The System’s Neatest Trick

Written by AlexanderTheWake

The technological system has developed a powerful defense mechanism for deflecting negative attention away from itself and coopting rebellious impulses to its own advantage. Rebellious impulses that could potentially threaten the system are redirected in such a way that they are not only harmless to the system but actually enhance the system's power and efficiency--in other words, exploiting rebellious impulses to accelerate the very reforms the system requires. It is this that has been dubbed by Kaczynski as the system's "neatest trick," and here we will briefly outline how it works and what some of its wider implications are for modern society. After one has understood the "neatest trick," they can't help but see it at work everywhere: in media, in entertainment, in politics, in protests and riots, and in social movements at large.

Here is the system's "neatest trick" in a nutshell:

"(a) For the sake of its own efficiency and security, the System needs to bring about deep and radical social changes to match the changed conditions resulting from technological progress.
(b) The frustration of life under the circumstances imposed by the System leads to rebellious impulses.
(c) Rebellious impulses are co-opted by the System in the service of the social changes it requires; activists 'rebel' against the old and outmoded values that are no longer of use to the System and in favor of the new values that the System needs us to accept.
(d) In this way rebellious impulses, which otherwise might have been dangerous to the System, are given an outlet that is not only harmless to the System, but useful to it.
(e) Much of the public resentment resulting from the imposition of social changes is drawn away from the System and its institutions and is directed instead at the radicals who spearhead the social changes."[1]

The techno-industrial system as an entity is forever evolving into a more complex, more artificial state while striving to attain, for the sake of its own security, as much stability as possible. As the system continues to rapidly modify the environment away from the natural set of conditions humans have been adapted to through millions of years of evolution, and, insofar as humans are currently integral to the system’s development, it needs to make corresponding progress in the social and psychological arena to fully reconcile humans to the radically changing environment. As the technological system fails (as it currently is failing) to fully reconcile humans in this way, frustration arises, and where frustration arises so do rebellious impulses. Pretty soon the system has a problem on its hands: These rebellious impulses hold the potential to threaten the safety and security of the system itself (if enough people identified their frustrations with the system and directed their impulses against it). However, the system is cunning, managing to hijack these rebellious impulses, not only neutering the threats, but turning them around to its own advantage. Racism, sexism, economic inequality, etc.—all hot topics of social activism—are of no benefit to the system, rather, they reduce its efficiency by creating friction and disunity in an increasingly diverse society and increasing the dissatisfaction of fringe groups which would be better used to serve the system than to be its social outcasts. Therefore, by redirecting these rebellious impulses away from the techno-industrial system itself and onto counterfeit causes of frustration, it “solves” transient issues of no particular importance overall.

Some groups have proven more susceptible to this trick than others, and this is most blatantly exemplified by modern left-wing activist groups (i.e. the Black Lives Matter movement or the trans rights movement). These groups serve the development of the system by improving efficiency and unity. Kaczynski highlights this with an example of modern journalism:

“When the same editor looks at radical feminism he sees that some of its more extreme solutions would be dangerous to the System, but he also sees that feminism holds much that is useful to the System. Women's participation in the business and technical world integrates them and their families better into the System. Their talents are of service to the System in business and technical matters.”[2]

There are two ways the neatest trick ends up neutralizing potentially dangerous social movements. First, a radical group is flooded with members who each individually have fallen for the trick. These members are only vaguely loyal to the revolutionary agenda and are concerned with the general panoply of “adversary culture” causes (i.e. anti-racism, anti-sexism, etc.) such that the movement’s original revolutionary goal is drowned out and becomes just another protest against the negative symptoms of the technological system, which the system wants to reform anyway. The second, is that the movement as a whole gradually succumbs to the trick: the original radical goal is slowly transmuted into a set of reformist goals, either by the lack of courage of the movement’s original leaders or genuine foolishness. The movement maintains its pretense of being revolutionary–attracting people with the rebellious impulses the technological system has created–but in effect it is actually reforming the technological system, helping it to both maintain and enhance its efficiency. Take, for example, the early (1980s) movement Earth First! movement. The early days (1980s) of Earth First! (EF!) were dominated by an overarching view that the techno-industrial system must fall, and that any ideology or activist group that tries to make amends through reform is doomed to failure.

“The latter focus refers to the replacement of our technological industrial society by one that will allow the perpetual existence of big wilderness, as well as the human species. There is no question that our growth-centered, polluting society must be completely replaced if ecological destruction is ever to be halted and reversed.”[3][4]

Earth First! as it now stands is pale-shadow of its former radical days. In composition and expression, they have been effectively neutered. Another example is “Extinction Rebellion.” It’s hard to nail down exactly what it stands for, but it is clear that while they maintain some "rebellious" pretentions, their official motives are reformist and consistent with maintaining technological society. But their more radical pretentions nevertheless help it attract the kind of rebellious impulses generated by modern society. In effect, this funnels rebellious impulses away from genuine anti-technological organizing and into the channels that are harmless and often useful to the system.

Leftist and environmentalist movements are not the only ones to fall for the trick. In recent times, the trick has been played on conservatives. Groups leaning more towards distrust of the system from a conservative perspective are redirected away from meaningful opposition against the technological system as a whole and instead towards absurd or counterproductive side issues, usually of a conspiratorial flavor. The system couldn’t care less if people believed that the CIA backed the assassination of JFK, or if the moon landing was false, etc., as these topics of debate do not form the basis of any considerable “resistance.” If conservatives, for example, believe that the COVID-19 lockdowns or vaccine mandates are highly problematic from a human dignity and freedom perspective, then real rebellious, revolutionary activity would be to push for an end to industrial technology–as industrial technology inevitably has led to overpopulation and overcrowding (increasing the predominance and size of pandemics) and inevitably requires mass public health systems and mass compliance (to efficiently maintain its own stability). At the very least the conservatives should push for an end to all biotechnological research. Instead, their rebellious impulses are channeled into denouncing “Big Government” or “Big Pharma” which at best are reformist concerns and at worst simply induce apathy and paranoia. When the left pushes back at these conservatives, they reinforce in the conservatives’ minds the feeling that their concerns are truly rebellious, and that the political left are part of, and acting as defenders for, a corrupt system.

As the trick is self-perpetuating, it feeds into the left vs. right dynamic and leads to political discourse on socio-economic terms rather than discourse against the system on the basis of erosion of freedom and destruction of nature, misleading both groups into believing they are the counterculture and resistance against the other. Instead, these groups essentially play the role of controlled opposition to the system.

___________

NOTES:

[1] Kaczynski, Theodore John, Technological Slavery, Vol. 1, Fitch & Madison Publishers, Scottsdale, AZ, 2022. P. 119.

[2] Kaczynski, Theodore John, Technological Slavery, Vol. 1, Fitch & Madison Publishers, Scottsdale, AZ, 2022. P 124-135.

[3] "A brief outline of Earth First! and it's beliefs and goals," Earth First! Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C., Date Unknown, Last Accessed September 17, 2024, University of Victoria Library online archive, https://vault.library.uvic.ca/concern/generic_works/c78f22ca-c96f-48bd-b391-342233b15be0?locale=en.

[4] Earth First! The Politics of Radical Environmentalism. Directed by Christopher Manes. (1987).