A text dump on Ultimo Reducto

This “blog” aims to be a means for the dissemination of non-leftist ideas against the techno-industrial system. The fundamental values on which they are based are the autonomy of wild nature and, consequently, the hatred of everything that inevitably threatens it. Último Reducto is aware that “out there”, in the midst of the masses, there are some people who share the non-leftist attitude and these fundamental values. This “blog” aims to be a way to contact them, show them that there are other people who share their attitude, values and ideas and encourage and inspire them to act, so that perhaps, in this way, one day a non-leftist movement against techno-industrial society will emerge.

It is also necessary to make some clarifications for all those who know the previous publications of Último Reducto.

First, some may find it at least surprising that Último Reducto is publishing texts on the Internet, given that in the past it has always shown a resounding refusal to do so. Last Redoubt’s opinion about computing and the Internet remains basically the same: like other modern technologies, computing has worsened the world and is an inseparable part of the techno-industrial system. That is, it is bad. However, the refusal to use computer science to express and disseminate ideas contrary to modern technology is totally ineffective and counterproductive. If it is a question of obtaining practical results, trying to maintain consistency when it comes to acting can often be a hindrance, however honestly it is pursued.

Secondly, Último Reducto has been publishing sporadically texts with this name since 1996. In all these years it has been An evolution in their ideas was produced, carrying out in the process a ideological purification in their positions.

The initial ideas of Último Reducto (as can be seen, for example, in No. 0 of the publication Último Reducto, 1996), despite already pointing out Some of its current core values were heavily contaminated by leftist ideological influences; especially for certain versions of anarchism and so-called “animal liberation”.

After putting in question the validity of animalist positions (based, in general, on sacredness of individual life and/or in the absolute rejection of pain), discover its profound incompatibility with the defense of freedom and the wild and begin to develop an explicit and general rejection of leftism[1], Last Redoubt entered the stage that we could call “antidominator” (a example of it would be the number 1 of Last Redoubt, 2002). This transitional phase was characterized by the continuation of being heavily influenced by leftist and humanist ideas and attitudes coming from an anarchism for which Último Reducto still showed a certain affinity and respect; for continuing to have the freedom of nonhuman animals a excessive presence in his speech; to be presented in a clear way and explicit a frontal and complete rejection of the techno-industrial system; to give to practical coherence is of strategic importance that it does not really have; and because it is considered that reason and will exercise or could exercise a much greater weight than they actually can and usually exert on behavior of human beings (both individually and collectively). A typical trait of this stage is the practical omnipresence in the discourse of Last Redoubt of the notion of “Domination”[2], that gives its name to this stage. The concept of “Domination” of Last Redoubt came Negatively defined in terms of the fundamental value of the autonomy of the savage: “Domination” was the way to call everything that attacked against such autonomy. At this stage, Último Reducto already expressed clearly its core values: autonomy of wild nature, rejection of techno-industrial society (and civilization, in general) and rejection of leftism. Throughout this stage, Último Reducto was developing its basic ideas in more detail and abandoning positions, uses and values alien to the same and coming from humanist ideological contaminations in general and leftists in particular.

All this until reaching a stage (of which Leftism: function of pseudocriticism and the pseudo-revolution in techno-industrial society and Con Amigos Como Estos ... -2007 and 2009 respectively-, are the first examples), which continues to the present, in which the speech of Last Redoubt already reflects a greater theoretical maturity, coherence and solidity.

The reason for doing the previous review to the ideological evolution of Last Redoubt is serve as a clarification of possible contradictions and theoretical incompatibilities that readers of the work of Last Redoubt They can find by comparing their own contents from different stages. In such In cases, readers should always remember the following rule: appreciate incompatibilities between what was said by Último Reducto in its different works, most likely the position expressed in the work dated more is the one that Último Reducto currently defends (or at least the one that the closer it is).

Último Reducto is only fully identified with his works belonging to the last stage. However, since it is impossible to prevent to follow the independent dissemination of his works prior to that stage, by less would it be desirable for readers to know and take into account everything that previous.

Some Comments on the communiques from Individualists Tending toward the Wild (2015)

Source: <https://ultimoreductosalvaje.blogspot.com/2015/03/algunoscomentarios-en-referencia-los.html>

Date: March 25, 2015

After reading the five communiques that the Individualists Tending toward the Wild[3] (ITS) have published on liberaciontotal.lahaine.org, Último Reducto (UR) wish to make some comments about these texts:[4]

We are not going to go into the worn and generally sterile debate here about whether or not the use of violence as a means for combating the techno-industrial system is appropriate. Our critiques will go in other directions:

1. It is unfortunate what an overwhelming number of spelling mistakes, syntax errors, failures of grammatical concordance, stylistic defects, punctuation mistakes, etc., appear in ITS’ first four communiques, since it makes reading them much more difficult and less attractive for those who might want to do so.

Some probably think this critique is rather superficial, that the content of the communiques is what matters, not their form. And, in a certain way, they are partly right. But, without denying that what they say is what is fundamental, and how they say it is secondary, we must point out that it is also important to take care of form, even though it may only be for purely practical reasons. Terrible grammar and poor style in expressing oneself makes it difficult not only because fewer readers correctly interpret the text, but also because fewer even go through the annoyance of reading it to the end. If almost every line makes you have to stop, forcing you to go back and/or mentally correct the spelling mistakes or reread the sentences over and over trying to imagine the true meaning of what you’re reading because of the stylistic and syntax failures, the function of the text as a means of expression and diffusion becomes greatly reduced. Moreover, the fact that ITS uses Spanish so badly in these communiques could make it easier for certain technophiles (and other people who are scandalized by the attacks, verbal or non-verbal, against modern technology, leftist values and civilization) to pass the buck, making superficial critiques of the form and avoiding going deeper into the content of the communiques. For many it will be easier to dismiss ITS as a gang of uneducated people because of their bad grammar and preemptively reject the validity of everything ITS says than to force themselves to understand it and work on a serious response to their ideas. If those who position themselves against the techno-industrial system and civilization want their ideas and/or actions to be taken seriously, by their possible allies as well as by their enemies (and this supposes they therefore make their ideas public through texts), they should make clear that they are not a bunch of irrational, ignorant and/or negligent nobodies, forcing themselves to carry out their work in the most competent way possible (even though this implies going to the trouble of learning or exercising certain linguistic skills and adequately revising and correcting their texts before making them public; as well as forming, documenting, etc., in other non-linguistic aspects).

It must be pointed out, in any case, that in their fifth communique (from December 19, 2011, which claimed the attack on Greenpeace), a notable improvement could be noted in this aspect.

2. Also in relation to the use of language, it is worth pointing out that the excessively insulting and contemptuous tone that ITS use not only to refer to technophiles but also to leftists, to the defenders of other versions of anti-civilization theory, and to people in general, is overboard. It is overboard, not because many of them do not deserve contempt, but because expressing it such an exaggerated way does not contribute anything to the rational comprehension of the text and can give the impression (true or not, the practical effects are the same), that the members of ITS suffer a lack of self-control over their emotions and that the hidden aim of their communiques is, after all, to vent. [5] And this could also subtract respectability from their communiques.

3. And, continuing with the practical critique of form, it must be pointed out that ITS’ communiques tend to be excessively long and contain redundancies, digressions and unnecessary fragments (for example, Último Reducto are still asking ourselves what the supposed mathematical formula on the principle of causality in their fourth communique was all about). One could say the fundamentals in many fewer words, and that would improve the reading and the readers’ comprehension of it.

In fact, mere common sense should have dictated to ITS the convenience of measuring their words and being brief and concise when claiming their actions, even if only so as not to unnecessarily leave a trail.

That is all regarding the practical importance of taking care of form. Below UR will make some critiques about the content of ITS’ communiques.

4. It is obvious that ITS have drawn upon on the work of Ted Kaczynski (alias Unabomber or Freedom Club–FC for short) and UR, among others, in expressing themselves.[6] But it must be pointed out that, in UR’s opinion [7], ITS have misinterpreted some aspects of Kaczynski’s ideas, despite it being obvious that ITS have understood them for the most part (something that cannot be said for most of those who believe themselves in affinity with him, nor for the majority of his critics).

So, in the 2^nd communique, ITS lead one to believe that Ted Kaczynksi defends the position of “educating people about the technology that will carry us to our destruction,” when Kaczynski has defended no such thing. In fact, he has instead expressed that those who try to combat the techno-industrial system should not waste time or energy trying to convince the majority of people that they are right or to join their side (see, for example, Industrial Society and Its Future, paragraph 189 [8]).

Also in the 2^nd communique, ITS say that “[Kaczynski] also says that a change of values must come from an education taught from now on; [and that] Kaczynski has based his ideas on the French “Revolution” in order to make the example of that during the Renaissance many values began to flourish in Europe in many people’s minds and just then the uprising in France arose,” and again they are wrong. In the first place, when Kaczynski speaks of a change of values as the prelude of a revolution, he is not referring to educating the masses so that they accept the new values, but rather that a prerequisite for revolutions to happen is that some new values and ideas arise which defy the old ones. He does not in any way speak of “educating” the people, nor that such values should be extended to all of society first or simultaneously through education. [9] And secondly, Kaczynski is educated enough to know that between the Renaissance and the French Revolution several centuries passed (“just then”??). The Enlightenment (which is what Kaczynski spoke of [10]) is one thing, and the Renaissance is another. If one does not know the difference, how do they expect to be taken seriously?

In the same communique, ITS, err in saying that Kaczynski has said that “now many people is [sic] questioning the use of technology, that they are thinking seriously about abandoning it.” What Kaczynski has said is that there are ever more intelligent people who seriously question technological progress [11], which is not at all the same. The individuals who are sufficiently intelligent to be able to seriously question technological progress are and will always be a small minority. It is just that, within that minority, there are more and more doing it.

ITS, in their communiques, critique Kaczynksi for defending the concept of revolution. UR will leave until later the discussion of what is correct about this critique and here will only focus on pointing out that ITS appear to not be very clear on what the concept of revolution [12] that Ted Kaczynski defends is, since, for example, they explain that all revolutions seek not only to destroy the preexisting society, but also to build a new one. But in Industrial Society and Its Future, paragraphs 104 (Fourth Principle of History) [13] and 182 [14], without going further, FC makes clear that one should not try to create a new society, but only to destroy the preexisting one. [15]

ITS also say, in the 2^nd communique, that “… Kaczynski is in a maximum security prison, isolated from the world that surrounds him since 1996; surely

if he left the prison in this very moment, he would realize the error he has made in writing such a vague declaration…” It seems that some of those who speak publicly about Kaczynski without having tried beforehand to even really have contact with him, believe and try to make others believe that Kaczynski is completely incommunicado, totally isolated from the outside. It is necessary to explain that Ted Kaczynksi has not only kept correspondence with people from different countries from the beginning of his incarceration, he also has access to various publications from the written press and the prison’s library. And, at least for several years, he has had contact with other prisoners and received visitors. If he was misinformed it would not be primarily due to his seclusion. In fact, in his writing and correspondence he has frequently shown himself to be much better informed of how industrial society functions than many of those who erroneously believe that he is isolated from the world.

5. The scientific rigor of ITS’ arguments often leaves much to be desired.

The most obvious, though not the only, example of this is that ITS leads one to understand in their 2^nd communique that earthquakes are the product of disequilibrium produced in the Earth by the techno-industrial system, without supporting this idea with empirical data, nor even citing references to research that can point in that direction.

In fact, on many occasions, references to serious works and studies are left lacking in ITS’ communiques.

6. Even though going deeply into philosophical discussions is not usually very useful or practical in effectively combating the techno-industrial system, it is necessary to develop and have a minimally solid philosophical basis on which to construct an ideology and an appropriate discourse. And logical contradictions in one’s discourse are not exactly a sign of solidity.

For example, ITS should make clear what their real position is toward “absolute truth” (or, what is the same, their position toward relativism) rather than expound on it in such an obviously sloppy and contradictory way as they did in their second and forth communiques. In their second communique (22 May 2011), ITS wield the extremely worn-out relativist cliche that consists of accusing others of believing they “have the absolute truth” in order to criticize the “anti-civilizationists” and “primitivists” who defend the concept of revolution, while in their fourth communique (21 September 2011) ITS try to criticize relativism and admit that they consider “Wild Nature and Individual Autonomy as an absolute and objective truth.” That is, ITS, in their second communique, brazenly fall into what they criticize in the fourth. And vice-versa: in the second communique they criticize what they defend in the fourth. This inconsistency does not reflect well on ITS’ capacity for logical reasoning, or at least their capacity for correctly and logically expressing their ideas.

But there is something more to say about this whole matter of the defense or denial of the existence of absolute truths. It is a useless and impractical debate when it comes to effectively combating the techno-industrial system. All the time and energy invested in this debate are a waste. Obviously, those who are really against techno-industrial society and civilization and who really love wild Nature do not believe that everything is relative (and, however they call it and whether or not they recognize it, they always take certain things as absolute truths). But not being relativist and knowing that relativism is a sign of pseudo-intelligence, pseudo-rebellion and/or lack of honesty are one thing, and it is another to go around explicitly and spontaneously declaring that absolute truths exist. The first is indispensable, the second superfluous (it only leads us to unproductive digressions and debates). The aim is not to combat relativism. It is enough to not fall into it.

7. Even though one cannot rule out that nanotechnology may manage to pose a serious threat (because of the risk of the so-called “grey goo” or something similar), the distance that exists between the nanotubes and similar nanostructures of the present and those invasive, intelligent nanomachines that are completely autonomous and capable of self-replicating directly by means of the materials of their surroundings–the ones presented to us in science fiction novels or the futuristic speculations of some technophiles–is enormous and will probably be much delayed in being traveled, if it ever manages to be. There are much more imminent threats such as the progressive hybridization of artificial systems with non-artificial systems (for example, the gradual hybridization between human beings and informatic and robotic systems which, in a certain way and degree, is already happening at present: cerebral implants, the implantation of limbs with artificial intelligence, growing psychological and physical dependence on the Internet and mobile phone, etc.), or the mere substitution or elimination of the latter by the former (something that has been increasingly happening over thousands of years and is extending and worsening with every new technological advance. It could be that to a certain point some branches of nanotechnology (those applied to genetic engineering, for example) form an active part in these imminent threats along with many other modern technologies, but they do not constitute the principal core of the threats, and perhaps they are not essential for those threats to be made reality. If one takes all of this into account, perhaps ITS should have better chosen the immediate target for some of their attacks.

8. In their communiques, ITS say they are not defeatist. If by “defeatist” we understand the attitude of abandoning struggle because one considers it already lost, ITS are not defeatist, since they have not abandoned their struggle. But if we understand “defeatist” to mean the attitude that denies in advance all possibility of victory when in reality it isn’t clear that no possibility exists, ITS are defeatist, as indicated by their way of understanding the concept of anti-technology revolution (or whatever one wants to call the hypothetical process of demolishing the techno-industrial system, assisted at least in part by a movement). Let us analyze ITS’ way of understanding the anti-technology struggle. It would seem that for ITS there are only two general possibilities of thinking about the struggle against the techno-industrial system: the illusory, or “revolutionary,” consists, according to ITS, of believing that a movement against techno-industrial society must be created that is capable of destroying that society through its mere activity (also, according to ITS, of constructing a utopian new society that isn’t industrial or civilized) and the realist one, also according to them, consists of attacking the techno-industrial system with the available means without hoping or pursuing its destruction and without organizing any movement. The second strategy, to call it something, would be the one that ITS follows; the first, according to ITS, is the one followed by all those individuals and groups that are against the techno-industrial system and are the target of ITS’ critiques in their communiques. UR will not deny that many of those who declare themselves against the techno-industrial system defend [16] proposals that are extremely naive, inefficient and unrealistic about how to carry out the struggle against that system and about what is worth hoping for and pursuing and what isn’t as regards that struggle. Even so, ITS seem not to realize the extreme simplicity of the dichotomy they propose. Between fighting without hope, only to never give an inch and to die with our feet planted (launching attacks like ITS’), and fighting for a chimera, overestimating our own abilities (believing in the future arrival of non-industrial or even uncivilized utopias and/or believing that the mere activity of a movement against the techno-industrial society will result in its demolition), there is room for other possibilities that ITS completely passes over.

To begin with, the techno-industrial system at present is certainly too strong to be destroyed solely or principally through the activity of those who fight against it. But in other circumstances, the situation could be different. In the future, the techno-industrial system could suffer a serious crisis, a great enough weakening to cause its own collapse, or at least as to make it susceptible to being successfully destroyed by a movement that was strong and well-organized enough at that time. It is probable that this crisis will happen sooner or later, since the system is presently faced with various serious threats to its survival (from global ecological problems to problems of maintaining its internal functioning and structure) and it is not clear that it will be able to overcome them all easily and without weakening itself. But a movement against the techno-industrial system that is organized and capable enough will not fall from the sky the day this crisis happens (if it does happen), instead it is something that needs to be created beforehand by means of a patient and laborious process of recruitment and organization. This movement, if it manages to constitute and fortify itself enough, could even assist in the arrival of the crisis. In fact, it must try to do this, since the later this crisis arrives, the less likely it will be for something wild to survive the demolition.

Of course, all of this is only a possibility. It could be that a serious crisis will never happen. It could be that, although this crisis happens, the collapse of the techno-industrial society does not arrive and this society overcomes. It could be that a movement is never created that is organized and strong enough to annihilate the techno-industrial system when the opportunity arrives… But also, there also exists the possibility for these things to happen and for the techno-industrial system to be destroyed in time. And this possibility should not be discarded lightly. Not only because it could be the only opportunity to manage to end with the techno-industrial system, but because it is not absurd. It could happen. And whether this possibility happens depends in part on the attitude toward it (defeatism or hope) adopted by those who today declare themselves against the techno-industrial system.

On the other hand, between fighting without hope of victory, just to not surrender, and fighting with the hope of achieving victory (as small as the possibility of this happening may be), there is a great difference. Human beings normally try much harder, and with greater tenacity, when they hope to be victorious than when they fight without hope. And as we have seen, there is hope even, though it is remote.

As for non-industrial and/or uncivilized utopia, it must be pointed out that utopia and the design or creation of a new society (or world) prior to the destruction of the pre-existing society (or world) is completely naive. It never goes as expected. To dream that after the fall of techno-industrial society a new world without civilization or domination will arise is to not absolutely understand how the world, societies and human nature work. It is not likely that techno-industrial society will at some point collapse (in a way that leaves a habitable environment for the human beings who would probably survive), but it is possible. It is completely impossible that civilization and domination would disappear if human beings survived after that collapse. Wherever ecosystems permit, great and complex new societies would again arise over time (if they did disappear completely in the collapse), and human beings would continue to be human and behave as such in any kind of society, level of technological development, or ecological environment. To a greater or lesser extent, while the world is the world and human beings are human, there will continue to be injustices and abuses, there will continue to be hierarchies, there will continue to be at least certain kinds of imposition and submission, etc. Forever. And even so, that is not a reason to not take as a reference certain forms of society, certain forms of life and certain levels of technological development that have been the least harmful to the autonomy of wild Nature (including human nature). We know that human nature is the product of the evolutionary adaptation produced over hundreds of millennia of hunter-gatherer nomadic existence. That is the form of life we are biologically programmed for. It is not a matter of dreaming that the world will go back to being populated solely by hunter-gatherer nomads again. But we have to keep in mind that, if techno-industrial society collapses at some point, some human beings would be able to return to living in that way (at least for some centuries).

9. ITS end their 3^rd communique with the phrase: “Nature is good, civilization is bad,” and in their 4^th communique they try to explain what they mean. This, like the matter of relativism, is another example of the philosophical tangles that theory and discussions really against techno-industrial society should avoid falling into. Discussing whether Nature is good, whether the techno-industrial system is bad, what is good and what is bad, whether there are absolute or intrinsic values, etc., is completely futile in effectively combating the techno-industrial system. Of course those who really love wild Nature and reject the techno-industrial system and civilization have a morality or ethic, that is, they have some values. They think–consciously or not–that some things are more important or valuable than everything else, [17] and that some other things are incompatible with the important ones–that is, they are bad. And they think that at least some of the bad things are bad in themselves, always and independently from everything else (that is, they are intrinsically and absolutely bad). And their ideological positions arise, obviously, from this moral basis. But it is one thing to have a moral and non-relativist opposition to civilization and it is another to go from there to unnecessarily provoke discussions about morality and get tangled up in them. The first is indispensable and inevitable, the second is superfluous and hardly effective in advancing the struggle against the techno-industrial system.

10. From what one can infer from their communiques, ITS have demonstrated a fairly good understanding of what leftism consists of in broad strokes (which is much more than can be said of the majority of radicals who believe themselves to be non-leftists), but one detail or another makes one suspect that in some concrete aspects related to this topic (as well as in other matters like the rejection of relativism, grammar and the use of language, the

understanding of some of Kaczynksi’s ideas, the understanding of the concept of revolution, etc.), ITS are, in any case, still too green.

Perhaps the most significant detail of their incomplete rejection of leftism is their “wager on insurrectionalist immediatism” (2^nd communique). ITS seem to not be aware that insurrectionalism, like almost any other kind of anarchism, is leftism, however much many insurrectionalists may rant against the “leftists.” Insurrectionalism has not absolutely broken with its historical origins. The insurrectional theoretical basis, terminology and methods are the inheritance of certain branches of anarchism from past ages (and anarchism has almost always been leftism [18]). This, which is obvious in “pure” insurrectionalism, continues to be evident also in green or anti-industrial insurrectionalism. [19] And going into terminological and conceptual subtleties such as differentiating between “anarchy” and “anarchism” (something very proper to insurrectionalist discourse, to be sure) does not invalidate it. The discussion over the two terms/concepts doesn’t interest anyone except anarchists or libertarians, and they, almost without exception, are what they are: leftists and/or brainless.

Another detail, although much less important (if ITS’ leftist contamination were reduced to just this it would hardly be a problem), is the use of “x” to try to avoid the masculine gender in certain words. Putting aside that this ridiculous custom comes from certain ludicrous feminist (and therefore leftist) theories about the macho nature of language and that it is typical of much of leftism, one must note that attempting to eliminate the masculine gender from words denotes a concern with machismo (and therefore inequality, oppression and injustice in general), which is not typical of those who have really broken with leftism and have realized what is really important, what is it worth fighting for (and/or against) and what is only a decoy for keeping rebellion in good hands. Someone who really cares about wild Nature and really rejects techno-industrial society shouldn’t give a damn about combating supposed social ills like machismo (especially imaginary “linguistic machismo”). That is not to mention that ITS, consistent with their deficient use of the rules of traditional Spanish grammar, aren’t even able to use the “x” adequately (often they do not place it where one supposedly should place it according to this “anti-sexist grammar”, and other times they place it where it shouldn’t be placed–for example, “lxs individuos”).

11. In relation to the topic of leftism, in their 5^th communique ITS say that “the war against academics and technologists is declared (that is more than clear and we have shown it) but also the war against leftism”. UR is very much in agreement that leftism is a serious threat for those who want to really damage the techno-industrial system, since the true function of leftism is serving that system as a mechanism of self-defense, self-repair and self-perpetuation. Nevertheless, declaring war on leftism, that is, taking combating leftism as an aim, is a tactical error. And it is an error not because leftism does not deserve to be exposed and rejected. In fact, those who really want to seriously and effectively combat the techno-industrial system should firstly be very clear about what leftism is and learn to identify it (in all of its facets and versions, including the forms of leftism that present themselves as critiques of leftism); and, secondly should very clearly mark their distance from leftism and keep away from it and, vice versa, should keep leftism away from their ideas, discourse, close circle and ranks. Declaring war on leftism is a tactical error because leftism is not worth capturing the attention of those who intend to fight the techno-industrial system beyond the mere critique necessary to keep away from it. The objective that those who really love wild Nature and hate the techno-industrial system and civilization have to focus their limited energies, time and resource on is fighting against the techno-industrial system, not against leftism. All serious opposition to the techno-industrial system has to have the rejection of leftism as a prerequisite and has to keep separated from it if it wants to stay healthy, well-directed and effective, in the same way that it is necessary to also keep away from individuals who are vague, irrational, pusilanimous, lacking in self-control, etc.. But it would be a mistake and a waste to declare war on them. As in the case of relativism, it is one thing to take care not to fall into it and another to dedicate yourself to combating it.

Here this critique ends for now.

Much less do we now believe that the struggle against techno-industrial society could or should be carried out through the education of the people, the rational, generalized spreading and argumentation of ideas against techno-industrial society or civilization, the development of ways of life and social models consistent with those ideas, etc.

Therefore, whenever readers find contradictions between what is said in different works by UR, they should consider that the position expressed in the most recent writing is the one that UR presently defends (or at least the closest to this).

On the other hand, the majority of the classical supposed anarcho-individualists, like the contemporary individualists who take them as a reference point, are very contaminated by positions that come from socialism (for example, identification with and defense of groups of supposed victims–the oppressed, the working class, the excluded, the marginal, etc.). Even the most recalcitrant anarcho-individualists, like Stirner, who could not be so easily categorized as leftists, leave much to be desired as ideological references, since much of their work is infested with pseudo-rebellious attitudes like relativism or irrationalism.

In light of the situation, referring to oneself as anarchist not only doesn’t contribute anything practical to the fight against the techno-industrial system, it suggests the existence of a series of awful ideological references and affinities. And this is something that it is better to avoid.

Some Replies to an Anarcho-Vegan (2017)

Date: 30 April 2017

Source: <www.ultimoreductosalvaje.blogspot.com/2017/04/algunas-respuestas-un-anarcovegano.html>

Some years ago (2013) a vegan anarchist sent some emails to Último Reducto raising some questions and criticisms about Ted Kaczynski’s and Último Reducto’s ideas. Below is an adaptation of the replies given by Último Reducto to some of these questions and criticisms which can be of interest for the readers of this blog, and they also can be useful, for the moment, for clarifying some aspects about the ideas of Último Reducto:

You ask what my ideas are regarding “things like civilization, mass societies, technology, the decadence of mankind, etc.” I hate civilization, mass societies and modern technology. I believe that we are a species genetically adapted by evolution to live in small nomadic hunter-gatherer groups, so we are not at all adapted to live in large and complex societies nor to comply with their demands (cooperation, solidarity and peaceful and friendly relationship with strangers, population agglomeration, noise, excessive rules of behaviour and restrictions, excess of comforts, conditions that generate the frustration of many psychic needs, etc. ) and this is the cause of many of our current problems (especially the psychological disorders and unnatural behaviours increasingly abundant among the modern population). Many other problems are inevitable effects of the sheer size, complexity and/or very nature of modern technology and the industrial society it sustains: destruction of wild ecosystems, pollution, interference in the self-regulating mechanisms of non-artificial systems, progressive replacement of such systems by artificial systems (including the progressive replacement of humans by machines), etc.

But I equally hate most of the allegedly rebellious ways in which some pretend to be fighting this society and its problems. I hate humanism (understood as any current that extols “the human”, “humanity” -which is usually confused, not by chance, with “the civilized”-), since it despises the wild and always puts “the human” before the rest. I hate progressivism, understood as any current that defends some notion of “progress” (i.e., the belief that development is something unquestionably good), since with its good intentions it favors the expansion of evil (i.e., the development of the technoindustrial system). And I hate leftism, understood as any current whose fundamental values and objectives are equality, solidarity, peace, justice, etc. (examples: anarchism, communism, socialism, struggles for the rights of supposedly oppressed groups -women, immigrants, homosexuals, animals, workers, ethnic minorities, etc.-). Leftism is the most common form of humanism today, since it actually defends values beneficial to the maintenance and development of the technoindustrial system. And not only do I hate leftism because it defends, more or less explicitly, the values and goals of the technoindustrial system itself, but because it is serving as a mechanism to annul and deactivate the possible authentic rebellion against the system. It is attracting potential or really restless, rebellious and critical people who either end up embracing values, ideas and goals that are not truly theirs and that actually help what they originally wanted to fight against, or else they end up frustrated and disenchanted and stop rebelling. That is why I do not feel identified with most of environmentalism, nor with most of those who claim to question industrial society, progress and modern technology, since they usually do so from leftist, humanist and, ironically, progressive positions. Or, at the very least, they usually have such a mental confusion that they mix correct values, such as respect for the autonomy of the Wild or love for Nature, with the values and objectives of the technoindustrial system (the humanist, progressive and leftist values and struggles).
You say that you do not believe that a small group of people can do the slightest harm to the technoindustrial system. It is a pity that many of the people who really hate the technoindustrial system believe that it is impossible to destroy it and/or are manifesting their very justified rebellion in a certainly ineffective way. To some extent, precisely this defeatist attitude and this disorientation regarding values and objectives are making it very difficult for the emergence of a truly rebellious and effective movement that could have, when the time comes, any chance of destroying the system. If the system cannot be destroyed, it is largely (but not only) because most of those who should fight it do not believe it is possible and/or dedicate their efforts to fight to achieve the wrong ends (ends compatible with the survival of the system; or even beneficial for its maintenance and development).
As for the fact that people will not understand what Ted Kaczynski says and that leftists will twist it against him, I will tell you the following (this is my opinion, although I think Kaczynski would tell you something similar in other words). The important thing is not what the leftists or those who allow themselves to be influenced by them say about us (about Ted Kaczynski or Último Reducto, for example), but that they stay away from the potential movement against the technoindustrial society that we would like to see emerge. And for this, it is good to clearly mark the limits and even give a message incompatible with leftism that “scares” the leftists away, even if it makes them hate and vilify us (better that than having them “supporting” us, contaminating, absorbing and appropriating our discourse). Those who are really intelligent and valid and do not share leftist values and attitude will always find a way to avoid falling into the lies of leftism (or to end up unveiling them and getting rid of them) and even get in contact with other similar individuals and their ideas (as, for example, with Kaczynski’s). Moreover, our purpose is not to reach just anyone, the masses, but those individuals who might be really interested in our ideas because, in a way, they already share them and have come to them on their own, since it would be among that minority where the potential members of a movement really contrary to the technoindustrial system would be found. The worst that leftists can call us is not sexists, fascists, racists, homophobes, right-wingers, etc. — that’s what they do to anyone who doesn’t go along with them — but “comrades” (and many do; especially many anarchists allegedly opposed to the technoindustrial system but strongly influenced by leftist ideas and values, and even involved in leftist struggles).

On the other hand, to wipe out leftism is not our goal. We attack leftism only because it is a prerequisite for trying to keep the potential movement against the technoindustrial system healthy, focused and effective. The objective is to destroy the technoindustrial system, not leftism. It is enough to keep it away from such a movement.
As for what you say about that Ted Kaczynski’s opinion against veganism and the animal rights movement is wrong, I agree with Ted’s arguments, namely that veganism would help the system to survive and that the struggle against the exploitation of animals diverts attention and energies from the priority objective: to end the technoindustrial society.

Veganism (I refer here only to the vegan diet, which is the most common meaning of “veganism”, not to the vegan way of life) is energetically more efficient than omnivorism. It is pure thermodynamics. If links in the food chain are eliminated, energy losses are reduced, i.e., the efficiency in the energetic use of food is increased. This means that if everyone became vegan, a lot of food would be saved, and with it a lot of the energy and materials needed to produce it. Or put another way (and better put), by diverting or substituting for direct human consumption the food that is now grown to feed farm animals, many more people could be fed with the same expenditure of energy and materials. This is not said just by me or certain scientists; it is said by most vegans themselves (it is one of their main arguments, apart from ethical reasons). That is, the generalization of veganism would help the technoindustrial society to save energy and materials, or rather, to use them more efficiently in order to be able to maintain itself and even grow. And in fact, more and more voices are heard in the media claiming the generalization of a vegetarian (and even vegan) diet on the basis of this argument. And if ever vegetarianism, or even veganism, becomes widespread, it will do so for this reason (because the circumstances of scarcity and overpopulation will force the technoindustrial society to adopt it in order to survive; something that, to a large extent, already happened in India thousands of years ago), not for ethical reasons (these could be used later to justify and ideologically maintain such adoption -this is what societies always do with morality-, but it is very unlikely that they would provoke it by themselves).
You say that the abolition of animal slavery is a priority and more important than the elimination of the technoindustrial system. I profoundly disagree. And not because I believe that animal slavery is not wrong, but for the following two purely practical reasons:
- If the technoindustrial system continues there will come a time when there is virtually nothing left on this planet to dominate, pervert or destroy. If the technoindustrial system goes on, the time will come when to talk of freedom (of nonhuman animals’ freedom or of human beings’ freedom) will become meaningless, because it will be impossible to live free in such a hypertechnologized world. Wild ecosystems will have completely disappeared, along with many of their component species. Where will animals be able to live free in such a world? People (and with them probably domestic animals) will be completely dependent on modern technology to stay alive, in case they have not yet been completely replaced by machines. How can they be free in such circumstances? Freedom depends on the circumstances that make it possible, so it is more important and urgent to try to prevent the circumstances that make it possible from disappearing completely and definitively in the future than to try to free individuals (human or not) now.
- Pursuing laudable but impossible ends diverts us from ends that are possible (and no less laudable). Destroying the technoindustrial system (and thereby ensuring that conditions that allow the freedom of at least some animals, human or not, will continue to exist) is feasible (I will come back to this later), freeing all animals definitively is not. I am not saying that it is not a desirable end, I am saying that it is impossible. At least as long as there are human beings[20] there will be enslaved animals. Humans are not going to unanimously abandon the domestication of animals. There will always be people (probably the majority) who will practice it if they have the opportunity and the circumstances favor it. The only possibility to avoid it would be the establishment of a kind of worldwide dictatorship that would prohibit the slavery of animals and would implement strict surveillance and repression and a continuous and intense propaganda to prevent people from practicing animal domestication anywhere on the planet. The latter is very unlikely to happen (fortunately!). And even if it happened, it would mean the maintenance of the technoindustrial society, since it would be impossible to maintain such a worldwide repressive and propagandistic apparatus without complex technology.

In addition to what I have said, I have some other reasons of my own (and I think they are sensible) for not agreeing neither with veganism nor with the wrongly called “animal liberation”. And let it be clear that I believe that animals should be free and wild (precisely for this reason I do not agree with these currents and movements).

My other reasons for not agreeing with veganism or with the animal rights movement or with the commonly misnamed “animal liberation” are:

I do not believe that veganism automatically means better health in all cases. We are omnivores (hunter-gatherers) by nature (the idea that we are vegans by nature is one of the many myths of vegetarian propaganda), which means that we can adapt to many forms of diet, from those based almost strictly on plant foods to those based strictly on animal foods. But adapting to certain conditions is one thing, and it is quite another thing whether those conditions are adequate or optimal. Moreover, we are very diverse at the individual level and some individuals adapt and react better than others to the same conditions. In the case of veganism, there are people for everything. To some people it does not seem to cause health problems and to others, however, it practically kills them (I have known cases of severe malnutrition in people close to me who followed the vegan diet correctly). Not to mention that in any individual who tolerates veganism, the physical condition is better with a healthy and varied omnivorous diet than with a vegan diet (you can be healthy and relatively strong being vegan but, all other things being equal, being omnivorous you will be even better off). In other words, the widespread adoption of veganism would not improve the health of the general population, but, in many cases, would actually worsen it. In fact, I suspect that, in the case of many vegans, if there are not more malnutrition problems, it is because they consume food products of industrial origin (protein synthesized from soy, exotic foods, foods artificially enriched with vitamins and other nutrients, vitamin supplements in pills or injected, etc.), i.e., their diet is as artificial or more so than that of the rest of the population. A vegan diet based exclusively on nonindustrially treated foods, grown in the immediate environment and according to the season, without supplements or nutritional additives, would probably be unfeasible in many cases and in many areas of the planet. And if maintaining the health of the vegan population requires the inclusion of industrially produced nutritional supplements or exotic, industrially produced foods, then veganism is dependent on modern technology, not incompatible with it. It is not clear to me that the widespread adoption of veganism would necessarily lead to the elimination of the technoindustrial system, but rather the opposite (it would increase dependence on it). And even leaving the latter aside, the widespread adoption of veganism, as understood by most vegans (as the vegan diet plus the rejection of the consumption of every product of animal origin or tested on animals), is fully compatible with the existence of a technoindustrial society. It would be perfectly possible for a technoindustrial society to come into existence in which its entire population would eat a vegan diet and not use animal products or products tested on animals.
The vast majority of those who claim to defend or fight for animal rights and/or animal “liberation” are in fact not defending the freedom of animals, but only the life and/or the welfare of the animals. Or in other words, it is not freedom the central (nor often even secondary) value of animal rights currents and movements, but the sacredness of individual life (or the supposed absolute evil of death) and/or welfare (or the supposed absolute evil of suffering). They do not really fight against the enslavement of animals, but mainly or exclusively against their death or against their mistreatment. The usual message of most animal rights groups and currents has as its central aims the maintenance of individual life (or, in other words, the avoidance of death) and/or the welfare (or, in other words, the avoidance of mistreatment) of animals. Most of those who sympathize with or militate in such groups or currents have never stopped to think seriously about what values they really stand for and their implications. They never stop to ask themselves whether it is more important to be free than to stay alive or to be free than not to suffer; whether dying or killing is always such a bad thing; whether living is always such a good thing; whether suffering or making others suffer is always a bad thing and whether not doing so is always a good thing; whether being free is always compatible with not killing — or even with not dying — and/or with not doing harm or not suffering harm. Or if they ever do, they do it in a purely anecdotal way and do not get to relate those issues to the values on which the animal rights message they uncritically defend is based. They simply repeat the schemes and slogans of the usual animal rights message, and remain content trying to prevent the killing and/or mistreatment of certain animals, convinced that what they support is right. Their good intention is much greater than their capacity for reflection and their critical spirit. But good intention is often the cause of the worst evils.

On the other hand, the few who stop to think about it, among whom are those philosophers and activists who shape the animal rights discourse and ideology and substantially influence the direction of these currents, are even more dangerous, because they usually consciously assume that individual life and/or welfare are above freedom. For them, what is wrong is not the domestication of animals; what is wrong is the killing and/or mistreatment of animals. In fact, many of them do not attach any value to freedom, and even consider it bad (true freedom inevitably entails a certain degree of suffering, one’s own and others’, and necessarily entails a significant number of deaths, both one’s own, when the time comes, and many others’). A world in which all animals were free would be a world full of predation, parasitism, injuries, diseases, etc., something that terrifies these people; something they deeply hate. These people hate the wild! That is why their goal and/or their ideal is to prevent animals from dying and/or suffering, not to set them free. In fact, the most “lucid” among them know that in order to avoid the death or suffering of as many animals as possible, they must prevent them from being free because free animals will harm each other (predation, parasitism, fights, etc.) or themselves (accidents). It is pure logic, if what matters is to avoid death and/or suffering, then freedom and wildness must be ended. Based on the conscious assumption of these values, some ideological deliria have been developed inside the animal rights movement, which range from crazy debates about what animal rights defenders should do with predatory animals (predation in nature is the cause of many more deaths per year than the livestock industry or vivisection; should animal rights advocates focus on fighting it? Should predators be locked up and their food artificially controlled to turn them into vegans or should they be exterminated? How then to control the population of herbivores? By sterilizing them?) to the defense of a superstate based on implementing animal rights, which would technologically control not only human society but the whole biosphere to avoid the death and/or suffering of animals (how it would be possible to create and use the immense technological system that would be necessary to do so without causing the death and suffering of millions of animals in turn is something that usually they do not think about at all). The saddest thing is that most of those who naïvely parrot the basic animal rights slogans (those naïve well-intentioned people who do not stop to reflect on the values they are really supporting) do not even know this other side of the animal rights movement. Yet, this is the logical and “natural” consequence of the development of the values on which this movement is based.

And even sadder is that many of those who claim to have as values the wild, freedom, the primitive, etc., but support the commonly misnamed “animal liberation” (now you know why I consider that “liberation” is not the right term in most cases), that is, many anarchists, anarcho-primitivists and the like, do not know either what they are really supporting. These people should stop and think seriously and ask themselves what is more important to them, defending freedom and wildness, and fighting what destroys them, or ending the death and suffering of animals (human or not); what do they really want to achieve and what are they really helping to achieve, freedom for animals or well-intentioned domination of the planet? But, in most cases, from what I know, asking these people to think seriously and clarify their stances is asking too much…

A matter of mere statistics, but one of the main reasons not to worry about being vegan: what a single anonymous individual (or a few anonymous individuals) does or doesn’t do in private has no influence whatsoever on the general trends of a mass society. Personal or very minority practical consistency with ideals (e.g., the practice of veganism) is completely ineffective as a strategic method of influencing society. In the case at hand, you can stop eating whatever you want or stop using whatever you want, but this will not lead to reduce the enslavement (or even the death or suffering) of animals, unless you can get a sufficiently large number of people to do the same. And to achieve that, the least important thing is whether you are vegan or not yourself. Because that can only be achieved by means of a sophisticated propaganda apparatus and/or by imposition through force by powerful people. In other words, if someone really wants veganism to come to have real and permanent influence in the world, he will have to develop and maintain very elaborate means of control and manipulation of thought and behaviour (and for this it is necessary the existence of a technoindustrial system) and/or become or ally himself with the powerful to support it, or better yet, impose it (this last method is the one that allowed, for example, Christianity and Buddhism to become influential religions in their societies).
You ask what is the objective that would be pursued with the destruction of the technoindustrial system. The objective of the destruction of the technoindustrial system would be to prevent the wild Nature on Earth from being completely subdued and/or destroyed by that system. It may seem a poor objective to those who dream of ending all domination or of eliminating civilization, or of establishing utopias and “happy worlds” of all kinds but, contrary to these fanciful ends, the destruction of the technoindustrial system has in its favor that it is a possible, realistic end (there is a small possibility of achieving it).
You say, “If the system can be destroyed — which I doubt — it will be because people will definitely change, reducing their population drastically, restricting technology or adopting simple technology, and gradually abandoning their myths.” However, people, in general, will not change, for one simple reason: they are human. Humans have a nature, i.e., innate psychological tendencies, species-specific patterns of behaviour and thinking that make it a naïve attitude to try to “make everyone (or most people) aware” of anything. The only way to really and permanently change everyone would be to change that nature (genetic modification). And in that case they would cease to be human. Human beings, among other things, tend to put their self-interest before others’, comfort before effort, and the immediate before the long term and the large scale. These human traits alone (evolutionarily developed because they favoured surviving and thriving in the wild and in small family groups) make it impossible for one to permanently change the behaviour of most people (or that they change it themselves) to adopt “more ethical” ways of life and society. Only through deception (sophisticated propaganda) and/or force can such behaviour be changed, and only up to a certain point (the plasticity of human behaviour has limits, beyond which, the psychological disorders derived from forcing human nature are too severe and change is unfeasible; and furthermore, as soon as propaganda pressure and/or repression cease, people tend to return to behaviours more in accordance with their nature, which are usually very different from those that those who handled the propaganda or used repression wished to achieve and maintain).
You say, “Assuming that the destruction of the system is literal, since you do not seek to change people and have them discover the technological trap, how do you destroy it?”. The general strategic line to follow is neither to convince the majority of people that modern technology is bad and should be abandoned (an impossibility, if only because most people will never understand anything beyond simple, disconnected ideas) or create a minority group that will attack and dismantle the technoindustrial system here and now (the system is too strong now to seriously damage it today). For a movement against the technoindustrial system to have any chance of success there must be a weakening of the technoindustrial system. Such a weakening is likely to occur, sooner or later, in the form of a serious ecological, social and/or economic crisis. At that moment of serious weakness of the system, a strong and well-organized movement (which would not necessarily have to be very large) could deliver the coup de grace to this already seriously damaged technoindustrial system. It is therefore important that such a movement develops before such a crisis arises in order to be able to seize the opportunity, should it come.

Of course, the methods that would have to be used, when the time comes, to end the technoindustrial society may not be exactly to the liking of anarchists (those who pursue this goal may have to seize and exercise power in some way and may have to use repressive methods, deceive the majority of the population or even kill or let die many people, among other unscrupulous things). The end justifies the means, at least in this case.
You say that if it were possible to destroy the system, it would be necessary to “eliminate all residue of the system so that it would not be produced again”. It would be impossible to eliminate all residue of the technoindustrial system, just as it would be impossible to prevent it from perhaps re-emerging many years from now, but the objective should not be that, but simply to destroy the present technoindustrial system. As I have already said, we must be practical and focus on what is really possible to achieve.

In any case, a technoindustrial system is a tremendously complex form of society. Once it collapsed, it would be very difficult to rebuild it again (it might be possible for it to be redeveloped, but it would take centuries), as this would require rebuilding many infrastructures that would no longer exist and that took centuries to develop: sophisticated ways of extracting and using energy, complex technologies that serve as the basis for other even more complex technologies, and so on. We would have to go through all the steps that society has previously gone through from the pre-industrial era to the present day. And it may not even be possible to repeat certain steps.

Basic Requirements for Creating an Efficient Movement Against Technoindustrial Society[21] (2018)

Source: <ultimoreductosalvaje.blogspot.com/2018/10/requisitos-basicos-para-crear-un.html>

Date: October 20, 2018

In order to be efficient and to have any chance of success, a serious movement against technoindustrial society has to meet the following necessary requirements:

Quality: Those who start and/or later lead the movement must be high quality people. By “quality” I mean that they have to fulfil at least these three requirements:
1. Intelligence and cultural level: Those who start and/or lead the movement must be able to understand well how the technoindustrial system works, why it is bad, why it cannot be reformed, what are the dangers and traps in which they shouldn’t fall when struggling against it and why; among other things. That is, they have to adequately understand the theory and ideology of the movement. This will require that they have a minimum intellectual capacity and cultural level (and well above the average of the population).
2. Values and ends: They have to have as “ideal” or basic positive value (that is, what must exist and should be preserved) the autonomy of wild Nature[22] and as negative value (what is bad, evil; that is, that what must be fought and must disappear) everything that is contrary to the autonomy of the wild; above all, civilization generally and the technoindustrial system particularly. And, for practical reasons, they must have as their ultimate and main goal the elimination of the technoindustrial system. At a “political” level they have to reject any other end that interferes with the achievement of the main end.
3. Attitude: They must show a correct attitude, be willing to devote themselves to work for the cause and to fulfil such commitment with seriousness and formality.
Availability: In addition to quality, those who are involved in the movement, especially in its beginnings and among those who later lead it, must have availability, that is, they have to be able to devote much time and effort exclusively to the cause. This requires that they have enough resources (economic means, spare time, etc.) and an appropriate situation (independence from other obligations) on a personal level in order to allow them such an investment of time and energy.
Capacity: The movement, once constituted and in operation, has to obtain enough power (understood as technical, economic and human capacity and resources) to efficiently and sufficiently destroy the material bases of the technoindustrial system.

If 1 is met, but 2 is not, the movement will be inefficient and incompetent. If 1 and 2 are fulfilled but 3 is not, the movement will fail. And if 1 or/and 2 are not fulfilled, talking about how to attain 3 is useless or even counterproductive.[23]

For the moment, it is not clear at all, at least from my point of view (from Spain) and basing on my own experience and information (what I know about the people with whom you and I have contacted throughout all these years), that not even a minimum of people who meet 1 has been got together. Most of those who I have contacted, either didn’t fulfil a directly or/and didn’t fulfil b, or if they fulfilled a and b, they ended up failing at c. The exceptions are very rare. Much less it has been possible to get together people who fulfil 1 and 2 simultaneously. In this respect, as far as I know, you may be alone (or maybe not even this, as I have said in footnote 3), for now, because the rest of those who I know that, in principle, meet 1, have to devote too much time and effort to some other matters alien to the cause.[24]

After years of contacting and trying to get together individuals who were adequate and seeing the few positive results and the many negative ones, I am now appropriate quality and with the adequate availability to form an efficient and serious movement which has some chance of success in eliminating the technoindustrial system. It is necessary; it is technically and theoretically possible; but is it actually possible in practice? Are there enough people who meet these conditions? If there aren’t enough capable, available and committed people (requirements 1 and 2), everything else (requirement 3) is impossible. I am not meaning that there can’t be such people somewhere and sometime, but now I certainly have little hope of finding them. I do not refuse to remain open to this possibility, but I am no longer as willing as before to contact and to try to join or to collaborate with more people.

I recognize that I lack enough information about all your contacts and that, thus, I don’t know if any of them fulfils 1 and 2 (or even 3). So the above is a mere subjective judgement (but I think that is not completely irrational).

A Brief Comment on Pleistocene “Rewilding” (2019)

Source: <https://ultimoreductosalvaje.blogspot.com/2019/10/un-breve-comentario-acerca-del.html>

Date: October 29, 2019

In the last decades, in ecological restoration circles, certain propositions have been raised under the name of “Pleistocene rewilding”. Among them the Zimovs‟[25] “Pleistocene Park” stands out. However, in spite of its environmentalist and conservationist appearance, this particular project and Pleistocene “rewilding” generally, have some serious fundamental flaws and imply some serious threats. Some of them are:

Projects of Pleistocene “rewilding” are based on the assumption that “Pleistocene overkill” hypothesis is true, but this hypothesis is not utterly proven. What if Pleistocene-Holocene climate change was partially or totally the cause of late Pleistocene extinctions? Should we then get back species that actually could have gone naturally extinct?
It is “playing God”. It implies further human tinkering with Nature. Much if not all the ecological mess in which we are trapped now is the result of humans increasingly monkeying around with Nature for thousands of years. And we seem not having learnt the lesson still. Fiddling with Nature and with evolution is the problem, not the solution. We are not gods or able masters or managers of Nature; and we can‟t be. We are not so skilful, wise, and powerful to actively manage, manipulate and control Nature and evolution and simultaneously to avoid the emergence of unexpected serious problems; and we never will. And, so we shouldn‟t even try.
Nature and evolution, to be actually themselves, should be “self-willed”, autonomous, wild, not our creation or the product of our manipulations and control. And to adduce “green”, environmentally friendly and seemingly conservationist motives and excuses[26] for further human interferences with ecological and evolutionary dynamics doesn‟t change the fact that these interferences will erase real wildness, not reinforce it. Thus, one can seriously ask what does actually mean the term “rewilding” (or “wild”), if it still means anything at all, when it is used in the theories and projects of the so-called “Pleistocene rewilding”
“Pleistocene Park” is based on a theoretical rhetoric which has some serious flaws, especially regarding ecology. For example, according to Sergei Zimov, the tundra and the taiga are but “low quality” ecosystems. In fact, he seems to think that the only terrestrial kind of ecosystems that are valuable, important and worth existing ecosystems are grasslands, and that the rest of ecosystems, and especially woodlands, are but the result of the degradation of Pleistocene grasslands. He has rewritten ecological science to adapt it to his particular project and goals.
The project is but another Anthropoceniac geo-engineering attempt, with similar anthropocentric ideological justifications and approaches and similar technical traits than other geo-engineering projects (artificially changing and controlling atmosphere and ecosystems in order to keep climate warming in check). And with similar risks (creating or increasing the dependence on artificial and technological control and maintenance of ecosystems for human and non-human survival; unexpected and unpredictable, but most likely certain, bad effects on wild ecosystems).
Ecosystems are constituted by many other living beings than megafauna, like invertebrates, microbes, small vertebrates, plants, fungi, etc. and all of them interact to create and maintain the whole ecosystem. Most of those beings aren‟t even known (and many won‟t ever) in any given extant ecosystem, much less in extinct ecosystems. So what would be recovered or de-extinct never would be a Pleistocene whole ecosystem, not even something remotely similar. The use of the term “Pleistocene” in expressions such as “Pleistocene Park” or “Pleistocene rewilding” is actually but a marketing bait for “selling” this kind of hubristic projects to the funders, states, local administrations, and the masses.

After watching the documentary “Mammoth” (vimeo.com) and other information about the Zimovs‟ project[27], one is left not only with the criticisms expressed above, but even also with the suspicion that the Zimovs (and especially the son, Nikita) are but a family of charlatans trying to maintain the family livelihood (their source of income) at any cost.

Many people seems to be naively and shallowly left enchanted by the grandeur and spectacularity of the fantastic images of de-extinct Pleistocene megafauna suggested by the project, so few notice the flaws, risks and problems of it and think deeply about them.

Important note of Último Reducto about the texts by Ted Kaczynski (2021)

Source: <ultimoreductosalvaje.blogspot.com/2021/04/nota-importante-de-ultimo-reducto.html>

Date: April 22, 2021

In this blog appear several texts by Ted Kaczynski. These texts are published here Because they express important ideas worthy of being taken into account. No however, while Last Redoubt agrees with Kaczynski on the basic points (rejection of civilization in general and of industrial civilization in In particular, the need to eliminate techno-industrial society and the need for a organized movement that is fully and exclusively dedicated to that end and takes the necessary precautions to exclude from their ranks and keep distances with respect to undesirable elements – leftists, hippies, crackpots, etc.) and In many other secondary aspects of his ideas, there are also many others. details, more or less important, on which Último Reducto disagrees. Point them out one by one in each text of Kaczynski published in this blog, It would be excessively complicated to read with notes and digressions, so that which normally will not be done.[28]

To see some of the theoretical differences between Last Redoubt and Kaczynski you can read, for example, “Critique of Anti-Tech Revolution by Ted Kaczynski”, in this same blog.

Critical comments on Ted Kaczynski’s “In Defense of Violence” (2022)

Source: <https://ultimoreductosalvaje.blogspot.com/2022/08/comentarios-criticos-en-defensa-de-la.html>

Date: August 20, 2022

The article “In defense of violence”[29] is important in order to clarify certain aspects of Theodore John Kaczynski’s position on the use of violence. However, there are certain details in this text that are worth commenting on.

First of all, it should be made clear that, as far as Ultimo Reducto (UR) knows, the original article in English was not actually submitted by Kaczynski for publication in any media and was originally only part of Kaczynski’s collection of writings, letters and notes in the archives of the Labadie Collection at the University of Michigan. Therefore, it may well be that it was only something of an unfinished draft that Kaczynski considered unsuitable for publication. Somehow, however, it ended up being uploaded to the Internet by someone, and thus turning out being published in practice. If the text was never more than an unfinished draft which Kaczynski never wished to be published in that state, then most of the criticisms below would be worthless and unfair. In such case, UR would appreciate being informed of it in order to remove them and publicly retract. In the meantime, they remain.

That said, let’s move on to the criticisms:

Any regular reader of the blog should already know that UR avoids using certain words typical of Kaczynski’s vocabulary, considering them inadequate to denote what they are intended to refer to. Specifically, as far as this case is concerned, UR considers Kaczynski’s, certainly rather abundant, use of the word “revolution” to refer to the activity aimed at the destruction of the technoindustrial system by a nonleftist movement contrary to modern technology, whose main value is wild Nature, to be inappropriate and inadvisable, merely for strategic and practical reasons.

In principle, it is not that technically the term cannot be applied to such activity nor (in its derived form: “revolutionary”) to those who promote and carry it out, but in practice to do so is counterproductive, mainly for two reasons.

First, many terms are conventionally semantically loaded. People tend to interpret them in the way they are most frequently interpreted, not in other, less common ways, even though sometimes these other meanings may also be technically correct. Thus, most people, when they hear or read the word “revolution” (or for that matter, “revolutionary”) tend to think of historical revolutions, such as the American and French revolutions of the 18^th century, and especially the multiple communist revolutions of the 20^th century (Russian, Chinese, Cuban, etc.). However, none of the historical revolutions have anything to do with what Kaczynski is referring to when he calls the process of intentionally destroying the technoindustrial system a “revolution”. So by using this term he is encouraging the public misunderstanding of his ideas and his goal.

And second, in the eyes of many radical leftists who consider themselves “revolutionaries, the term “revolution” carries with it a kind of mystical aura”, and therefore they are attracted like flies to any activity or group that bears such a label. Using this term to denote the ideas, activity and movement Kaczynski advocates is not only unnecessary and confusing, but appealing to such leftists. So, for all the emphasis Kaczynski often makes in his texts on keeping leftists away from the movement against the technoindustrial society, he may in practice be attracting them with such things as the use of the term “revolution”.

Note that, in general, UR does not disagree about the concept to which Kaczynski refers when he uses the term “revolution”, but about the use of that term to denote that concept. Like Kaczynski, UR defends the intentional destruction of the technoindustrial society by a movement for the sake of the autonomy of the wild, but, as stated above, he considers that it is a mistake to use the term “revolution” to denominate this process.
Now focusing more specifically on the issue of violence, Kaczynski says that “it is true there have been a few primitive cultures that were strictly nonviolent”, but is this really certain? Actually, at most, it could be stated that there have been a few primitive cultures for which (so far?) no data have been found to prove that they engaged in warfare, as perhaps is the case mentioned of the Okanagan. But from there to saying that there certainly were strictly non-violent primitive societies there is a gulf that reason cannot cross.

To begin with, Kaczynski should know well that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact that there is no evidence that they practiced violence does not mean that they certainly did not practice violence, it only means that we simply do not know. And, of course, much less do we know it for sure.

Moreover, knowing human nature -of which Kaczynski himself acknowledges that violence is to some extent an integral part-, that a human culture, primitive or otherwise, were completely non-violent would be rather implausible. So, in case of having to bet for one of both possibilities, we should rather lean towards the inexistence of past human non-violent societies.

And to continue, it is one thing for a culture to be strictly non-violent and another for it not to engage in war. Violence is something much broader than merely war. That a society is peaceful (i.e., it does not engage in war) does not necessarily imply that it is non-violent. A culture may not carry out war and yet be violent in many other ways. Its members may, for example, murder each other, fight and beat each other, beat up spouses, physically punish children or those who transgress social norms, and so on. And all this is somehing much more difficult to prove from the archaeological record or from anecdotal and unsystematic ethnographic observations of certain witnesses than mere warfare.
The claims Kaczynski makes about modern warfare are more than questionable in some cases.

First of all, we should wonder what exactly he means by the expression “modern warfare” (supposedly as opposed to “primitive warfare”). Were the Roman invasions, the Crusades or the Napoleonic wars, to give just three examples, “modern wars”, were they “primitive wars” or what the hell were they? Because, compared to the 20^th or 21^st centuries’ wars, they were not exactly “modern”, nor technologically very advanced, but they were not exactly “primitive” either. Do Kaczynski’s claims of “modern warfare” hold true in all cases? A 21^st century war, conducted largely from long distances, by relatively small contingents, with technologically very advanced weapons and quite precisely selected targets, can in certain cases have battles with very few casualties compared to many other less modern wars, such as World War I or the wars of the 19^th century. So perhaps not every modern battlefield is a “slaughterhouse”... And what about “primitive warfare”? Were all “primitive” wars fought by a few warriors? Did the Amerindian warriors who fought in wars always do so on a small scale and only for self-defense or of their own free will? And the Aztecs, for example, who fought in battles of hundreds or thousands of warriors by order of their emperor to obtain prisoners to sacrifice in the temples of their cities? Were they not also American Indians? Were they not “primitive” (at least at the technological level)? If it cannot be said that they were “cannon fodder” it is only because they did not know firearms.

And secondly, to assert that “today soldiers fight to satisfy the ambition of politicians or dictators” is to fall into a grossly simplistic interpretation of the real and deep causes of today’s wars in particular, and of the functioning of the technoindustrial system in general. Kaczynski is well aware that the will of individuals, even the most powerful individuals, has very little influence on the overall dynamics of the development of large-scale and long-term social systems. Soldiers, especially today, actually fight to favor the prevalence and self-perpetuation of those social systems they represent over rival social systems in the competition for access to resources, space and geostrategic control over them. The will of their leaders is, at best, a pseudo-cause, a superficial “cause” to justify the war in the eyes of the public, if not a mere smokescreen to hide the real root causes and processes.

This case and the previous one (the absence of evidence of violence in certain primitive societies) are just examples of the kinds of simpleness and inaccuracies to which Kaczynski is very prone to use in expressing his message, especially in short articles like this one. However, if Kaczynski falls into such simple-mindedness it is not because he himself is simple-minded, but because he is trying to address a simple- minded audience. The question is: Why does Kaczynski want to get his message across to intellectually mediocre people? And what would be the result if he succeeded in doing so? This imprecision and simplicity in expressing his ideas is not good at the strategic level: it generates repulsion in the most rational, intelligent, rigorous and informed readers (and therefore, those who would be potentially the most valuable as members of a movement against the technoindustrial society) and attracts only the dumbest, intellectually undemanding and ignorant (and therefore, the least valuable and most dangerous for such a movement).
As for his assertion that “in [many past societies] there was much less stress, frustration, anxiety or other forms of psychological suffering [than in today’s technoindustrial society],” there would be a lot to qualify.

First, in many cases of past societies, both primitive and not so primitive, the only thing that can be stated categorically is that there is no reliable evidence that their members suffered from some psychological disorders or, if they did, of the exact extent and intensity of such disorders, but, as we have seen for violence, this does not necessarily mean that they did not suffer from them at all or that, if they did suffer from them, they always suffered from them to a lesser degree. All it means is that there is insufficient evidence to know it for sure. It actually seems possible and even probable, from certain indirect logical inferences,[30] that Kaczynski is right in certain cases, but it is actually empirically indemonstrable.

Second, it is not the same thing to point out that in today’s technoindustrial society certain types of psychological problems are enormously widespread due to the unnatural living conditions imposed by this very form of society, as it is to say that in other societies, primitive or otherwise, such psychological problems were scarcer. More importantly, in order to affirm the former (that in technoindustrial society certain psychological problems are enormously widespread), it is not necessary to discuss the latter (whether psychological problems existed in the past in other societies, and to what degree). It is the former what is important to be pointed out in order to show the incompatibility between the technoindustrial system and human nature. Moreover, the latter can easily be interpreted as idealization of the past and be wielded back against those who, like Kaczynski, use it (more so when, as it is often the case with Kaczynski, it is documented by references to the works of certain anthropologists of dubious reliability).[31]
Finally, Kaczynski says, “I would prefer to see people living together without causing each other physical, economic, psychological or other harm” and that “the elimination of violence should not be at the top of our list of priorities”. At first glance this may seem sensible, but a closer look shows that it is actually not so sensible.

On the one hand, if “aggression is a normal part of the behavioral repertoire of humans and most other mammals,” and therefore violence is an inherent part of both non-human Nature and human nature, then its total absence in a society would be completely unnatural. So Kaczynski, in expressing such a preference for the absence of violence, is taking for granted (probably inadvertently) the prevailing morality in modern society regarding violence and aggressiveness. Namely: violence/aggressiveness is always bad and undesirable, the absence of violence/aggressiveness is always good and desirable. But is violence/aggressiveness really always bad, and is peace or the absence of aggressiveness always desirable? Even if a completely non-violent world were possible (and it is not), why would one prefer it to a world with some degree of violence and aggressiveness? For example, what is wrong with causing harm to an enemy, or to someone who insults or disrespects you? What is wrong with trying to strike back at someone who has hurt you (or those/that who/which you love)? Or threatening someone who threatens you (or your loved ones)? Or simply spanking or slapping a child who misbehaves? In reality, none of this is necessarily (i.e., applied in a measured way) wrong. Indeed, whether one admits it or not, it is part of human nature. When Kaczynski says things like that he would prefer people to live in peace and without aggression he is contradicting himself and shooting himself in the foot, suggesting in reality (surely without even realizing it) that he would prefer artificially unnatural human societies at peace (because in order to achieve the total absence of violence natural human behavior should utterly controlled and manipulated) to a wild world in which the expression of human nature were free (and therefore necessarily entailed at least some degree of violence).

And as for saying that the elimination of violence should not be among the top priorities of the movement against technoindustrial society, more of the same. By expressing himself so clumsily, Kaczynski is actually suggesting that the elimination of violence could in fact be a goal for the movement against the techno-industrial society, although it should be secondary. However, it is not only that the elimination of violence should not be one of such movement’s top priorities, it should not be a goal of it at all; neither a priority nor a secondary one!

And the most unfortunate thing is that Kaczynski deep down knows and shares all what UR has said above. To deny or obviate these facts about natural human violence is ignorance and/or hypocrisy. So it is almost incomprehensible that he has fallen into such nonsense. Either he suffers from some confusion about this issue and is irrationally contradicting himself or, more probably, he is simply saying what he thinks readers want to hear (i.e., he is not being honest). And if the latter is the case, who is he trying to cajole and for what purpose? Perhaps those useful “saints” he refers to in the text (in the dubious event that they actually exist)? Useful for what?

Despite all these criticisms, UR agrees with the fundamental idea of the article: violence will be necessary when the time comes as a means to achieve the end of destroying the technoindustrial society.

Critical Comments on Ted Kaczynski’s “Ecofascism: An Aberrant Branch of Leftism” (2022)

Source: <https://ultimoreductosalvaje.blogspot.com/2022/09/comentarios-criticos-el-ecofascismo-una.html>

Date: September 8, 2022

Once again Ultimo Reducto is forced, very reluctantly, to criticize another text by Theodore John Kaczynski: “Ecofascism: an aberrant branch of leftism”.[32]

First of all, it is necessary to make clear that Kaczynski is right to repudiate certain authoritarian and racist currents that are presenting themselves as supposedly akin to his ideas (he calls these currents “ecofascism”), yet, given the way he does so in this paper, he errs in certain important respects:

1. To begin with, his notion of “ecofascism” seems to be rather peculiar. In fact, the term “ecofascism” is almost exclusively used (if not coined) by humanists (mostly, but not only, by those of a socialist bent) as an insult to refer to certain ideologies that clash with their anthropocentric and philanthropic prejudices: the ecocentric currents, whether or not they really advocate fascism or any other type of authoritarianism. In fact, in most cases, those to whom the “ecofascist” label is usually applied are not really more authoritarian than those who label them as such. And often they are far less so.

So regarding the term “ecofascism”, it happens something quite similar to what happens with the term “fascism”: nowadays some individuals (especially some sly and/or intellectually lazy leftists) call “fascism” everything that they do not like or that does not fit into their narrow ideological schemes and intellectual boundaries, whether it is really fascism or not. And likewise, deep ecology, radical conservationists (preservationists), anarcho-primitivists, Kaczynski and even Charles Darwin himself, are all Nazis, ecofascists and the like, according to some humanists.

And secondly, even in the minority of cases where this label is applied to really authoritarian environmentalists, many of them do not actually advocate fascism (i.e., a strongly racist and nationalistic authoritarianism, among other things), but merely other kinds of authoritarian solutions (i.e., strong state measures that try to tightly regulate society to keep environmental impacts at bay).

It is true, too, that there may be certain very minority groups and individuals who are calling themselves “ecofascists”, and Kaczynski seems to be referring primarily or exclusively to them in his text, but in doing so he is overlooking all of the above (which actually represents the most common and mainstream way in which the term “ecofascist” has been used for decades). So, when Kaczynski assumes as valid the term “ecofascist” to refer to these types of individuals or groups, he is not only making an unconventional use of the term “ecofascism”, but somehow, in using such term, he is regarding as correct the inaccuracies and abuses committed by the humanists who created and mostly use it.

2. Kaczynski states that “ecofascists”, according to him, share at least two traits:

I. They want to create a strictly regulated society in which technology is kept under control, for ecological reasons.

II. They are racists (more specifically, white supremacists).

Let us first comment on (I). Kaczynski says the following in this regard: “ecofascists want a planned society, which simply means that they are socialists, since the fundamental idea of socialism is that of the planned society”. As expressed here, Kaczynski is falling into a textbook logical fallacy. That the fundamental idea of socialism is social planning does not necessarily imply that all forms of social planning are socialism, just as the fact that having warm blood is a fundamental trait of mammals does not mean that only mammals are warm-blooded. Moreover, the conclusion “ecofascists are socialists” cannot be logically drawn from the premises “socialists want a planned society” and “ecofascists want a planned society”, because neither of them implies that all those who want a planned society are socialists (or in other words, that only socialists want a planned society). The nonsense/falsehood is equivalent to saying that if a dog is a mammal and a human being is also a mammal, then human beings are dogs (or, for that matter, that dogs are humans[33]).

But even leaving this aside and assuming that, with the phrase “the fundamental idea of socialism is that of the planned society,” Kaczynski meant rather that every form of social planning is ultimately a kind of socialism, the argument would still be flawed. As he has done with the term “ecofascism”, here Kaczynski is using a very unconventional notion of “socialism” (it seems that, according to him, socialism equals social planning, and vice versa). When most people hear, read or use the word “socialism”, they do not think primarily or exclusively of social planning, but of an ideology or social current based also and especially on some other fundamental features such as the explicit defense of equality (at least in theory; in practice equality is never achieved); progressivism (i.e., the assumption, in one way or another, of the notion of progress); collectivism and anti-individualism (understood as the exaltation of that what is social, public, communitarian and collective on a large scale — civilization- and putting it above the individual, private initiatives and small-scale groups; for socialists these latter aspects of the humanity must be eliminated as far as possible or, if it is not possible, at least they must always be subordinated to the former); and, derived from these, a negative attitude towards private property and the defense of collective (mainly state) property and administration.[34][35] And yes, in order to uphold these ideals and to achieve these goals, socialists usually advocate social planning by some kind of large organization (usually a state or something similar). So Kaczynski is overlooking other defining features of socialism as important as social planning or more, which are nevertheless part of the conventional meaning of the term (the notion that almost everyone has about the term “socialism”). And this, assigning unconventional meanings to terms, is the best recipe for generating confusion, being misunderstood and making it difficult to correctly understand what is meant.

Similarly, to suggest that all forms of social planning are socialism is inaccurate, unless the meaning of the term “socialism” is forced and stretched far beyond what it conventionally means. Attempts at social planning and regulation are a feature of every large society (civilization). All forms of complex societies to date have needed to be managed in order to remain cohesive. Such large and complex forms of society need to plan and regulate their structure and functioning, in some way and to some extent, through the establishment of an administration (usually a state or equivalent). They need to control, alter and restrain the natural behavior of their members and subsets and to coordinate the activity of their members and subsets in order to channel it for the sake of the social system and to prevent certain tendencies of human nature — and even of physical reality- from interfering negatively with the proper functioning of society. So that all civilized societies, no matter their social ideology or their socioeconomic tendency (be they fascist, socialist, capitalist, feudal, absolutist monarchic, parliamentary democratic, theocratic, or whatever), always try to regulate and plan, in one way or another and to a greater or lesser extent, their structure and functioning. It is another thing whether they succeed or to what extent they succeed in each case. However, no one with half brain would say that, given that any form of large and complex society always involves some degree of planning and social regulation, civilization is always a socialism. So not only socialists (or for that matter, fascists) try to plan society, and therefore not every form of social planning implies socialism (or for that matter, fascism).

In the case at hand, if we were to stick to Kaczynski’s sui generis notion of “socialism” as social planning and nothing else (and, vice versa, of social planning as socialism and nothing else), those supposed “ecofascists” he refers to would logically be a type of “socialists.” However, no matter how much Kaczynski explicitly redefines the term “socialism,” many (perhaps most) readers will still identify the term “socialism” with other things with which socialism is conventionally associated, in addition to, and even above, social planning. And in such cases, more alert and rational readers will find too uncanny his insinuations that socialism is only social planning and that social planning is always socialism, as well as the consequent conclusion that ecofascists are socialists. However much one can find certain parallels between both currents,[36] there are also notorious differences[37] that make most people, in most cases, consider that, on the one hand, socialism and fascism are completely different and even opposite currents and, on the other hand, social planning is not only for socialists. And to suggest the contrary (that socialism and fascism are the same thing and that social planning is only a for socialists), as Kaczynski does, only generates perplexity, diverting attention and thus hindering the understanding of the fundamental idea that Kaczynski intends to give: that ecofascists like socialists want a society, with modern technology, planned and strictly regulated, which makes them enemies of those of us who, above all, wish to destroy the technoindustrial society in order to preserve the autonomy of the wild. When terms are twisted and stretched excessively and unnecessarily to cover things they do not really mean conventionally, they become corrupted and lose their usefulness and meaning. When a word (such as “socialism” in this case) is so carelessly defined that it can mean almost anything, it ends up meaning nothing, and using it does not serve to make oneself understood, but only to create further confusion and make oneself look foolish in the eyes of the public.

As for (II), again, simply many of those who are usually labeled “ecofascists” (i.e., mostly ecocentric radical environmentalists and/or critics of modern technology and civilization on ecological grounds, whether they are right-wingers, left-wingers, or neither), are not racists. They are not even ethnocentric. Some may be nationalists, yes, but some are not, and some are against immigration for ecological reasons, but not because of racism, nationalism or ethnocentrism. Somebody could say that some minority of them are indeed racist anyway. Well, again we basically face the same logical fallacy as before: a particular type of a phenomenon should not be confused with the general set of all possible types of that phenomenon. One subset (the racist alleged “ecofascists”) is not the complete set (all so-called “ecofascists”) and does not necessarily encompass other subsets (the non-racist alleged “ecofascists”).

3. Another very serious error in the text related to the issue of racism is to openly defend the “blending of races and cultures”. It is one thing to reject racism on strategic and practical grounds, since a movement against technoindustrial society that wants to be effective must choose its members basing only on their abilities and their efficiency in performing the necessary tasks within it, regardless of their race, sex, or any other inconsequential trait (for the efficiency of the movement), and quite another and wrong thing to openly and actively (and without any nuance)[38] advocate and promote “race and cultural blending”. The reasons why the two are different should be obvious (especially to someone in principle as rational and pragmatic as Kaczynski), as well as that the latter is (practically or strategically) wrong and why, but unfortunately it seems that at least the most important ones need to be reminded:

A movement against the technoindustrial society that claims to be effective must have exclusively as its only goal the destruction of modern technology and the technoindustrial society determined by it. The adoption by such a movement of any other goals, such as anti-racism and multiculturalism,[39] would imply that in practice such goals would compete with the goal of destroying modern technology, diverting to them the resources, time and effort of the movement, which in reality should be invested solely in destroying the technoindustrial system.
Goals such as anti-racism or multiculturalism, and struggles for the so-called “social justice” generally, act as decoys or distractions that cajole people and keep their attention diverted away from the main problem involved in modern technology: the subjugation of wild Nature (including the free expression of human nature). Thus people engage in struggles for or against things that are unimportant (or even sometimes absolute bullshit) compared to the problem posed by modern technology and the social system it determines, and so this problem goes unchallenged.
Struggles for social justice (such as anti-racism and multiculturalism, in this case) serve as an escape valve to defuse the social and psychological tension that the unnatural living conditions in technoindustrial society generate on people, offering them ways to vent their rebellious impulses and hostility that are harmless or even beneficial to the technoindustrial system (pseudo-rebellion). In this way, the system benefits twice: the system by diverting rebellious impulses into the pseudorebellion offered by social justice struggles prevents social and psychological tensions from damaging vital aspects of its functioning and, in turn, people by venting through pseudo-rebelliousness can continue to endure the unnatural living conditions, functioning efficiently and adequately playing their role in the maintenance and development of the system. Or even threefold: social justice is also beneficial to the maintenance and development of the technoindustrial system because it actually points out flaws and problems in the structure and functioning of that system and repairs them; a racism-free and culturally homogeneous world technoindustrial society would be more effective in developing socially and technologically because it would lack the ethnic conflicts that hinder its development today.
Struggles for social justice (or, for that matter, against social injustice), such as, in this case, militant anti-racism and militant multiculturalism, are a characteristic feature of virtually all forms of leftism. Leftists are attracted like flies to any struggle that promotes social justice.

So, by arguing that a movement against the technoindustrial society should actively promote the blending of races and cultures, Kaczynski is favoring attitudes that are beneficial to the development of the technoindustrial system and, in practice, inviting leftists to come closer to him, his ideas and the movement he intends to create. And of course, he is repelling the more sensible and rational readers (who could become potentially valuable members of such a movement) who clearly see the absurdity and harmfulness of his proposal and refuse to buy into it.

Because the spectrum of possibilities around the issue of racism and ethnocentrism is not exhausted by the three options put forward by Kaczynski, in this case for a movement against technology (namely, either to be openly racist and ethnocentric, or not to claim the supremacy of any race or culture but to insist on the separation and preservation of the different races and cultures of the world, or to promote racial and cultural blending). Another, much more sensible and practical option for such a movement would be simply not to attach any importance to racial or cultural differences when they do not have it (and in the case at hand -i.e., creating and running a movement against the technoindustrial society-, they do not!),[40] neither for combating them nor for promoting them. The fact that the movement must be global implies precisely only this, that what it must give importance to is only the quality and capacity of its members to adequately carry out the tasks necessary to advance towards the goal of destroying the technoindustrial system. And whether these members are white, black, yellow or orange with blue stripes, or whether they are Nubians, Tartars or Visigoths, in principle should be completely irrelevant to how effectively they function within such a movement. Unless we are so foolish as to give importance to that which has no importance and actively promote/combat it needlessly.

4. Another example of inadequate and confused use of terms and logic by Kaczynski in this text is to consider that what he calls “ecofascism” is a type of leftism (for example, in the very title). What are the reasons that Kaczynski gives to affirm this? From what he says in the text we can suppose that, according to him, those “ecofascists” he refers to are leftists because “[t]he ecofascists’ fixation with race relates them to leftists, who also have a fixation with race” and because “[t]he ecofascists and ordinary leftists are just two sides of the same (false) coin” (presumably the “coin” he refers to is social planning). And presumably he also regards those “ecofascists” to be leftists because he regards them as socialists, being socialists one of the most common types of leftists. The latter (whether these “ecofascists” are really socialists) has already been disputed above, let us now discuss the other two alleged reasons.

According to Kaczynski, “ecofascists” have a fixation on race and this “puts then in the same family” with leftists. Even supposing that the racists’ fixation on race really is of the same kind and for the same reasons as that of leftists (which could be doubted at least in certain cases) and that this somehow links them to leftists, being related is not the same as being the same, and does not necessarily even imply being closely related. Two relatives are not one and the same person, nor are they the identical (or even necessarily alike). Nor are they necessarily part of the same family unit; they may be very distant relatives. Moreover, Kaczynski should know well that even between close relatives there can come to be great differences and separation and even opposition and enmity. So even in the debatable case that the fixation on race of the “ecofascists” and that of the leftists were really of the same type and involved some relationship between the two, this would not necessarily imply that the “ecofascists” are leftists.
According to Kaczynski, “ecofascists” and leftists are two sides of the same coin. However, this metaphor of the coin is clearly inappropriate and even logically contradictory to his claim that “ecofascism” is leftism. To begin with, social planning would be more accurately represented by a polyhedron (an object with many faces), not by a flat object with only two sides like a coin. As we have seen, it is not only “ecofascists” and socialists who advocate social planning. And to continue, if “ecofascism” and socialism are two different sides, they are not the same side. Heads are not tails, nor, for that matter, tails heads, although both are part of the same coin. And finally, one side cannot be part of the other, but both are part of the coin. And the coin is not leftism, leftism is only one of the sides, so “ecofascism” is not a type of leftism, just another type of social planning.

So, while one could rightly say that “ecofascism” and leftism share some similar traits (among them the obsession with race), one cannot say without erring or lying that the one is a type of the other, nor suggest that they are the same simply because they share some similar characteristics.

5. As mentioned above, in this text Kaczynski is only reacting and responding to a fairly recent fashion (occurring in the last few years) that has occurred mostly in some online social media, consisting of some right-wingers (usually far-rightists), whatever this means, presenting themselves as Kaczynski’s followers and at least some of them presumably as “ecofascists” too.[41] These people have taken only what they like from Ted Kaczynski’s ideas (such as the value he puts on the autonomy of individuals and small communities, the positive sense in which he uses the term “power”, his antileftist and politically incorrect stance, his critique of modernity, etc.) and perhaps they have some kind of environmental or ecological “awareness”, but they are not really against all modern technology and technological development. They are part of the so-called “white trash”, “alt-right”, right libertarians, reactionaries, etc. They are usually racist and nationalist, though not always, and they are not even always in favor of a highly regimented society or a strong central state.

Kaczynski is absolutely right in trying to repel this kind of irrational riff-raff. Unfortunately the sloppy and not at all intellectually rigorous way in which he has attempted to do so in his article may prove more counterproductive than effective. To scare away authoritarians, racists and other right-wing (whatever you mean by “rightwing”) undesirable people and keep them away from us and our ideas, it is not necessary to embrace leftish positions such as actively promoting “racial and cultural blending” or to express oneself in a confusing, simplistic and illogical way. It is enough to make clear and precise what we think, to remind those “rightists” clearly and openly that we are neither part of their crew nor their allies, that we are neither racist nor authoritarian and that we reject all forms of modern technology and social planning and regulation by large organizations, whether they are called “states”, “confederations” or whatever. Basically, it is as easy as that.

The fact that in recent years in some of his texts,¹¹ Kaczynski seems to be persisting in this line of sloppy “reasoning” unworthy of his true intellectual level does not bode well for the future of the cause against technoindustrial society. There is a great risk that he himself and those who uncritically follow and emulate him, echoing his mistakes, will ruin the movement against the technoindustrial society they intend to create. Even before it emerges.

Let’s hope that Ultimo Reducto is wrong, that its fears are exaggerated and that good sense prevails! Time will tell.

See: “Critica a Anti-Tech Revolution ” (English https://drive.google.Com/file/d/ 19keZrCRRj HETccM4rM6KYKbKDg49Qm3E/view) version: and “Comentarios criticos a ‘En defensa de la violencia” (English https://drive.google.Com/file/d/1kwkNTfg8X7Sx27HRRptbbO5riRJnfUWJ/view)

Interesting Readings (2025)

Sources: Part #1, #2, #3, #4 & #5

Dates published: June 2, 2018 — May 9, 2025

Human Ethology (Die Biologie des Menschliden Verhaltens) by Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt
The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker
Unweaving the Rainbow by Richard Dawkins
Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond
The Human Zoo by Desmond Morris
War Before Civilization by Lawrence Keeley
Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of culture by Marvin Harris
The Evolution of Technology by George Basalla
The Way of Men by Jack Donovan
The End of Commitment, Intellectuals, Revolutionaries and Political Morality by Paul Hollander
Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil by Paul Bloom
Mao’s War Against Nature: Politics and the Environment in Revolutionary China by Judith Shapiro
The Ecological Indian: Myth and History by Shepard Krech
Becoming A Barbarian by Jack Donovan
Why Things Bite Back by Edward Tenner & Alfred A. Knopf
Critical Transitions in Nature and Society by Marten Scheffer
War in Human Civilization by Azar Gat
The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity by Douglas Murray
The Rise of Victimhood Culture: Microaggressions, Safe Spaces and the New Culture Wars by Bradley Campbell & Jason Manning
Big Gods: How Religion Transformed Cooperation and Conflict by Aza Norenzayan
Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender and Identity — and Why This Harms Everybody by Helen Pluckrose & James Lindsay
Energy and Civilization: A History by Vaclav Smil
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt
Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst by Robert Sapolsky
Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society by Nicholas A. Christakis

Fragment of an exchange on self-proclaimed anti-techs’ strategy and its flaws.[42] (2026)

Date: March 2026

Source: <https://t.me/WF_Discussions/1606>

C: I assume you are fully knower of the near future that awaits all of human society, as it is “officially” objectivized in the 2030 Agenda and the information exudated by the World Economic Forum and other analogue organizations, or as can be found in various unofficial documents whose accuracy regarding the already materialized part of their predictions compels to the admission of their veracity as sources of direct information on the global technocratic agenda, such as various books that it is superfluous to be mentioned.

It is to its whole (of human society), it can be said, insofar as effective globalization is imminent, as it is already extremely prominent—both in terms of the economic interdependence of nations still legislatively discerned, and in relation to the technological structuring of these and their immediate and global communication as a consequence, as well as in reference to the ulterior policy that, for decades, has proven to be global, as demonstrated not only by international organizations such as the United Nations, the NATO, the WHO, etc., but it is also observed by virtue of the international unanimity of the direction of society, by reason of being the operators of the executed plan individuals of supranational power and control, as they posses through their financial control and its extension to every sphere of society.

You have been doing the task of spreading anti-technological ideas for decades, yet into little practical action has materialized this effort, on the other hand, immense and efficient in its intent to inform. However, as is manifest from the foregoing, technocratic globalization by the technoindustrial system is already extremely ostensible, and it is so because its arrival is as imminent as long-standing has been its planification, and, as can be observed, effective appears to go to be its execution.

However, as is, in fact, predicted in the second paragraph of ISAIF, and frequently discussed throughout the work, the effective implantation and consequent disappearance of freedom in human society is going to have to face considerable opposition, such as the rapid spread that is having the information regarding the discussed global plan—which could be called the “mass awakening”— (the growing conscientization among the already globalized lower and middle classes in general of the future that awaits them, by reason of the information that the supranational financial elite itself has allowed to be made public). And this seems to be taking hold, considering the huge protests (even in the ineffectiveness and, in reality, the obedience that are inherent to protests) that took place in the United Kingdom over the digital ID, and the growing general sapience inferable from the number of people participating in groups—both on social media platforms like Telegram and Instagram, and in physical in form of attendance to conferences and of participation in organizations that promote this knowledge. That is, the opposition to the system appears to be incipient, as can also be illustrated by the mass disobedience that took place in Vietnam upon the arrival of its CBDC, or the conscietization in the U.S. regarding the activities of its government, regarding its control by satanic secret societies, Zionist lobbies, and others in terms of its policies, and the installation of surveillance cameras on public thoroughfares, Palantir’s mass digital surveillance, or the passage of the GENIUS Act and the disappearance of physical money and the arrival of programmable digital currency (much more could be said, but the point is clear).

In short, it can be observed a growth in the social awareness of the future, compared to the tiny number of people who shared anti-technological ideas in the 1990s, that largely predicted this situation, as seen in the surprising accuracy of the predictions made in ISAIF regarding the futurity of biological and neurological control as a overcoming of psychological control, the use of genetic engineering, the rendering of the large part of the population useless by the advent of AI and the consequent depopularization that the elites would carry out using surreptitious methods to reduce the birth rate, and a long et cetera.

The aim here is to reach to the point of the need for the incipience in practical action. That is, to determine to begin the effective organization of the uncontrollable dissent against the technoindustrial system. In other words, to begin the unification of the mass consciousness regarding the future of the species, with a clear discourse and efficient practical actions. It can be noted that, unlike existing groups such as Anti-Tech Resistance (ATR) or Wilderness Front— which, one might say, are doomed to failure due to the submission demonstrated by their inaction, to their merely informational and so minimal as, consequently, laughable and harmless activity in their efforts to raise awareness against the system.

With regard to methodology, through a rational approach grounded in the modern interpretation of the techniques used by historical revolutionary movements, much could be achieved. For example, infiltration and climbing through ranks in existing tacitly anti-system groups, as is attainable through the use of psychological dominance techniques, such as superlative participation and the gradual achievement of recognition and dominance within such groups, and the steering of their discourse, the thinking of their members, and the exponentiality of their expansion. Such groups as La Quinta Columna here in Spain, political parties that, even without being the political revolution, are steerable against the essence of the technoindustrial system, such as Núcleo Nacional (whose leaders have extensively criticized the 2030 Agenda at conferences and even held a demonstration in front of Blackrock’s headquarters in Madrid), or the PCTE (in whose newspaper, Tinta Roja, there is a recent article opposing the digital DNI, analogous to the Anglo-Saxon ID, and a cornerpiece of the technocratic system tried to be imposed). Many more there are, and they could be found, especially international. The function of gradual unification of the general dissident discourse against the effectively unitary operators of the system (even in the disagreement with T. K. regarding there being personifying subjects of the system or not, the truth is that its movement is consciously and decisively controlled and driven by physical and known subjects, whom we call the supranational elite), making these the unanimous enemies of such diverse groups, would make effective the impulsation of the practical action against the system, and would highly make possible its fall in the revolution that could take place once the time comes for the implantation of measures part of the global technocratic plan, such as the digital ID (which is expected to be this very year), the CBDC (acronym for Central Bank Digital Currency), and others.

If you have read it, I greatly appreciate your attention, and I trust in the soundness of your judgment in interpreting the message I am sending you.

For the revolution, against the system.

UR: Before I proceed to properly address the content of your letter, I will be frank with you regarding the way you have written it: it is extremely pedantic. It is an example of unnecessarily convoluted writing, full of odd words and abstruse linguistic turns of phrase. Pedantry in expression has nothing to do with intelligence, nor even with cultural level. It is often just the opposite: a sign of limited intelligence and ignorant arrogance. And, as is the case here, it is an obstacle to communication, as it makes reading and understanding a text extremely difficult. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to the reader, as it forces him to exert unnecessary effort and to waste time trying to understand something that could be easily understood if it had been expressed in simpler, more natural language.

And, yes, I know that my writing style isn’t always ideal either. However, unlike you, I always try to write as clearly as possible, although sometimes, due to my personal limitations or the complexity of the subject matter, I don’t succeed. But it’s obvious that you have written in a deliberately obscure and convoluted manner.[43]^,[44] Now I will respond to your letter:

Since it seems you are familiar with at least some of Kaczynski’s (T.K.’s) texts (though I don’t know exactly which ones or which versions you have read; many versions are unreliable and were not authorized by him) and you intend to adopt and present this author as a theoretical reference, I will ask you to reread them more carefully, because I fear that, like many other people who believe they know and sympathize with this author’s ideas, you have read only a small part of Kaczynski’s work and, moreover, in a biased manner. That is to say, it seems you have retained what you like or find convenient and overlooked what you do not.
Thus, for example, it appears that you are against “technocratic globalization” (whatever you understand that to mean). What you seem to forget is that Kaczynski was in favor of “globalization” because he believed that a single, globally unified technoindustrial system would be easier to destroy.

And yes, globalization (understood as the interconnection and interdependence of countries worldwide) is highly advanced in material and economic terms: for a long time now, virtually all countries have depended to a greater or lesser extent on trade and cooperation with others to obtain the raw materials and energy they need to sustain themselves and to continue developing socially and technologically. However, political and ideological globalization is not yet as advanced, as there are several blocs or powers that, for the time being, are trying to remain politically independent in many respects. For example, issues such as the 2030 Agenda and sustainable development are given great importance in some of these blocs (especially in the EU), but not in others (as Russia or China, for example, don’t care about them at all).

So the question is, to what extent is the global picture you portrait in your letter accurate and does it faithfully and in detail describe reality, and to what extent is it exaggerated or mistaken or biased and incomplete and subject to change with the trends and ideological discourses of each moment and political environment? You cite current media trends extensively. And when one focuses too much on that “current trends,” one tends to stop seeing and understanding the deeper reality that lies beyond.
The same can be said of your reference to the second paragraph of “Industrial Society and Its Future” (ISAIF), which you interpret in your own way to mean that the technoindustrial system will face “considerable opposition” in the near future as its development creates conditions increasingly hostile to human freedom. In reality, what Kaczynski was referring to in that paragraph is not so much the emergence of dissident or “discontented” groups that politically and deliberately confront the technoindustrial system — which is what you seem to be understanding — but rather that, if the technoindustrial system survives, it will generate much physical and psychological suffering, and human freedom and dignity will disappear. That is all. He does not say there that the system will face a certain “opposition,” or rather “friction” in its “cogs,” although he does suggest it elsewhere. And even so, in those passages, Kaczynski refers more to the obstacle that human nature (that is, the natural psychological tendencies, capacities, and needs of human beings) poses to the development of the technoindustrial system. The system needs to control, inhibit, repress, or manipulate natural human behavior (the autonomous expression of that human nature; that is, true human freedom) in an increasingly profound and intense manner in order to continue functioning and developing. As societies develop socially and technologically, this development becomes increasingly incompatible with human nature; and this generates mental and behavioral problems, sometimes even leading to social problems. And the technoindustrial system, in order to sustain itself and continue developing, must overcome and solve these problems, either through an increasingly sophisticated control of natural human behavior (via methods of repression and coercion and/or propaganda and psychological manipulation), or through a more profound transformation of human nature itself (through the use of genetic engineering, the hybridization of humans with machines, or, if necessary, the total replacement of humans by machines). This is primarily what Kaczynski meant when he said that the technoindustrial system will face ever-greater difficulties and will end up increasingly depriving people of dignity and autonomy. This is the true “opposition” facing the technoindustrial system — now, in the past, and especially in the future — and not so much the dissidence organized by “protestor” groups, as you seem to want to understand it.
As I have stated on numerous occasions, I do not agree with using the label “antitech(nological)” to name my ideas against the technoindustrial system, and I believe Kaczynski made a serious mistake in adopting and promoting this label to refer to his ideas and his cause. I’m not going again here into my reasons for rejecting that label. Please read the posts on my blog where I explain this (go to the blog, search for “anti-tech,” and they’ll come up).

And of course, I also do not identify in the slightest with anyone or any group who uses that label to refer to himself/itself and his/its ideas. Quite the opposite, in fact. Of all the individuals and groups calling themselves “anti-tech” that I know, there is virtually none that I consider truly worthy of being regarded as really akin or collaborating with.
I don’t have a very high opinion of the masses or the majorities, and I certainly don’t believe we should place our hope in them — I’m referring to believing in nonsense like what you call “the mass awakening (the growing conscientization of the already globalized lower and middle classes in general regarding the future that awaits them)” or “the unification of mass consciousness. In fact, I believe that much of the blame for the situation we’re in (and the one we’re heading toward) lies precisely with the masses. Human beings, taken generally and in statistical terms, and both collectively and individually, are imbeciles, egocentric, and not much worthy of respect. Exceptions to this rule do exist (isolated individuals or, even more rarely, small groups of intelligent individuals who see and care about more than their own navels and display sufficient dignity and strive for autonomy), but they are very few and are by no means representative of our species. And they almost never have anything to do with the dissident groups or individuals you mention in your letter. The masses -that is, the majority of individuals of our species — believe wholeheartedly in progress, are delighted with modern technology, and, by their very human nature, desire above all else the perpetuation and improvement of the standard of living, the security, and the comfort that technological development offers them. And to achieve these goals (or to avoid losing them), they will do anything and accept anything, no matter how abominable, since they do not care about the indirect and long-term negative consequences -and often they do not even care about the direct and immediate ones either, as long as these do not affect themselves and their loved ones. So placing one’s hopes in mass movements is a mistake that says a lot about those who make it: in the least bad scenario, they seek to manipulate and direct those masses to achieve their own ends (which usually are not even to do away with the technoindustrial system and modern technology), and in the worst-case scenario, they themselves are part of the masses. Or both at the same time.
Well, you see, I am in favor of depopulation or a reduction in the human population (I suppose that’s what you meant when you wrongly used the term “depopularization”). I believe there are far too many human beings on the planet (and in Spain specifically, although many jerks, both on the left and the right, believe it is becoming depopulated or “emptying out”) and that this number should be reduced by several orders of magnitude (or even eliminated entirely if possible, though this is probably not feasible in practice). Ideally as soon as possible, which would entail rapidly and drastically increasing the mortality rate, since reducing the birth rate is too slow -assuming it actually works. Otherwise, human beings and our works will end up completely occupying the planet’s surface, transforming it into an artificial environment and completely eliminating wild Nature from it (and with it, true human freedom and many other valuable things such as tranquillity, silence, or the ability to enjoy solitude). We are a pest. We always have been. And this is becoming increasingly evident thanks to the destructive and disruptive power granted to us by technological development.

To anyone who is not stubbornly anthropocentric and values Nature even minimally, human overpopulation should at least seem a serious and real problem, even if he does not share my extreme stance on the matter. And anyone who questions the need for population reduction or, worse still, advocates for an increase in it, will never be on my side. I am convinced that the fundamental problem that has to be fought is modern technology and its development, and that this has been, for nearly three centuries now, the main factor that has enabled and continues to enable the maintenance and further growth of this gigantic human population and the multiplication of its negative effects; but that does not detract from the fact that overpopulation is a grave and serious problem in and of itself. And, in fact, it has been so for millennia, long before the Industrial Revolution.

Of course, when I speak of reducing the population, I do not mean to treat it as the goal to be pursued, nor to do so through programs, agendas, or official campaigns carried out by states or national and international organizations, but rather as a desirable side effect of attempting to achieve the physical destruction of the technoindustrial system, which is what sustains and exacerbates overpopulation.

And I’ll tell you more: Kaczynski also believed that the planet is overpopulated and that this is not a good thing.
I also want to point out the telling fact that you include Wilderness Front (WF), which, despite its flaws (see below), genuinely tries to be a group opposed to the technoindustrial system, in the same category as many other “dissident” and supposedly “anti-system” or potentially “revolutionary” groups, which are not really (nor do they try to be) opposed to the technoindustrial system and modern technology, such as Núcleo Nacional, the PCTE, La Quinta Columna, etc. From what I can see, you don’t mind mixing apples and oranges, it is all the same to you. What matters to you is bringing people together and making a splash in public (I’ll come back to this later).

Speaking of WF, I agree with them on many of the basic ideas regarding the technoindustrial system (though not all of them -in fact, there are some on which I disagree quite strongly-) but when it comes to strategy and organization, we advocate very different ideas and methods.

They call themselves “anti-tech” and faithfully follow Kaczynski and his highly questionable idea of applying the methods of historical revolutionary movements to the creation and organization of a movement against technoindustrial society. And I have said repeatedly that I am very critical of that stance. I won’t go into it again here.

In fact, in their lack of critical inquiry and even their quasi-ecstatic adoration of Kaczynski’s figure, words, and ideas, WF are identical to Christian fundamentalists who do nothing but constantly mention Jesus Christ uncritically, take the Bible literally, and always have a Bible quote ready for every occasion. For WF, Kaczynski is like Jesus Christ to those fundamentalists, and his texts (especially Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How) are like the Bible. Or, if you prefer, they can be compared to the Chinese Maoists of the so-called Cultural Revolution and their idiotic worship of the figure of Mao Zedong and his Little Red Book. And for me, that cult of personality and that absolute lack of questioning alone are enough to give me the creeps.

Furthermore, the leaders of WF leave a lot to be desired as people. They’re the kind of people you’re better off not dealing with because they’ll tend to stab you in the back if they think it suits them “politically.” I suppose this is partly simply because they aren’t good people, but I also believe that taking as a reference the organizational and strategic methods of historical revolutionary groups like the Bolsheviks and Communists — where conspiracies, betrayals, dirty tricks, and underhanded tactics are the order of the day — doesn’t exactly help make their behavior ideal either.

As for ATR, aside from the “anti-tech” in their name, they have little else to do with being contrary to modern technology and the technoindustrial system. They are direct ideological heirs of the French anti-capitalist, “anti-industrial”, Marxists of the late 20^th and early 21^st centuries (people like L’Encyclopédie des Nuisances) and have superficially appropriated Kaczynski’s rhetoric and fame to set up their own protest-driven operation. In other words, they are leftists masquerading as “anti-tech.” And the blame for their existence as a group lies with Ted Kaczynski himself, who, despite all his rhetoric against joining forces and collaborating with leftists, at the end of his life foolishly collaborated with the founder of ATR and a left-wing French publishing house (Editions Libre) on the translation and publication in French of Anti-Tech Revolution and other texts of his, thereby facilitating this appropriation.
You are probably right when you suggest that the ideological outreach work I do is doomed to failure. But not so much for the reasons you mention: it’s not that I have focused solely on developing and disseminating theory rather than trying to put the creation of a real movement into practice, but because the probability of creating a movement against technoindustrial society that actually works and remains faithful to its principles, purpose, and ideals is extremely low and requires conditions that are very difficult to achieve and maintain. It’s not that I haven’t tried (or am no longer willing to try) in practice; it’s that it’s very difficult to do it properly and have it succeed. To begin with, it requires very high quality people, who are not exactly in abundance. To continue, it requires an attitude and a strategy that are precisely the opposite of those you seem to advocate. And, finally, even if all of the above were met, it requires conditions and factors that are largely beyond the control of the movement itself and of those who promote it. You seem to advocate an excessively flexible, open, tolerant, and unselective stance toward other individuals, groups, and political and social movements that you consider potentially useful (possible members, collaborators, and allies, or simply potential targets for usurpation). I follow a completely opposite path: I believe that the only way to ensure the emergence of a serious movement against technoindustrial society that is truly effective and does not become corrupted, deviate, or degenerate by perverting its principles and ideal and abandoning its original goal is by being very careful and selective about the people with whom one sympathizes and works, and by maintaining at all times a clear, uncompromising, intolerant, and strict stance regarding the ideological foundations (the principles, the ideal, and the goal). Any misstep in this regard can and often does end in disaster: the movement becomes corrupted, abandons its original goal, and/or disappears; and, even worse, the cause is ruined forever. In fact, even if everything is done right, it can still end in failure due to factors beyond the movement’s control. Of course, this means that in practice there are hardly any people with whom one can and should work, and that, whether or not such people exist, it is very possible that a movement strong and influential enough to even stand a chance of achieving the goal of destroying the technoindustrial system will never emerge and develop successfully.

By all this, I am not saying that one should give up and stop trying. What I am saying is that one must be realistic and see and accept things as they are. And they are this difficult and unlikely. Failing to accept this and trying to force the emergence of a movement by lowering the threshold, being less demanding, and opening the doors too wide when selecting members and allies may at first seem to yield better results (bringing more people together, having a greater “social presence,” etc.), but the price is always, ultimately, the corruption of the original cause (that is, failure). And history confirms this (that very history which, ironically, some of those who are lowering the bar to force the creation of a movement boast of having studied).
I also want to point out the overly careless or vague way in which you use certain important terms or expressions. In fact, it seems that you (like many others, including some selfproclaimed “anti-techs,” unfortunately) use certain terms in a trivial or confuse (or perhaps deliberately confusing?) way, without apparently stopping to think — let alone explain — what they really mean and imply.

For example, the term “system” on its own, as you sometimes use it, is far too vague. Most of the time, when the term “system” is used by “radical” dissidents, it does not specifically mean “technoindustrial system.” It does not even mean “social system” or “society” in general to them, but simply, at most, “political system,” “parliamentary system,” “economic system,” etc. You and others (including, at times, Kaczynski himself and his “anti-tech” henchmen) either seem not to be even aware of this semantic vagueness, or you try to exploit it for your own ends (it’s good fishing in muddy waters).

And I could say something similar about your use of the term “revolution,” with the added problem that, on top of that, this is a term loaded with historical and ideological connotations that are actually incompatible with the goal of ending technoindustrial society.

It also really makes me wary that you speak of “technocracy” as if it were the same thing as the technoindustrial system or modern technology, when they are not at all the same. And, in fact, most of those who speak ill of technocracy are not at all against modern technology and the type of society it shapes (that is, the technoindustrial system), but only against certain elites using certain technologies to gain excessive power, exercise it, and perpetuate themselves in it.

This way of using language often ends up distorting the real meaning of terms or even stripping them of all meaning.

Which leads me to doubt whether, when you speak of “dissent against the technoindustrial system,” you are actually thinking of combating and eliminating that system in its entirety to achieve a world without industry or modern technology (that is, without any kind of complex technology that requires large technological and social systems for its existence and operation). I suspect rather that your goal is not actually to achieve a world without electricity, motorized transportation, modern medicine, instant long-distance communications, household appliances, industrial agriculture, computing, etc. It seems to me that your goal -if you have truly stopped to think about it seriously and deeply (which, judging by the confusion and vagueness of your discourse, I seriously doubt you have)- is, at most, merely to achieve an industrialized and technologically developed world, with all those technological advances but without digital, social surveillance and control, without biotechnology applied to human beings, and without AI.

However, wanting to eliminate just a few specific technological evils is not the same as wanting to eliminate the technoindustrial system and modern technology as a whole. Physically eliminating the technoindustrial system would actually mean much more than simply eliminating those few specific aspects that you seem to dislike so much. It would also mean doing away with electric light, cars, airplanes, and railroads, the Internet, computers, telephones (mobile or landline), organ transplants, antibiotics, insulin, dialysis, washing machines and dishwashers, synthetic fertilizers, paved roads, radio, television, video games, plastics, etc., and fully accepting all the consequences that this would entail (high human mortality, increased material insecurity and small-scale violence, a drastic reduction in the standard of living and material comfort, a considerable reduction in life expectancy, etc.). How many people among all those masses you say are “awakening” — and in whom you say you place your “revolutionary” hope — will be willing to fight to achieve such a world? Moreover, will you be?[45]

Finally, I will comment on what I think about that you consider that the currently fashionable “dissident” movements and causes could actually constitute a potential opposition to the technoindustrial system.

Of all the dissident movements, causes, groups, or trends that appear in the current news section of the media and/or are the latest buzz in certain political and social circles at any given time, there is not a single one that is not idealized as (potentially) “revolutionary” or useful for the “revolution” by a portion of the “discontented” people, but there is also none that does not eventually become reformist (if they do not start out that way). And there is virtually none that is truly and completely opposed to the technoindustrial system and modern technology; rather, the opposite is true.

Furthermore, many of these current movements and trends that many “discontent” people idealize as dissident, autonomous, spontaneous, independent, (potentially) revolutionary, etc., are in reality not such, and are often backed by other “pro-system” organizations and groups (ranging from political parties to government agencies or international entities) that create, coopt, finance, and/or control them from the shadows. Or, to put it another way, they’ve already been infiltrated. I’m afraid your own enemies have beaten you to it.

So, given the facts, I believe that, in the least bad scenario, you are just another opportunistic “anti-tech” smart aleck conveniently playing with certain terms and concepts — the true depth of whose meaning you neither understand, nor try to understand, nor care about — deluding yourself into thinking that this way you can appropriate, co-opt, and take advantage of certain movements, causes, trends, and supposedly dissident groups that currently seem to have a some presence in the media spotlight (news, social media, some political and social circles, etc.), in the style of the disastrous approach advocated by Kaczynski in Anti-Tech Revolution (and before him by scoundrels like the Communists). This last point is older than dirt and has never really worked beyond the superficial and immediate. If only because any group with even minimally intelligent and capable people will easily prevent, detect, and reject an attempt at usurpation. And those groups that are incapable of preventing, detecting, and rejecting it don’t even deserve to be infiltrated: they’re a bunch of incompetent idiots and would be a liability to any movement truly opposed to technoindustrial society that genuinely aims to be rational and efficient.

You, like other self-proclaimed “anti-tech” people (including, all too often, Kaczynski himself, especially in his later years), prioritize quantity over quality in practice and do not place much value on — nor do you seek to create — a movement that is truly capable and effective in physically combating the technoindustrial system, but rather, above all, to appropriate other “dissident” groups or movements capable of attracting media attention and reaching the masses (or at least the “discontented”) and to use them for who knows what: to call for a moratorium on the development and use of AI, genetic engineering, or transhumanism in general? To denounce the supposed economic, geostrategic, and social engineering plans of the “globalist elites”? To present, for the umpteenth time in history, a “revolutionary” alternative that will “change” everything only to end up “changing” nothing (or, worse still, accelerating development even further)?... Above all, your main goal is to gather a large flock of sheep and herd them -that is, to cajole, attract, and manipulate as many people as possible, regardless of whether they’re idiots or completely useless, whether the discourse they put forward is so superficial, vague, and contradictory that it makes no sense, and whether their goal is incompatible with ending the technoindustrial system. For you (as for many others), what matters is that they make a splash, look good in press photos while acting like idiots in public, and thus attract many other buffoons like them. In short, what “protest” movements have always ended up doing one way or another. But that’s how a truly serious and effective movement against technoindustrial society will never emerge. All this achieves is to ruin any cause, and even to help the technoindustrial system to keep going and accelerate. And I won’t stand for that.

It’s clear I don’t agree with your ideas about what needs to be done and how. You were wrong to write to me, whatever your intentions were.

Fragment of an exchange on Automation, Collapse and the History of the Techno-Industrial System (2026)

Authors: Jolly Swagman & Ultimo Reducto

Date: July(?) 2026

Source: <https://t.me/WF_Discussions/1186>

UR — I also don’t think Kaczynski was right to link, for example, the supposed disappearance of the “middle class” (whatever that label actually means), the alleged decline in living standards, the reduction in social security benefits (or private insurance), and the like, in areas like the US or Western Europe in recent times, with his predictions about the increasing obsolescence of human beings as technological development advances.[46]^,[47]

This connection is very far-fetched.

First, it’s not even at all clear that this decline is so unequivocal and widespread in all case sand aspects (or at least, if it is, it’s not as simple and obvious as Kaczynski and those he quotes seem to believe). Furthermore, citing anecdotal cases, such as that of his friend’s parents, doesn’t seem to me a rationally acceptable way to demonstrate or reinforce an argument about society in general. Once again, we return to an attempt at psychological and emotional manipulation of the reader (or certain types of readers). And second, even assuming it’s true that most people in these societies have seen their standard of living and rights decline, it’s not clear that this is actually due to machines becoming increasingly competitive with humans in perpetuating the techno industrial system, rather than other (perhaps even temporary) social circumstances of an economic or political nature, for example. In fact, while it’s true that the advance of robotization, automation, digitalization, and the emergence of artificial intelligence has led to, and will likely continue to lead to, the disappearance of many jobs in certain sectors (especially in manual labour under easily standardized conditions, as well as in routine “desktop,” “intellectual,” or “social” jobs), there are many other sectors where they haven’t had a significant impact (nor do they seem likely to anytime soon). The “human touch” is not limited to attending to and supporting people and “connecting” with them emotionally, and other similar non-material tasks of a social, “spiritual,” or intellectual nature. It often could be related to many other more physical and earthly tasks, such as being able to perform material work that requires solving practical problems under non-standardized, complicated, and unpredictable conditions for which machines cannot be easily programmed and designed in advance, or to which they can hardly adapt. At least not yet. A machine can, for example, tighten screws or perform welding and assemblage on an production line, or it can process enormous amounts of information, perform calculations, write texts, translate, serve the public, etc., at a speed always far superior to that of a human being, and sometimes with at least an “acceptable” quality. But it cannot so easily squeeze behind a sink in an ordinary house with nonstandard dimensions to weld a piece of heating pipe at an improbable angle, barely fitting amidst other pipes, cables, appliances, and furniture. However, an experienced person usually finds a way to do it without having to dismantle and renovate the entire kitchen. Of course, those who write about the job destruction caused by technology (or, for that matter, about the supposed disappearance of the middle class and the alleged expansion of poverty) don’t usually engage in such mundane, physical tasks in practice (in fact, they usually don’t even remember they exist until a plug breaks, their car stalls, a drain gets clogged, or something similar happens, and they have to call someone –a human- to fix it). And although Kaczynski wasn’t exactly one of these useless people who can’t even tighten a lightbulb, he echoed their arguments because he saw it as convenient to try to convince a certain type of reader who was seething with frustration over their own poor employment or financial situation.

Last but not least is the bold claim that “the technological world-system is going to collapse in the not-too-distant future, as we’ve argued [elsewhere] it must”. In fact, since Kaczynski makes this argument elsewhere in ATR, I won’t delve into it in depth here either. I will merely point out that it is intellectually dishonest to assert such a thing with such certainty. Whether or not the technoindustrial system will collapse in the near future is something nobody knows. If only because, applying one of Kaczynski’s own principles of history, the course of the development of a society is largely unpredictable beyond a fairly limited event horizon. The system may collapse “soon” (that is, within a few years or decades) on its own due to the accumulation and synergy of the effects of its own dynamics (this is a likely scenario, but by no means certain); it may collapse due to some other factors extrinsic to itself, such as one or more natural disasters of some kind (this is an unlikely but possible scenario), it may collapse with the help of a group or organization dedicated precisely to achieving that goal (this is unlikely, though not entirely impossible), it may collapse due to a combination of several of the intrinsic and extrinsic mentioned factors (this is a more likely scenario, but it is still not a certainty), or it may continue on despite everything for many more decades (something at least as likely as the first scenario). And the honest thing to do — no matter how much some of us might like to see the techno-industrial system collapse — is to acknowledge this lack of certainty.

J/A — I seek some clarification and an expanded explanation.

You say

“The system may collapse “soon” (that is, within a few years or decades) on its own due to the accumulation and synergy of the effects of its own dynamics (this is a likely scenario, but by no means certain) it may collapse due to a combination of several of the intrinsic and extrinsic mentioned factors (this is a more likely scenario, but it is still not a certainty),

Why do you say it is likely? I thought it was unlikely that the system would collapse on its own, especially in the short term (the next few decades). It often feels a lot more like it’s fortifying itself.

Didn’t you say it is likely we will be progressively eroded by machines? Both in your letter to the vegan[48] and in your fragment “on the humanization of machines”[49] just off the top of my head. You said either merged with them or we will be replaced by them? So this is what you think is likely to happen if the system survives but you think it’s likely the system will collapse? I have up to this point just assumed the former was far more likely than the latter.

“I also don’t think Kaczynski was right to link, for example, the supposed disappearance of the “middle class” (whatever that label actually means), the alleged decline in living standards, the reduction in social security benefits (or private insurance), and the like, in areas like the US or Western Europe in recent times, with his predictions about the increasing obsolescence of human beings as technological development advances”.

This probably has (at least up until recently, that is the last 5 or so years and even then automation is only a debatable factor) more to do with what you mentioned somewhere else. “There are only two possibilities for the techno industrial system in order to survive in the short term if energy and materials begin to be scarce (and this is much probably going to happen sooner or later): either to impose a severe austerity”. and in another fragment I don’t have time to find about how first world countries will look a lot more like 3^rd world ones in terms of their capacity to provide welfare and for the psychological needs of the population (surrogate activities) if energy begins to become more scarce, which is probably already happening. Oil supply in the western world since the 70s is obviously the glaring example especially in light of recent geopolitical events.[50]

Nevertheless regardless of whether advanced robotics are capable of replacing skilled tradesman like plumbers/gasfiters in the next few years or not (which is very unlikely in my opinion),what you mentioned: “it’s true that the advance of robotization, automation, digitalization, and the emergence of artificial intelligence has led to, and will likely continue to lead to, the disappearance of many jobs in certain sectors (especially in manual labour under easily standardized conditions, as well as in routine “desktop,” “intellectual,” or “social” jobs), does raise an obvious problem for the system, forgetting even from a moral stand point but from a purely technical one. The TIS has relied on the existence of these (lower skill) jobs since the beginning of the industrial revolution for stability within the social system, since vast swathes of peasants (maybe even the majority, but at least a far from insignificant minority) simply cannot “perform material work that requires solving practical problems under non-standardized, complicated, and unpredictable conditions for which machines cannot be easily programmed and designed in advance, or to which they can hardly adapt.” Either because they are lazy, or of low cognitive ability (they are below the increasing ZMP threshold[51]), lack the social discipline or are psychologically inept to handle what is required for specialisation. They also “cannot so easily squeeze behind a sink in an ordinary house with nonstandard dimensions to weld a piece of heating pipe at an improbable angle, barely fitting amidst other pipes, cables, appliances, and furniture. Already a small minority cannot even do the former tasks under replicable conditions. For now, it seems improbable advanced robotics will be able to replace the more “high stakes” Jobs like electrical work, but 20 years from now? And even if humanoid robots are never able to outdo humans at more skilled trades, Tasks like welding pipes at improbable angles or other plumbing and gas fitting work. Ultimo Reducto’s belief advanced robots will never be able to do these tasks seems as rigid as Kaczynski or the hard technophiles insistence humanoids absolutely will be more capable than humans at these tasks. You could get this prediction right, you could also get this very wrong.

Anyway what other way to categorise this relatively unskilled segment of the population other than “the growing number of obsoletes” (they were once mildly useful to the development of the technological system, and now technology has developed to a certain point, that mild usefulness is obsolete)? And what is the system to do with these people if “energy and materials begin to (or very arguably, continue to) get more scarce”? It will need these resources for the more useful machines and will have to prioritise them over welfare programs for the superfluous and the like, so I agree with Kaczynski that a “culling of the herd” so to speak (depopulation) could be on the cards.

Perhaps today it’s those who “can’t screw on a lightbulb” that are discarded, but what it likely indicates is sooner or later, Darwinian selection will favour machines (or human machine hybrids) more and more for complicated tasks. We are probably not talking about an overnight shift but a gradual one over a few generations.

Something like what this guy lays out.[52]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPPed_yRcJU

All we can say with a strong probability is the above problems don’t imply “smooth times” ahead for society at large. And there are other issues like instability induced by climate change[53] (Karakam) or tensions between the interests of large “self-prop system’s” (Il use the term for now, and I’m referring specifically to the 3 major blocs of America and its allies, China and Russia[54]) Spell a likely “period of troubles “ on the horizon for the technological system. And these economic and environmental issues obviously exacerbate disruptive human behaviour and makes it substantially more difficult for the system to get a lid on behaviour that is a nuisance to its development, such as increasing polarisation at the civilian level (ideological, religious, ethnic ect). But I am surprised you have described total infrastructural collapse from these problems as a “likely scenario”. I thought your opinion would be in all probability the system would be able to overcome these problems, largely by more brutal authoritarian measures and eventually a gradual blurring of lines with, and merging of man with machine (if not outright replacement of man by machine).

I would presume perhaps maybe something akin to Europe between the years of 1914–1945 is more likely. This perhaps followed by a period of unabated development afterwards with far fewer interruptions for the technological system is a more likely eventuality.

UR — You say “I seek some clarification and an expanded explanation”. It is OK, I would try to better explain myself.

First, please, take into account all what I said because you only quote part of what I said. What I actually and completely said was that “The system (1) may collapse” “soon” (that is, within a few years or decades) on its own due to the accumulation and synergy of the effects of its own dynamics (this is a likely scenario, but by no means certain); it (2) may collapse due to some other factors extrinsic to itself, such as one or more natural disasters of some kind (this is an unlikely but possible scenario), it (3) may collapse with the help of a group or organization dedicated precisely to achieving that goal (this is unlikely, though not entirely impossible), it (4) may collapse due to a combination of several of the intrinsic and extrinsic mentioned factors (this is a more likely scenario, but it is still not a certainty), or it (5) may continue on despite everything for many more decades (something at least as likely as the first scenario)”. I have now numbered each possible scenario and added emphasis on some key concepts. Unlike what Kaczynski says in “The techies’ wet dreams”, I have not said, with complete certainty, here or anywhere else, that the techno industrial system (TIS for brief) is going to collapse (or, for that matter, to go on), neither soon nor later. Furthermore, I referred there only to the short run (“soon”, few years or decades, i.e., around two or three decades at most). And besides, I just said that it is likely or probable and, depending on the scenario, more or less possible, but never sure. I just tried to asses and express the probability of each scenario, in my opinion, to compare it critically with the unjustified claim of certainty that Kaczynski did about the collapse. And I always have expressed my opinion about this issue in terms of intuitive probability, not of certainty. So, regarding the question “Why do you say it is likely? I thought it was unlikely that the system would collapse on its own, especially in the short term (the next few decades). It often feels a lot more like it’s fortifying itself”. I said it’s likely or probably precisely because it is not certain.

There is not necessary any contradiction. We are just speaking of intuitive imprecise probabilities. If something is very probable, but not certain, it is also a little improbable; that is, it is still possible that it doesn’t happen. These are just quantitative, but inexact intuitive notions (I actually don’t know the exact numbers, and I think it is impossible to know them exactly; sometimes it’s even impossible to say surely what is more probable in the short term, whether some kinds of collapse — such as 1 or 4 — or the perpetuation of the TIS -5-).Second, you say “Didn’t you say it is likely we will be progressively eroded by machines? Both in your letter to the vegan and in your fragment on the ‘humanization of machines’ just off the top of my head. You said either we will merge with them or we will be replaced by them. So this is what you think is likely to happen if the system survives, but do you think it’s likely the system will collapse? I have up to this point just assumed the former was far more likely than the latter”. As I just have said above, I said it is likely, not that it’s certain. And it’s one thing the speculation about the probabilities of the future collapse/perpetuation of the TIS and other, quite different thing is the speculation about the possible future substitution of man by machines. Though this latter is actually related with the happenstance of the 5^th scenario (the perpetuation of the TIS, notwithstanding the problems it can face in the future, at least in the sort run), given the 5^th scenario is a necessary requirement for the possible substitution of humans by machines. So the scenarios where humans are substituted by machines (ii and iii in Kaczynski’s notation), can be quite probable in my opinion, provided the 5^th scenario happens. If the 5^th scenario doesn’t happen, they are not just improbable, but impossible. And I have already said that, in the short run, I think that it is at least as probable that the TIS survives than that it collapses in some ways (e.g., in the 1^st or 4^th scenarios). So, yes, it’s quite probable that the TIS survives in the short run, and thus, it is quite probable that it will substitute humans with machines, or simply make humans obsolete and useless and put them aside, in a longer (but not necessarily much longer) run. But, again, remember we are speaking of probabilities, not of certainties.

You also quoted, again only partly, something that I said: “There are only two possibilities for the techno industrial system in order to survive in the short term if energy and materials begin to be scarce (and this is much probably going to happen sooner or later): either to impose a severe austerity or to discover new kinds of very abundant energy and material sources (like nuclear fusion in the case of energy or extra-terrestrial expansion of the techno industrial system in the case of materials)” (“Exchange XIV”, emphasis added). And you also refer to another fragment about “how first world countries will look a lot more like 3^rd world ones in terms of their capacity to provide welfare and for the psychological needs of the population (surrogate activities) if energy begins to become more scarce or to discover new kinds of very abundant energy and material sources (like nuclear fusion in the case of energy or extra-terrestrial expansion of the techno industrial system in the case of materials)” (maybe “Exchange VIII”?), and you say that that energy probably is becoming already scarce (“Oil supply in the western world since the 70s is obviously the glaring example especially in light of recent geopolitical events”). Well, beginning from the end, I wouldn’t take recent geopolitical events (I suppose you refer to the war between EE.UU. and Israel on the one side and Iran on the other) as a clear evidence of real energy scarcity (i.e., of the physical lack or depletion of accessible oil). This war (and others) that some people, such as the peak oilers and the like, usually relate with oil/energy scarcity could have many (other) primary causes, unrelated with the availability of energy. In fact, energy scarcity could be rather an effect instead of a cause of the war.

You have also to take into account the fragments with the emphasis. I was speaking of the survival or avoidance of the collapse of the TIS, only in case of energy and material scarcity, not in the other possible cases of serious hardships for the TIS which it should overcome in order to survive (e.g., other causes of collapse in the 1^st scenario, and the scenarios 2, 3, and 4). And, notwithstanding that I can think a real energy and material scarcity is a possible (and quite probable) scenario in the middle or long run, I think it is unlikely that this scarcity is going to happen very soon. This is why I said “sooner or later”.

Regarding the obsolescence of mankind due to technological development, it is true what you say about the jobs of low skilled or unqualified (or simply too lazy or too fool) people, but I was not referring exactly to them when I mentioned those who can’t even screw a lightbulb. I was precisely referring to the “middle class” intellectual common workers (like the authors of the books and articles about the disappearance of the “middle class” that Kaczynski mentions in the notes), not to the poor Third World peasants, the urban junkie scum, and the like good-for nothing “lowest class” (I will use here for brevity the vague and dubious terms “middle class “and “low class”, but I consider them quite imprecise and even questionable as good ways to describe and account for the social structure of the TIS). The lowest class –that is, the poorest and chronically unemployed- is certainly a group of people who is going to be obsolete and useless to the system (it’s just now, indeed), but there is another group (and this is the group I referred to with the lightbulb phrase) that is not part of this obsolete lowest class, which is (and sometimes even feels itself) also specially threatened by recent technological advances in digitalization, robotization and computerization: the not much qualified (but not extremely unqualified either) and not much powerful (neither not poor and marginalized either) middle class workers whose work mainly consists of standardized activities that don’t require manual and material skills. People like journalists, writers, translators, clerks, professors and teachers, artists, etc. Most of this intellectually skilled, but materially unskilled, “middle-class” (which, regardless what some “experts” say, is ever larger in many developed countries; indeed it’s a great minority, tending to be a majority), like the rest of people, aspires to become like the immediately superior class: the “high class” (aristocrats, billionaires, powerful managers of large organizations such as politicians, high range public officers, great corporation CEOs, and the like). So they adopt the values of this upper class, and tend to imitate their attitudes and behaviours, to the extent their limited budgets allow them to do so. And one usual feature of the highest class has always been to dismiss any manual/physical practical work or manual skill as degrading and inferior. So these “middle class” intellectual workers avoid, not only learning how to do material, practical works, and much less doing them, but even taking them into account in their studies and essays about the supposed disappearance of the “middle class”. For them all the “middle class” (or even all the people) are like them: workers who don’t carry out any material, practical work. What I was pointing out with the lightbulb phrase was that, because of their evident bias in favour of intellectual, non-manual work, their writings are not much reliable as good and objective analyses of the social reality.

Given the above, we can speak of two kinds of potential obsoletes: the lowest class useless people (the “relatively unskilled segment of the population that once were mildly useful for the TIS”) and the “middle class” people who carries out standardized, non-material work. So the “growing number of obsoletes” consists in fact of at least two subgroups. But the second subgroup, rarely takes into account the first one (or others) in their analyses and rants about human obsolescence. You say: “Ultimo Reducto belief advanced robots will never be able to do these tasks seems as rigid as Kaczynski or the hard technophiles insistence humanoids absolutely will be more capable than humans at these tasks. You could get this prediction right, you could also get this very wrong” (emphasis added). Recall, I always speak of probabilities, not of certainties. And, thus, I have not said the robots will never be able to do these tasks. You have misunderstood it. You have understood “to be unlikely” as “never be”. And again, remember that I was referring only to the short term. In addition, although I actually do think that robots most probably will never be able to do some hardly standardized material tasks, I also think that, if the TIS survives enough time and develops itself enough (middle/long run), this won’t be an obstacle for its development. The TIS simply could prevent the non-easily-standardized situations. For example, over the time, it could impose some standard features in building construction, so the robots can easily reach all places in the future buildings and thus don’t need to face non-standard situations like the one I put as example in my text.

You say: “what is the system to do with these people if ‘energy and materials begin to (or very arguably, continue to) get more scarce’? It will need these resources for the more useful machines and will have to prioritise them over welfare programs for the superfluous and the like, so I agree with Kaczynski that a ‘culling of the herd’ so to speak (depopulation) could be on the cards … We are probably not talking about an overnight shift but a gradual one over a few generations”. Yes, it could be, but remember that a generation in social “sciences”, such as demography, sociology, or anthropology, is about 25 years. So, again, it would happen (if it happens) after some decades (several generations = at least more than 50 years). That is, in the middle or long run. And I was referring only to the short run. You say: “I am surprised you have described total infrastructural collapse from these problems as a ‘likely scenario’. I thought your opinion would be in all probability the system would be able to overcome these problems, largely by more brutal authoritarian measures and eventually a gradual blurring of lines with, and merging of man with machine (if not outright replacement of man by machine)”. I have answered this already above. I speak of probabilities, not certainties.

I also think that there is going to be a period of troubles due to the Darwinian selection between the TIS main self-perpetuating subsystems (USA and its allies, Russia and China), but this kind of turbulent periods is more the norm than the exception in the history of the TIS. And I don’t see as so obvious that “economic and environmental issues exacerbate disruptive human behaviour and makes it substantially more difficult for the system to get a lid on behaviour that is a nuisance to its development”. Throughout past human history it maybe could be so, but now, at least in most developed countries, people is ever more tamed, hooked to the comfort and affluence that the TIS offers to them and deceived by false ideas and impressions of having power to influence in their societies (democracy and the like), so they ever less tend to effectively rebel or even to create serious problems or disruptions to the system with their collective behaviours.

By the way, what the fuck is that litany about “increasing polarisation” that one can increasingly hear even in the media? Do you really believe such polarization exists? What I actually see is just the opposite: that ever more people are timid, moderate, tolerant and mild, and that they tend not to strictly adopt extreme and radical ideas, values or stances and defend them intransigently (much less violently) whatever happens. I think that ours is the least polarized time of human history in fact. I hope that the above has clarified my stances about the probabilities of collapse/perpetuation of the TIS.

J/A — As for some of your comments and questions at the end.

I think a distinction could be made between a state of “competition” which is the norm for the TIS (America as the sole unchallenged superpower being the anomaly) and “crisis” which I do not believe is the normal state for the TIS or could be. The period between 1914 and 1945 I don’t think could be described as a normal state of affairs. And this era was preceded by “the hundred year peace” (1815–1914) where yes there was competition but overall peace between the industrializing European nations of the epoch. This followed some turmoil induced by the Napoleonic expansion (the congress of Vienna and then British enforced peace). So there has only been one period of crisis in my opinion in the history of the TIS (1914–1945) and maybe a proto one (1810 but I know less about this).

The Cold war for all the tensions it induced still comes under something closer to the competition between the great powers of the second industrial revolution (1870–1914) than anything amounting to the kind of instability that occurred in its immediately preceding era.
There might be a misconception between us that stems from terminology. I actually was not referring to the poorest of the poor, the chronically unemployed, junkies and the like (for sake of brevity the dole bludger). A stable core of these people (a very small but always present minority) have been useless pretty much forever to the TIS. And these people contrary to what some say are not “a revolutionary subject” or concerned about the job market, they mostly have no intention of working a job. They would much prefer to spend their day smoking meth and seeking out another greyhound looking female to inseminate, simply because it is obviously much more riveting to jump on the gear for 8 hours than it is to flip burgers in the service economy. The dole bludger will be fine at least in the short term (the middle and long term probably not). It’s likely in the short term their conditions in England, Canada, the UK and Australia will resemble more the United States but I don’t see that as much of an issue. They will just downgrade from jumping on the gear in a housing commission to hitting the pipe in a tent city. This has been happening to some extent already since 2020 or really since 2008. But even in the United States which probably has the least robust safety nets among our countries the underclass still has it better than any other underclass in history (some shitty restrictions on camping aside). I think they could take quite a significant reduction in living standards and still be fine overall. You only have to feed shard junkies every couple of days or so and they are usually good to go, maybe they need a pack of smokes as recourse substitution and a few other basic items for their adventures. Some pocket money and meals put on by the church every few days can usually solve that. They are themselves a kind of highly adaptable invasive species.
The dole bludger is an unnecessary drain on resources yes, but there is some evidence “old money” elites don’t see this as that significant. The system does not really have to guarantee these people the chance at “a higher standard of living”, “social mobility”, high status jobs ect.

The high rates of psychological suffering and frustration in this class is not usually down to being locked out of the job market or even their “poverty” but often at least in my experience some personalised misfortune that happened to the individual. Maybe some serious abuse or something like that. Sometimes some competent people end up here like veterans but generally most people in this category are of a lower IQ.
My understanding of how the contemporary class structure of TIS works is not orientated neatly around the old school dichotomy of blue collar and white collar.
The highly skilled tradesman like electricians and plumbers are at the top of the working class and tending very strongly to the middle class. You are correct in pointing out these people are removed from reality in assuming the predicament of a plumber is the same as there’s is.

They probably do this because to some extent it is indeed blasphemy to them the idea a plumber is higher than them in the social hierarchy. And that in fact if they really want that middle class lifestyle with the white picket fence and good schools they claim is so great, there is actually a way to do this if they’re willing to get their hands dirty.

I’m not trying to talk up the life of a tradesman here, it means a life with serious drawbacks for a number of reasons. I’m only speaking here purely about utility to the market.

These writers probably think a plumber is in the same category as them partially out of ignorance and partially to cope with the true nature of their own status.
But even ones with a more realistic understanding of the utility of their skill set and what would break them into the middle class very often fit into the category I mentioned in my first letter. “Swathes of peasants who simply cannot “perform material work that requires solving practical problems under non-standardized, complicated, and unpredictable conditions”.
There actually exists 3 classes that are threatened in the near future.
The unemployed dole bludging class (relatively inconsequential to the discussion)
The traditional working class- Those who are of low education and low skill (or skilled in a repetitive task that will be automated). Mostly blue collar along with some other jobs that don’t require higher education
The clerical/ precariat class- those of a relatively high education but whose higher education didn’t translate to significantly higher income (what you called the “lower middle class”.)

There will be of course some variation in the real situation specific occupations within these categories face in practise. Presumably at least some repetitive tasks that in theory seem easy to automate prove for whatever reason to be more difficult than it would appear at first glance.
I did not see it as important to distinguish between these two when I said “large swathes of peasants” regardless of what categorisation many in one of these camps would put themselves. There predicament (the “lower middle / clerical class) seems roughly the same to me as any other peasant. Some of that “polarisation” I may as well add between left and right is the clash between individuals within these classes (the former the right wing base the latter the left )who also have alongside these material circumstances as part of their personality also a strong disposition towards the groupish morality of their particular represented side. Here is probably not the place to elaborate on their feud.[55]

The people who comprise these two classes will not see pitching a Swag near a campfire as a sufficiently high enough standard of living. The social contract has up until now relied on the guarantee of better wages, more gadgets, comfort and abundance. All of this is very energy intensive to provide to a very large class that does not bring the system much benefit in return. Assuming AI really takes their jobs on mass in the near future, this is the “technical problem” I was speaking of.

The technical problem is not the chronically unemployed but the chronically employed I think (what the yanks call “the working poor”).

If the system had endless energy at its disposal, the tame nature of the masses would mean their behaviour constitutes no problem for the system at all. But their tame behaviour is dependent upon being provided an opportunity to participate as cogs in the machine to accumulate more resources.

Especially the old blue collar segment of lower skill sometimes really do take pride in whatever task they are doing, no matter how mundane it may be. It provides them at least some stimulation, structure and self-esteem in many cases. The state of any rust belt area[56] (or some local equivalents) is testament to what kind of problems can occur for this class when events like mass job losses occur. And the clerical class are thoroughly middle class in all their expectations. How will the system in the short term maintain stability within the social system smoothly if this unemployment crisis occurred rather suddenly (say over only the span of a decade)? It does not seem like a particularly easy transition for the system.

Economic and environmental problems simply make it difficult to provide the above comforts to placate the masses and provide them sufficient opportunities to emulate the higher classes.

UR- “By the way, what the fuck is that litany about “increasing polarisation” that one can increasingly hear even in the media? Do you really believe such polarization exists? What I actually see is just the opposite: that ever more people are timid, moderate, tolerant and mild, and that they tend not to strictly adopt extreme and radical ideas, values or stances and defend them intransigently (much less violently) whatever happens.”

Well, I usually am the “nothing ever happens” guy in the room myself. So you are preaching to the choir here, but anyway.

I was very careful and specific to use the word “nuisance” instead of “threat” since I don’t believe especially in the short term any of these antagonisms could really threaten the stability of the system. Nevertheless there is a difference between people having limits that can be pushed further than any other humans in history and these humans actually having no limits where beyond a certain point some stresses imposed on them cause some disruptive behaviour to occur or be exacerbated.

Both might also be true at the same time. It could be that these are the most tame and domesticated humans ever (likely true) and at least in the Anglosphere are indeed more polarised than they were in the recent past.

I am speaking here mainly about the Anglosphere which is the one I know best. I do think there are some objective metrics we could refer to that suggest there is indeed more polarisation in our countries than what existed in the very recent past. I will not elaborate on those here.

The Anglosphere is of course loaded with civil war fantasies and the like, a showdown where people finally get to fight the overreaching federal government or shit libs in an epic Syrian style royal Royale. This obviously is impossible for a wide array of reasons. Beginning yes with us being too tame, domesticated, old, fat lazy etc. along with an incredibly strong surveillance state.

But some of this polarisation may not disrupt the system in overtly noticeable and violent ways, but simply degrade the large self-prop/perp (The America and its allies) system’s efficiency in less directly obvious ways slowly and over time(stifling necessary functions relating to mundane stuff like maintenance ,bureaucracy and the like). Or what are some low intensity conflicts taking place in the beginning on the fringes within the civilian population (the ethnic, ideological religious conflicts I referred to. Like recent ethnic tensions throughout the UK or bitter ideological antagonisms in the United States and Australia) among the very most violent or disillusioned proves by its very fragmented nature difficult for the largest self perp system to find lasting neat resolutions to.

Brassfacts the prepper channel here mentions the only potentially possible scenario that comes to my mind which could happen over the next few decades in the Anglosphere and probably as well the wider Western world.[57]

https://youtu.be/gAG4ZLy6BF8

This is probably not even true in your end of the world. My knowledge of Spain is not extensive, but I do know it’s not true for example that Italy is more polarised now than it was 50 years ago during the 1970s. I think you said to Flemming you lived in Basque Country (that might be wrong, I don’t think it’s important enough to go back and check). Well from the little I know of that place’s history it likely is not true there is more polarisation at the civilian level now than what existed in the recent past. On the other hand can places like Basque country or Belfast really be taken as indicators of civilian attitudes in the late 20^th and early 21^st centuries in the highly developed Western world? Probably not. They were anomalies.
We must also take into account some of these disruptions may not be overtly political or ideological in nature. As you and Kaczynski have noted there is plenty of other more unintentionally dysfunctional behaviour that takes place within the social system that can be a nuisance for the system’s smooth development. Drug gangs and the like for example. It’s possible the future of the Western world is one big Brazil. A massive Hodge podge of half caste mullatos all roaming about shooting each other over small amounts of drug money. Not an issue that is unsolvable for the system but could still nevertheless prove more intractable to solve in reality than what you and I believe. How much cutting edge technological development is really coming out of Latin America?
It’s not clear how much of modern man’s tamer nature is down to the environment vs sincere changes in attitudes.

Some of the population’s tame behaviour is likely simply the result of technological development making it more difficult to get away with certain dubious acts (surveillance state, also one has to come across as more agreeable in the service economy see Marvin Harris why nothing works[58]) as opposed to this being an indicator modern man really is significantly more docile and agreeable in his beliefs and behaviour than his great grandparents. This in of itself is creating immense psychological tension which could be problematic.

it’s impossible to know how changes in the infrastructure produced by the crisis between the 3 large self-prop systems will impact the superstructure and the tendency of the population to be tame and docile or disruptive and radical.

I do not know how the troubles among the larger self-prop systems will influence the smaller selfprop systems.
I am inclined to agree for example with this article put out by Wilderness Front when discussing the men of 100 years ago.[59]

“It would be reasonable to say that their society was thus more “dynamic” in the sense that, by virtue of this greater freedom, individual associations could crop up and evolve with a far greater degree of vigour and autonomy than they can today. In addition to this natural proclivity to more violence and roughness, the specific political turmoil of the period—especially from 1929–1932—led to such a high frequency of political violence that the violence simply became normalized within the culture”.

But a closer look at the situation shows this wasn’t “normal” by the standards of their time but a change in the values within the super structure brought on specifically by the changes in the infrastructure during war time ten years earlier. It wasn’t a linear march to more docile human behaviour.

I was reading not long ago a memoir put out by an old timer who shot himself during the Second World War “The world of Yesterday Stefan Zweig[60]. His book documents the shift in values.

Zweig it seems was one of these early cosmopolitans, a kind of proto “citizen of the global community”. His account speaks about the immediately preceding era to that described in the WF article. It was the opposite culture to what emerged during 1920s Berlin that was mentioned. Chapter one “the world of security” really describes a world not that different to the one of you and me. Some differences of course, but I presumed before reading the book his account of very early 20^th century Europe would depict a world more far off in terms of relatability than it was. The book documents the aforementioned change in values and behaviour.

“Live and let live” was the famous Viennese motto, which today still seems to me to be more humane than all the categorical imperatives, and it maintained itself throughout all classes. Rich and poor, Czechs and Germans, Jews and Christians, lived peaceably together in spite of occasional chafing, and even the political and social movements were free of the terrible hatred which has penetrated the arteries of our time as a poisonous residue of the First World War. In the old Austria they still strove chivalrously, they abused each other in the news and in the Parliament, but at the conclusion of their Ciceronian tirades the same representatives sat down together in friendship with a glass of beer or a cup of coffee. Even the leader of the anti-Semitic party, became burgomaster of the city, no change occurred in private affairs, and I personally must confess that neither in school nor at the University, nor in the world of literature, have I ever experienced the slightest suppression or indignity as a Jew. The hatred of country for the country, of nation for nation, of one table for another, did not yet jump at one daily from the newspaper, it did not divide people from people and nations from nations; not yet had every herd and mass feeling become so disgustingly powerful in public life as today. Freedom in one’s private affairs, which is no longer considered comprehensible, was taken for granted. One did not look down upon tolerance as one does today as weakness and softness, but rather praised it as an ethical force.

For it was not a century of suffering in which I was born and educated. It was an ordered world with definite classes and calm transitions, a world without haste.

How blissfully unaware they remained of all the bitter realities, of the tricks and forces of fate, how apart they lived from all those crises and problems that crush the heart but at the At the same time marvellously uplift it. How little they knew, as they muddled through in security and comfort and possessions, that life can also be tension and profusion, a continuous state of being surprised, and being lifted up from all sides. Little did they think in their touching Liberalism and optimism that each succeeding day that dawns outside our window can smash our life?

Because of their liberal belief in the unfailing progress of the world through tolerance and reason, these middle-class democrats honestly thought that with small concessions and gradual improvements they were furthering the welfare of all subjects in the best way possible.

This announcement paralysed the good Liberal middle classes with fright. Socialists! The word had a peculiar taste of blood and terror in the Germany and Austria of those days. At first it was thought impossible for this rabble to carry out its march without setting houses on fire, plundering shops, and committing every sort of atrocity imaginable. A kind of panic set in. The police of the entire city and the neighbourhood were posted in the Prater, and the military were held in reserve, ready to shoot. Not a. carriage, not a cab, dared to come near; the merchants let down the iron shutters in front of their shops, and I can remember that our parents strictly forbade us children to go out in the streets on tins day of terror which might see Vienna in flames. But nothing happened. The workers marched in the Prater with their wives and children in closed ranks, four abreast, with exemplary discipline, each one wearing a red carnation in his buttonhole as a party emblem. While marching they sang the ‘‘Internationale,” and the children, chanted their carefree school songs. No one was insulted, no one was struck, no fists were clenched; and the police and the soldiers smiled at them like comrades. Thanks to this, the middle classes were no longer able to brand the workers as “revolutionary rabble” and they came to mutual concessions, as always in wise old Austria. The present- day system of suppression and extirpation had not yet been discovered, and the ideal of humanity (although it had already begun to fade) was alive even among political leaders.

PG 56/57.

Will the kind of changes produced in the infrastructure of Russian society as a result of the war[61] significantly impact the values adopted by the superstructure and the behaviours of those affected by the conflict within the social system? Has it already done so? Almost certainly. Will some of these be problematic and disruptive for the society at large? I’d be my money they will be.

Factoring all this in I am not as convinced the system has gotten a grip so thoroughly on human behaviour that none of these issues can pose any disruptions to its smooth development in the short term. Of course like I said, disruption does not imply a serious threat.

I am certain that the rates of disruptive behaviour among the population since the Middle Ages has drastically declined, and it has definitely declined since the cities of the early industrial revolution. The trajectory of urban environments over the last 125 years however is a complex story. In many respects and by lots of observable metrics they have progressively gotten tamer, but there are some serious nuances to that statement that should be taken into account that suggests not such a simple picture which perhaps is a conversation for another time.

[1] Which is to be greatly appreciated measured, respectively, to theoretical delusions and exaggerations and/or logical incompetence and irrationality of animal activists, as well as inestimable intellectual lucidity of Ted Kaczynski, in addition to the discomfort and natural suspicions that Último Reducto has always felt in front of much of it of leftist and countercultural ideas and attitudes.

[2] This term perhaps not very Fortunate to be conventionally loaded with connotations of Leftist currents that really had nothing to do with positions of Último Reducto; this is the main reason that today Ultimo Redoubt just uses that term to refer to any attack against the autonomy of the non-artificial.

[3] From 27 April 2011, 22 May 2011, 9 August 2011, 21 September 2011, and 19 December 2011, respectively.

[4] What we say in most of these commentaries generally also goes for the communique from the Terrorist Cells for the Direct Attack – Anti-civilization Faction (CTPAD-FA).

[5] There is certainly reason, in looking at ITS’ communiques, to doubt the deep motivation of ITS’ actions (or to put it differently: is love of the wild, and the discourse developed based on that value, the real cause of ITS’ actions, or only their justification?). But, lacking conclusive facts, drawing conclusions would mean entering into the realm of speculation, so at least for the moment UR will leave this important question open.

[6] Much of the discourse and terminology used in their communiques is taken from the writings of Kaczynski and/or UR (although in the cases in which they take UR as a reference, ITS do not say it explicitly). For example, expressions like “surrogate activity” or “power process” are taken from Industrial Society and Its Future (The Unabomber Manifesto) and expression like “System of Domination” or “psychocultural” are characteristic of much of UR’s written work.

[7] UR want to clarify that we will draw upon on our own interpretation of Kaczynski’s ideas here in order to critique ITS’ misinterpretations. The ideal would be for Ted Kaczynski himself to address these points directly, but given the restrictions imposed by his confinement, it is unlikely this will happen. Nevertheless, it is also unlikely that our interpretation of Kaczynski’s ideas deviates greatly from the author’s original ideas. After more than eight years of exchanging correspondence with Kaczynski and numerous translations of his original texts to Spanish (approved by Ted Kaczynksi himself–see Technological Slavery, Feral House, 2010, page 13), UR believe we are capable enough to be able to point out and critique ITS’ misinterpretations. In any case, UR are the only ones responsible for any error or deviation there might be in our interpretations with respect to the original meaning of Kaczynski’s ideas.

[8] Due to the poor quality of the great majority of the Spanish editions of this work that circulate around here, UR recommend the following edition: La Sociedad Industrial y Su Futuro, Editorial Isumatag, Valladolid, 2011. Specifically paragraph 189 is on page 131 of this edition.

[9] See, for example, “The Road to Revolution,” in Technological Slavery, pg. 222–231, and “The Coming Revolution,” in Textos de Ted Kaczynski, Último Reducto (Ed.), Reedición Corregida, 2005, pg. 70–80. Idem.

[10] Idem.

[11] Idem.

[12] Or however one wants to refer to the hypothetical process by which the collapse of the techno-industrial system would be hastened thanks at least in part to the work of a movement against that system.

[13] Page 76 of the edition mentioned in footnote 6 of this text.

[14] Page 127 of the edition mentioned in footnote 6 of this text.

[15] In reaching some of these false conclusions, ITS have probably based themselves at least in part on the critical commentaries published by UR in “Writings of Ted Kaczynski”. Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that the interpretation and critique that UR made of some of Kaczynski’s ideas in certain parts of that work (especially in the “critical commentaries”) were in some cases not totally correct. Time and deeper knowledge of Kaczynski’s ideas have made our understanding of them rather more exact at the present than six months ago. It also seems that ITS has probably taken Writings of Ted Kaczynski and some other old texts by UR (for example, Último Reducto issue 1, spring 2002) as a reference for their critiques of the individuals and groups that are against the techno-industrial system and defend the concept of revolution. But we must point out that, even though we still think the fundamental values and ideas (dealing with the autonomy of the wild, rejection of the techno-industrial society and civilization and disdain for leftism and hippie-ism) expressed in our texts prior to Leftism: A Function of Pseudo-critique and Pseudo-revolution in Techno-industrial Society (2007) are correct, we no longer identify with many of the other ideas expressed in those texts, so it could be that ITS are, at least in reference to UR, criticizing obsolete positions. For example, today UR continue to believe that it is necessary to construct a serious movement that can aspire to effectively oppose the techno-industrial system when the time comes (a point that, as we have said, will be discussed later on), but we no longer believe that movement should refer to itself “revolutionary” (nor that it should call that fight a “revolution”), for purely practical reasons: the term “revolutionary”, due to the use it has been given across history and by those who have used it, inevitably carries a semantic cargo that will always bear more problems than benefits for a movement contrary to techno-industrial society that really intends to be effective. The world and history are full of self-denominated “revolutionaries” and of “revolutions” of every kind, and practically none of them is really compatible with a serious and effective opposition to the techno-industrial system. Calling the struggle against the techo-industrial system a “revolution” means favoring the principles and ends of those who seriously oppose the techno-industrial system being misinterpreted and many undesirable self-proclaimed revolutionaries feeling affinity with them when in reality they should be kept at a distance.

[16] Here it is worth saying, “we have defended.” See footnote 8.

[17] UR does not believe in the concept of good, and we prefer not to use the term “good” and its derivatives. To look somewhat deeper into the reasons for this rejection of the concept of good and UR’s moral basis, see “El mito de la superioridad e inferioridad absolutas como justificación de la dominación,” Último Reducto issue 1 B, note 21, page 103.

[18] And even in the rare cases in which it hasn’t been, as may be in the case of Stirner and perhaps some of his followers (and only some), the fact of referring to these ideas with the term “anarchism” has not exactly favored their being recognized as something apart from and completely alien to the majoritarian anarchist currents always based on different libertarian versions of socialism. Normally one puts one (individualists) and the other (collectivists) into the same bag, and takes as given that a minimal affinity exists between any two currents that refer to themselves as anarchists.

[19] The CTPAD-FA show that they are more realistic and honest in this sense by also rejecting insurrectionalism and recognizing that they are making their communique public on an insurrectionalist web page only because there isn’t a really non-leftist infrastructure of affinity that they can turn to to do this.

[20] It is very unlikely that the human species would become extinct without at the same time taking all or most of the rest of the animal species with it. The human species would probably survive the collapse of the technoindustrial system as long as it did not involve the total destruction of the biosphere. In such a case, many of the survivors would practice animal husbandry if they had the chance, and it would be impossible to avoid it. I can think of no realistic way to end animal domestication after the collapse of the technoindustrial society, just as I can think of no realistic way to prevent the survival or restoration of civilization, agriculture, human-to-human domination, etc., in such circumstances.

[22] The value of wild Nature is fundamental and irreplaceable. No member of the movement should lack it. Every member should show a sincere and intense natural interest in knowing and respecting the natural world (i.e, the non-human: faun, vegetation, ecosystems, etc.) and in being in direct contact with Nature. And every member should feel that to protect the autonomy of the wild is the main or, even better, the only important reason to wipe out the technoindustrial system. People who say they are against the technoindustrial system, but don’t actually feel enough the value of the autonomy of the wild and propose mainly or exclusively, other (social or human) reasons to be against the technoindustrial system, are not reliable. Even though they seem serious and capable individuals, they will pervert the movement diverting it from the goal of destroying the technoindustrial system when the time comes.

[23] This is very important, because when we talk about how achieve 3 (strategy, organization, etc.) without having attained 1 and 2 we are, in practical terms, building castles in the air and rambling. Or building the house starting with the roof. Or even worse, building it on rotten foundations: encouraging the creation of a weak and “corrupted” movement from its inception, by promoting that people who don’t actually meet 1 or 2 get together and act to achieve 3 (which means that the movement they create will be incompetent, will give a negative image of the cause and of its sympathizers, and/or sooner or later will deviate from the end of destroying technoindustrial society). The priority now isn’t organizing ourselves, let alone trying to attain power. Before trying all this, we should find valid and capable people, if they exist, through developing, if possible, a good method to detect people who meet 1 and 2 and to discard, at least, those who don’t fulfil 1 (if we also discard those who don’t fulfil 2 it is possible that you end up alone, or not even this, taking into account your limitations as a prisoner).

[24] In more than one ocassion you have talked about the creation of a “’professional’ revolutionary movement”. How can the “revolutionaries” be “professionals” (a “professional” is the person who makes a living doing a job) if they have to devote themselves to other things in order to survive and if they can only devote part of their limited spare time to the cause after working for a living and fulfiling their other personal obligations?

[25] Sergei Zimov and his son, Nikita Zimov.

[26] This refers to the justifications that usually are offered to carry out Pleistocene “rewilding”. These range from carbon atmospheric flows and thus climate regulation to “preserving” or even enhancing biodiversity and “improving” ecosystems.

[27] Some of those sources are:

• Sergei A. Zimov, “Pleistocene Park: Return of the Mammoth‟s Ecosystem”, Science, vol 308, 6 May 2005.

• Sergei A. Zimov, “„Wild Field‟ Manifest”, 2014. pleistocenepark.org

• “Siberia‟s Pleistocene Park: Bringing Back pieces of the Ice Age to Combat Climate Change”, BBC News, July 7, 2019: www.cbsnews.com- of-the-ice-age-to-combat-climate-change-60-minutes-2019-07-07/

• Martin W. Lewis, “Pleistocene Park: The Regeneration of the Mammoth Steppe?”, GeoCurrents, April 12, 2012: www.geocurrents.info- park-the-regeneration-of-the-mammoth-steppe

• Martin W. Lewis, “Pleistocene Re-Wilding: Environmental Restoration or Ecological Heresy?”, GeoCurrents, April 14, 2012: www.geocurrents.info- caucasus/siberia/pleistocene-re-wilding-environmental-restoration-or-ecological-heresy

• “An Interview with Nikita Zimov, Director of Pleistocene Park”, Animal People Forum, April 2, 2017: animalpeopleforum.org- pleistocene-park/

• Alan Wolf, “The Big Thaw”, Stanford Magazine, September/October 2008: stanfordmag.org

[28] The same should be noted for Kaczynski’s texts published in Untamed Nature.

[29] See: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-in-defense-of-violence.

[30] For example, given that our nature (i.e., the psychological traits of our species that are, completely or partly, genetically determined) is the product of a process of evolutionary adaptation to the living conditions of the nomadic hunter-gatherer bands of the Pleistocene, nomadic hunter-gatherer societies would offer the most appropriate conditions for the adequate expression of our nature, from which it could be inferred that in such conditions there would be fewer disturbances in the expression of our nature (our natural behaviour) and consequently those psychological disorders derived from them would most probably be less frequent.

[31] Although, in this article, Kaczynski does not provide anthropological references to support his claims, in other more elaborate articles he usually does (further evidence that “In Defense of Violence” is probably an article written “for dummies”). Two such unreliable authors who often appear in the bibliographical references of Kaczynski’s writings are Colin Turnbull and Elizabeth M. Thomas.

[32] Available on line here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-ecofascism-an-aberrant-branch-of-leftism.

[33] Or translated to the case at hand, that “socialists are ecofascists”. This conclusion is as illogical as “ecofascists are socialists”.

[34] Note that footnote 2 of Kaczynski’s paper in which he states that the most sophisticated forms of socialism do not completely reject private enterprise but only seek to limit it, control it and submit it to the needs of society, does not contradict the fact that socialism always shows a negative attitude towards private initiative and considers that the latter must always occupy a subordinate place with respect to state or collective initiative.

[35] Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Kaczynski chooses and misuses labels and uses unconventional, nebulous, erroneous or inaccurate definitions or notions to refer to some movements, currents or social phenomena. “Anti-tech”, “revolution” and sometimes (like in this very article) even “leftism” are some other examples typical of his.

[36] Incidentally, such similarities go beyond advocating planning and intense social regulation and also include such things as the defense of civilization as a social ideal (especially, in most cases of both fascism and socialism, some form of industrial civilization); the defense of some form of collectivism; or the assumption and defense of some kind of idea of progress. And even, at least in some cases, fascism seems to have borrowed some of these ideas from socialism (not for nothing do certain forms of fascism adopt names such as “National-Socialism” or “NationalBolshevism”). But “being influenced by” is not necessarily the same as “being the same as” or “being a type of.” So, although their ideologies certainly borrowed certain notions from socialism, no one in their right mind considers Mussolini or Hitler to be paradigmatic examples of socialism, but rather the opposite: staunch enemies of it.

[37] Such differences also go beyond the mere explicit defense of racism by most of the fascist branches (see comments on II below in the text) but not by socialism, and would include, for example, the radical defense of some kind of nationalism by fascist currents, but not so much by socialist currents (the latter tend to be rather internationalist, globalist or universalist); the rejection of equality as a value by fascists but not by socialists (we have already seen that the latter, in theory at least, defend equality as one of their fundamental values); or the generally rather strict respect for private property and enterprise by fascists but not by socialists (see what has been said in this respect in footnote 3 of this text).

[38] In his article Kaczynski does not even qualify that such “racial and cultural blending” should be promoted only within the movement against techno-industrial society or in certain circumstances (which anyway would be wrong, as is explained below in the text), but rather, by not qualifying, he implies that such a movement should promote “racial and cultural blending” also outside itself, all over the world, throughout techno-industrial society and in every context and circumstance.

[39] In his article, Kaczynski says that his rejection of racism or ethnocentrism has nothing to do with “tolerance, diversity, pluralism, multiculturalism, equality or social justice”, but he also claims that it is necessary to “promote racial and cultural blending”. One can’t help wonder what is then in practice the difference between “multiculturalism” and “cultural blending” or how “racial and cultural blending” can be promoted and achieved in practice without applying and fostering tolerance, diversity or pluralism. Or what is in practice the difference between promoting such things and defending “social justice”. Whatever Kaczynski says, in principle, and without further nuances or explanations on his part, what he is promoting is basically militant anti-racism and multiculturalism, both of them notable examples of “social justice” struggles. So in this text, Ultimo Reducto will call such defence of promoting “racial and cultural blending” by its real names: “(militant) anti-racism”, “(militant) multiculturalism” and “social justice”.

[40] In reality, there would be much to discuss about the issue of racial and cultural differences and their importance in general, in other contexts, from other approaches and based on other criteria. But to discuss it in greater depth and rigor would take us away from the purpose of the present text. Suffice it to point out here that, for practical and strategic purposes, as far as building a movement against the techno-industrial society and combating such a society is concerned, racial and cultural differences can and should be considered virtually inconsequential in most cases.

[41] You can see, for example, an article that talks about this trend here: Kiernan Christ, “Why Right-Wing Extremists Love the Unabomber” en Lawfare, October 17, 2021 (www.lawfareblog.com). See also: Jake Hanrahan, “Inside the Unabomber’s odd and furious online revival”, Wired, 01-08-2018 (www.wired.co.uk).

[42] Translation of a correspondence exchange in Spanish between C and Último Reducto (UR) that took place from March 17, 2026 to March 28, 2026. Copyright © 2026, Último Reducto, for the fragments originally written by U.R. Translator’s note.

[43] In the translation UR has tried to be as faithful to the Spanish C’s original letter as possible. But it was so badly written that the literal translation of many parts of it are equally very awful and probably hard to understand for some English-speaking readers. Those English-speaking readers who have problems understanding in detail what C said in it can read a simplified-adapted translation here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xLqR4gic7y5yJMHvmO5-_uUJnRDID1cy Note added by UR for this post.

[44] There is also the possibility that C wrote so unreadably for reasons other than pedantry. May be he/she tried to pretend to be Spanish and/or a native Spanish speaker to conceal his true origin and location. Note added by UR for this post.

[45] If I’m right about your true purpose, I might also remind you here how stupid it is to believe that one can eliminate or control only the parts of modern technology considered bad without also doing away with those considered good or merely neutral. For example, believing that you can prevent (or, even worse, control) the emergence of digital social surveillance or AI without eliminating computers, mobile phones, the internet, the electronics industry, the chemical industry, electricity production, and, in short, all other modern technologies. They are all closely interconnected and the existence and development of some of them inevitably lead to the emergence and development of the others.

Although, if I’m right, you’ll either not give a shit about any of this or you won’t understand a damn thing I’m saying.

[46] 21 See ATR, Chapter Two, “The techies’ wet dreams”, Fitch & Madison, 2016, page 71 and notes 120, 121 and 122 in pages 85 and 86.

[47] For the full context behind these comments see Critical Comments by Último Reducto on Kaczynski’s “The Techies’ Wet Dreams”. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NzEq3zFwzYH3fS0z8ZOv9qt8qenwUR7Q

[48] https://drive.google.com/file/d/14NN3CMpV1H4DPD-AGFvLo6P5BYw73aY4

[49] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WjYsyAeFJTWLOrSTVVIvR0a3SPqcPT8M

[50] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_war

[51] https://graymirror.substack.com/p/sam-altmans-lamplighter

[52] www.youtu.be/bPPed_yRcJU

[53] Possible Reactions of the Techno-Industrial System to Climate Change (Tekno-Endüstriyel Sistemin İklim Değişikliğine Olası Tepkileri)

[54] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xhHe-CYuS9Cp-HFTR_KC4wsRmpIoNRgs/

[55] I am of course gravely oversimplifying this for the sake of brevity. This is far from an in-depth analysis. For example elements of the clerical class and precariat class likely disagree in terms of their radicalism towards socialistic economic propositions. And it could be argued the more mainstream right wing populist base The Trump movement, One Nation, Reform Britain, etc. have a different relationship to class than the smaller but still influential white nationalist movement which in my opinion possesses a unique psychological component to its appeal that transcends neat class lines. There can also be other factors in this division such as geography, for example the rural/urban divide in the United States.

[56] https://www.britannica.com/place/Rust-Belt

[57] www.youtu.be/gAG4ZLy6BF8

[58] https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/60657.Why_Nothing_Works

[59] https://www.wildernessfront.com/blog/nazi-seizure-of-power-review

[60] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c65dd81af46834afd07e40a/t/60659d7f3f59b957d7175ede/1617272219074/lives+retold+zweig+stefan.pdf

[61] https://www.britannica.com/event/Russia-Ukraine-War