A text dump on Ultimo Reducto

      Presentation and clarifications (2015)

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

      Some Replies to an Anarcho-Vegan (2017)

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

      A Brief Comment on Pleistocene “Rewilding” (2019)

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

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

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

      Interesting Readings (2025)

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

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

Presentation and clarifications (2015)

Source: <https://ultimoreductosalvaje.blogspot.com/2015/03/ultimo-reducto.html>

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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 3rd communique with the phrase: “Nature is good, civilization is bad,” and in their 4th 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” (2nd 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 5th 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:

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:

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…

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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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:

  1. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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”

  4. “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.

  5. 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).

  6. 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:

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:

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.

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

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:

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 3rd 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 5th scenario (the perpetuation of the TIS, notwithstanding the problems it can face in the future, at least in the sort run), given the 5th 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 5th scenario happens. If the 5th 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 1st or 4th 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 3rd 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 1st 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.

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.

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.

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

“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.

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 20th 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.

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.

[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.

[21] Adaptation and translation of an excerpt of the letter (in Spanish) written by Último Reducto to Ted Kaczynski (9-26-2017). © Copyright 2018, Último Reducto.

[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

<ultimoreductosalvaje.blogspot.com>