor does he mention that among the Crow Indians, a warrior hit by a stranger had to kill the aggressor immediately, otherwise he would be irretrievably dishonored in the eyes of his tribe^[9] ; Haviland is also not talking about the usual use of torture by Indians in the East of the United States^[10]. Of course, such acts embody violence, machismo and sexual discrimination, and are therefore incompatible with the current values of the System. They therefore tend to be censored as politically incorrect acts and values.

However, I have no doubt that Haviland is completely sincere in his belief that anthropologists are questioning the assumptions of Western society. The propensity for denial among our academic intellectuals can easily go that far.

To conclude, I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that it is good to cut your nose in case of adultery, or that any other abuse of women should be tolerated, nor would I want anyone to be despised or rejected because they are intersex or because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., etc., etc., etc. But in our current society, these questions are, at most, a question of reform. The most beautiful trick of the System consists in having put at the service of these modest reforms powerful rebel impulses which, in another situation, could have taken a revolutionary direction.

Theodore Kaczynski