A movement to end the deadly reign of machines.

“Technophobe” is an absurd expression since human beings cannot live without technology, just like many other animals that learn and pass on techniques from generation to generation.

We are opposed to the knowledge and technical means of the industrial age only. The vision of the world that gave birth to the industrial system, the power and gigantism of the technical means of our time are incompatible with the ideals we defend: local autonomy, freedom, democracy, dignity, caring for the earth, fulfilling and rewarding work, etc.

In general, people who ask this question either think :
‍
— that technical progress is inevitable, that it is a natural force to which it would be useless to oppose resistance;
— or that the system should be dismantled, but are resigned because of the general apathy, or the enormity of the task.

In the first case, this opinion is based on the assumption that technical progress would be neutral. But that is not true. Each culture, each civilization develops techniques that are specific to it according to its conception of the universe, its way of considering relationships with things and beings. Technology is always political, it is never neutral.

In the second case, it is enough to study the historical resistance movements, from the French resistance under German occupation to Mandela's ANC, the Russian or Irish Revolution, or even anti-colonial resistances in Vietnam and elsewhere, to see that the current situation is nothing new. Regardless of the time and place, the resistance fighters always belonged to a minority of the population at the beginning.

We don't want anyone to die, our organization is non-violent. No one knows how many people depend on the technological system for their survival or how many could live on Earth without it. According to the economist Hélène Tordjman in her book Green Growth Against Nature (in French only):

“Small-scale agriculture produces 70 to 75% of the food consumed worldwide on a quarter of cultivated land, while industrial agriculture produces 25 to 30% on three quarters of cultivated land.”

As we have already mentioned elsewhere, the Terre de Liens association believes that the territory of France would be sufficient to feed the indigenous population.

In theory, it would be possible for the leaders of states, industries, political parties, unions, and administrations to agree on the vital need to stop technoscientific development and then dismantle the industrial system. Governments would then put in place a plan to dismantle infrastructure, distribute land and gradually delegate their power to local communities. In practice, we all know that will never happen. Even in the very hypothetical case where a political leader succeeds in being elected on such a program, there would always be organizations to sabotage its achievement or eliminate the leader in question. This implies a relationship of power with power. The more his hegemony is threatened, the more violently he will react.

It is simple, either we open the debate on dismantling the industrial system and start discussing the best ways to proceed to limit the hazards that would ensue; or the pursuit of technoscientific development will make the Earth more and more hostile to life, and will almost certainly cause the death of billions of human beings and probably the complete disappearance of most complex life forms if the biosphere were to be too damaged.

It is mainly for this reason that the anti-technology movement must become global. That is why we invite our Russian, Chinese, Indian, Indian, Brazilian, American, etc. brothers and sisters to join forces to fight the technological system in their respective geographical areas.

Recall that maintaining the industrial system and modern nation states leads us right to a military clash between great powers that are competing with each other for global hegemony. The Russia-Ukraine conflict is a simple appetizer. Do you want to be the first humans on Earth to experience a nuclear winter?

Our organization rejects the classic opposition between left and right, because it keeps us in an industrial rut. Obsession with the quest for power to push the exploitation of nature to its peak, the desire to liberate ourselves from the terrestrial human condition by technical means, or even blindness to the neutrality of technology, all shared characteristics (left and right) that explain why we reject conventional political divides (see the Principle No. 9 of the Resistant).

From the extreme left to the extreme right, we find the same Cult of technology. Assimilating earthly existence to a burden and starting from the misleading assumption that technology would be politically neutral, the former dream of using technology to emancipate themselves from the human condition. Obsessed with power, the latter dream of enslaving people and nature by appealing to technical power.

While we share many of his very lucid analyses of the technological system, we absolutely do not condone his actions. Attacking isolated individuals will not change the deadly dynamic of the technological system in any way. Kaczynski himself admitted that he acted impulsively, without really thinking, without trying to build a political force. Having learned from his mistakes, he now encourages his readers to organize themselves politically in his book Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How.

ATR is a non-violent organization committed to legal activities. That said, we understand that exasperated activists and persecuted local communities around the world are using violent means to respond to the violence of power.

To sum up, we are neither for nor against violence. It is not our role to dictate their attitude to individuals facing a tragic situation on their own land. You would have to be both extremely arrogant and incredibly naive to imagine being able to impose a uniform way of fighting the system.