Some Suggestions Concerning Strategy

The following manuscript by Ted Kaczynski is undated, but seems to have been produced sometime in the 90s or earlier. Note that some of these suggestions are outdated. In particular, network and spatial analysis techniques, now in common use by the military and counterterrorism experts, make suggestion (2) essentially suicidal. (Some networked forms of organization, however, can successfully circumvent these techniques through the use of “swarming.”) Kaczynski’s most recent ideas on strategy and tactics can be found in his 2017 book, Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How. For more information, see the “Wild Reaction Reading List.”


1.

After each monkeywrenching operation, ecosaboteurs should send an anonymous letter to the local newspapers explaining the reasons for the attack. Another anonymous letter should be sent to the Earth First! Journal describing the results of the attack, and the Journal should publish such letters, because reading about others’ exploits will give encouragement to monkeywrenchers.

2.

Instead of carrying out single, sporadic monkeywrenching operations, ecosaboteurs should plan monkeywrenching campaigns. For example, a small group of monkeywrenchers might locate as many logging sites as they can in a given area, and then make a raid every week throughout a whole summer. Or they could select a particularly nasty timber company and hit its logging sites and its offices over and over again during a period of several months. Or they could first locate all the power lines leading into some small city, prepare themselves thoroughly, and then black out the city by cutting all of the power lines within a period of two or three days. Attacks that are concentrated in this way will be far more effective than randomly scattered attacks.

3.

A monkey-wrenching attack at the site where the system is carrying on a criminal activity such as logging or mining is not necessarily the most effective way to stop the criminal activity in question. Take the Cove-Mallard operation, for instance. By concentrating its defenses (such as guards) at the logging sites, the system can prevent monkeywrenchers from doing enough damage there to stop the logging. But the system cannot place a guard at every point in the state of Idaho that might be hit by monkeywrenchers. Suppose for example that all of the Earth First!ers at Cove-Malard were to scatter out over the state of Idaho (or even over adjacent states) and carry out a campaign of cutting power lines and telephone lines. They could virtually cripple the whole state. It is possible that the system would be willing to strike a bargain and leave the Cove-Mallard alone if EF! would lay off the telephone and power lines. More likely, though, the system would refuse to back down at Cove-Mallard because it would lose too much prestige by doing so. But the next time a conflict over a wilderness are arose, the system would hesitate to defy EF! for fear of another massively destructive sabotage campaign.

4.

Instead of monkeywrenching only at logging or mining sites, it would be advantageous to sabotage the offices of the logging and mining companies and the homes of their executives. Office and home addresses of executives can be looked up in Dunn and Bradstreet or the Standard and Poor directory, available in any library.

5.

At some point, radical environmentalists must come in out of the woods and attack the central structures of the industrial system. In resisting wilderness destruction and environmental damage, EF! is attacking only the symptoms of the industrial disease and not its root cause. You will never be able to save wilderness permanently unless you can bring down the industrial system itself. To do that you must attack the technology on which the system is based. EF!ers should spend as much time demonstrating or monkeywrenching at computer centers or biotech labs as they do in the wilderness. Suitable targets can be located by reading Scientific American or other science magazines.

15 Comments

  • Zhachev says:

    Regarding the question of strategy, there is effective militant action that can be taken which would go a very long way towards the complete destruction of technoindustrial society; a concrete plan requiring perhaps less than 50-100 individual militants in a country like the USA.

    What’s most important now is figuring out how individuals like these would bring themselves together. From research and Internet chatter, it would seem that other clandestine cellular terrorist networks have been most effective. It’s a model suited for the Internet age; it presumes people can’t be trusted, or will flip to the side of law enforcement under pressure. The architecture for clandestine cellular network model, used by everyone from the IRA to Islamist extremists to State security forces is excellently suited for militant resistance to technoindustrial society and civilization.

    Eco-warriors, come together.

    • Ari Paul says:

      “clandestine cellular network model” … “clandestine cellular terrorist networks have been most effective”

      It makes no sense to speak of any of this publicly. The principle focus must be to cultivate an open and powerful IDEOLOGICAL opposition to the techno-system. The gaol must be to make an anti-tech movement a household name that is feared and despised and whose positions are well known to the public. that is the stage we are at historically. The principle problem now is that most people do not even CONCEIVE of opposition to the technological system.

      • R. Descalzo says:

        Agreed. Anti-tech, anti-civ ideas have to be firmly planted into the public conscience first. As you point out, this doesn’t have to mean that people AGREE with them, but merely that they are aware of them–that these ideas stare them in the face every day. Until then, anti-tech leaders will just be “Children of Ted” (as NY Mag likes to call them) in the public’s eyes and not a serious, independent ideological force.

    • Horny Toad says:

      From Zhachev above: “What’s most important now is figuring out how individuals like these would bring themselves together.” The net has been useful in reading what others have to say ,obviously like Jacobi. It’s a brick wall in the way of advancing though. We’ve reached the brick wall and sit here, amazed, full of ideas,transmitting our ideas for all to see, (see that eye on the 1 dollar bill) but havn’t reached our potential because of blockage. Trust simply can’t be built completely on the net. Neither can a person’s legitimacy.
      This goes for recruits and leaders. I think our potential is massive but will require risky efforts on behalf of all in AntiTech to be realized. Without risk we just sit here, like nerds. Gotta meet in person 🙂

  • Horny Toad says:

    I wonder if those militants really need to “bring themselves together”, or would it just be a matter of timing for them ?

    • Zhachev says:

      When you mention timing, do you mean an advancement in material conditions? As in, as climate change becomes more obvious and wreaks more havoc, therefore compelling more and more to act and take up militant attack and resistance?

  • Horny Toad says:

    No. Instead of bringing those militants together. Just give them a time to act simultaneously. Quote from George Carlin: “Take a fuckin’ chance”. Want to bet there’s way more than the 50-100 you mention that know what to do. A line will need to be crossed. A chance taken,obviously. To not take a chance ? Well….

    • Ari Paul says:

      Henry, I think that’s extraordinarily naive. Organized opposition for various reasons is far more powerful than individuals acting alone but toward the same goal. Effective action requires coordination, camaraderie, economies of scale. All of history confirms this, as well as a basic understanding of social change. What you suggest has absolutely no precedent in any successful revolution or even mass movement.

      Your idea is also self-contradictory: Who is going to “give them a time to act simultaneously”? and why would these militant listen to this person and trust them? If you mean to say they will listen to and follow directives from an individual or small group, well, then there you go, you have an organization that is already “together.”

      • Ari Paul says:

        And, how will this person know who to contact to “give them a time”? and how will they already know each other and have each other’s contact info? But then again now you have an organization… I could go on and on with how naive all this is Horny Toad.

  • Horny Toad says:

    I don’t know for sure,Arin. No way to know for sure. Looks like hackers are doing damage. Seems to me we are waiting. Not sure what for. The economy is going to collapse overnight sometime this month ? Hasn’t happened yet. That’s ok because I think many know what to do. I’m amazed at the stuff that has been displayed online. I also think it’s funny with the pickle that the surveillance state is in because so many are attacking the system in broad daylight online. Kinda like mooning the goons. What’r they gonna do ? Arrest a million people ? We may be pushing their line back. I’d say we should trust Jacobi. I trust that he knows way more than I do with this.That’ll be a chance I take. Done. The first paragraph by Zhachev above probably makes sense to those militants. That’d really be fanning the flames.

  • Zhachev says:

    “Civilization is collapsing and a new world will be born, through the efforts of anti-civilization warriors? Please! Let us see the truth, plant our feet on the ground and let leftism and illusions fly from our minds. The revolution has never existed, nor have revolutionaries; those who view themselves as “potential revolutionaries” and seek a “radical anti-technology shift” are truly being idealistic and irrational because none of that exists, in this dying world only Individual Autonomy exists and it is for this that we fight. And although all this is useless and futile, we prefer to be defeated in a war against total domination than to remain inert, waiting, passive, or as part of all this. We prefer to position ourselves on the side of Wild Fauna and Flora that remain. We prefer to return to nature, respect her absolutely, and abandon the cities to maintain our claims as Anti-civilization Warriors. We prefer to continue the War that we have declared years ago, knowing that we will lose, but promising ourselves that we will give our greatest effort.”

  • Hoot says:

    Has anyone (else) thought about starting a doxxing campaign against the biggest leaches on the planet ? Might be time ?

  • Hoot says:

    Good evening. I have a suggestion as to how things might play out in a positive light for Revolutionaries. It involves inspirational actions. I’m sure if the ball was to get rolling faster with a few big events, many would jump to the base of the fire and “fan the flames” like Horny Toad says above. Actions against the system on a major scale that the media can’t misinterpret, will create further participation. Read Turner Diaries ( fiction and racist, yet displays a Revolution built on morale). This further participation doesn’t necessarily require mass organization, just an understanding of general strategy,which I’m sure many get 100%. Of course organization of groups of numbers would only increase the effectiveness. The blessing in disguise is that many Revolutionaries are as spread out as the targets are. Here is a quote I found to help: ” The broken window theory stems from an article written in 1982 by criminologists James Q. Wilson and George Kelling. Their theory states that signs of disorder will lead to more disorder. A building with a broken window that has been left unrepaired will give the appearance that no one cares and no one is in charge. Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows.”

Leave a Reply