Our priority? Protecting Life

“You have to make a decision: does the elimination of the technological system justify all the desperate risks and terrifying disasters that it potentially involves? If you don't have the guts to answer “yes” to this question, then you should stop complaining about the ills and difficulties of the modern world, and simply adapt to them as best you can, because only the collapse of the system could put an end to the inexorable ongoing disaster.”

— Theodore Kaczynski

In Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How?, Theodore Kaczynski notes that long-term predictions of the development of societies are impossible to achieve. He adds: “There may be very simple reasons for this obvious inability. In order to achieve such performance, one would have to be able to predict the least reaction of society to any action that might be taken; however, such forecasts have generally proved to be very unreliable. Since human societies are complex systems — and especially technologically advanced societies — the prediction of their reactions does not in fact depend on the state of their knowledge or their level of technological development.”

We are sometimes criticized for not planning an ideal society, plan in hand, after the dismantling of techno-society. The ideal societies invoked are diverse but all agree on one point: statism. Each time, it is a question of installing a form of government that, without being presented in these terms, would force the population to abandon behaviors in order to adopt more “virtuous” ones. As if the health of the planet involved drastic rules, standardized in the depths of daily life, and surveillance technologies to enforce them.

The fight for biodiversity would thus require parking everyone in building blocks and creating huge protected natural areas. The fight for the abolition of social classes would limit us to strict ceilings, authorities for the control and distribution of capital, without abolishing the technological matrix that Boosts inequalities. The ecosocialist current would like to impose peace in the world by establishing truly democratic regimes and a “disinterested” global elite. The rejection of systemic oppressions would lead to strict equality at all levels, abundantly standardized and controlled, where the law would impose positive discrimination everywhere.

While rich ideas can sometimes result, the same strategic mistakes come up every time.

1. Building an entire society is not our priority

Ideals don't stop the machines that ravage the earth. The emergency is shutting down the present system. Why? Because it destroys more quickly every day, because it has the capacity to permanently destroy living conditions on Earth. Who, faced with this imminent danger, would have the luxury of wanting to do better in 50 years? If your house is burning, you're not thinking about how to better protect your next home: you focus on putting out the fire first. Even more obvious is the need for disarmament when the technological system everywhere disintegrates the possibilities of building differently.

Do not believe the opportunists who draw up an alarming observation but in reality give priority to other objectives: comfortable income due to the advice given, a substitute activity (your interlocutor has fun in what he does without his obvious privileges being impacted, without sacrificing to make), class interests or, more altruistic, maintaining the comfort of modern life, maintaining electricity for the whole world, keeping the “good”” technology, reaching global consensus, etc. Anti-Tech Resistance is a self-defense movement of living against the machines and their world. We recruit those who refuse to let themselves die.

2. Trying to build your perfect society is now counterproductive

Faced with the industrial system, resistance movements have very little land and resources, and even fewer managers ready to invest their days in organizing. It is suicidal to disperse this meager pool of resources across multiple goals. It is fallacious to say “we can do everything”: the majority of organizers end up burn-out, tired of their series of failures, while the others hunker down in comfortable positions, offering them a bit of security, money and attention.

Also, as we saw with Kaczynski, it is impossible to predict the future of a human society. Those who draw up a comprehensive construction plan over decades are idealistic dreamers who are angry with history (history is full of revolutions that never saw the possibility of achieving their ideal society). They are not serious or rigorous. Choose short, highly adaptive strategies.

3. The perspective of a future type of culture is a major obstacle to strategic thinking

Movements are restricted when they push victory over the enemy into the background. First, it is incredibly more difficult to agree to build in detail than to agree to end an aberration. Building a society subject to a particular principle divides, where it is easy to find common interests if we are all alienated by an external enemy. The objective of deconstruction, for example, has no end in sight, is poorly accepted and refers to an internal enemy: it will have many risks of failing on a large scale.

The flanges may be of another type. According to many, we should not damage too much what threatens us, because we could use machines in other ways, whether they are industries, energy infrastructures but also institutions, propaganda tools (for environmental education). Too often our movements call for the protection of the leviathan that is the State. That is the limit of good intentions. If you think about your dominant ideology, if you think that imposing it would solve centuries-old oppressions, you will rely on a power powerful enough to dominate the majority; power already in place, optimized, which will degenerate sooner or later.

Even before thinking about the future, the organizers will be held back by short-term considerations: we should not directly annoy this group (e.g., proletarians, students) during our actions (e.g. blocking) for fear of being seen badly, we must not alter the work tool, because we are not legitimate to do so, because it would make the lives of workers and users too hard, we must put in place right away the principles we want in our next society (total horizontality in decision-making, even when the field situations require extensive experience and quick choices), etc.

The strategy of an offensive movement, which is not intended to remain after the defeat of its enemy, inevitably encounters contradictions with a strategy aimed at creating an entire culture alongside it. This incompatibility forces the leaders of the second tendency to pass from the status of revolutionary to that of reformist, or even finally counterrevolutionary. To avoid cognitive dissonance (urgency to act but strategic inadequacy), they are convinced that change must be very long and gradual. On the motivational level, the spirit of sacrifice (of one's time, of one's money...) is greatly reduced by a goal of several decades.

For these reasons and many others, we believe that it is not advisable to present a complete social project for tomorrow. Our movement does not pretend to provide the truth, the best model in the world, but to provide the opportunity for individuals to build something viable, that makes sense for them.

But that does not mean that we cannot provide a vision for the future. Any strategic preparation is well suited to broad guidelines, as long as they do not interfere with the main objective (dismantling). You can't build anything without destroying what's killing you. Whatever your conviction, no program is applicable in a +10°C world. The ATR program is thus a projection into the future that does not overshadow the urgent need to disarm the technological system. The program motivates by providing hope where the offensive objective provides a sense of justice and rationality.

Anti-Tech Resistance is the only movement that understood the need for a prioritization of action. All other organizations are dividing their energies into designing a ready-to-use society model or targeting consequences. Without measuring the seriousness of the situation, without prioritizing the urgent need to disarm the technological system. Even the most radical groups have made these mistakes. It's our hard work on strategy that makes the difference. If you are ready to make the revolution, join the Anti-Tech Resistance.

Photo: located in southern Africa, the Okavango Delta, one of the last sanctuaries spared by industrial development, is now threatened by oil exploration.