Resistance Protocols

Kaczynski's case for Bioconservatism

Note: By “political attack”, Kaczynski means communicating a grievance to the public and publically advocating for a piece of legislation, not necessarily for the purposes of getting legislation passed, but more so for the purposes of weakening the establishment by reducing the amount of public support it enjoys. “Probably the most promising target for political attack is the biotechnology industry. Though revolutions are generally carried out by minorities, it is very useful to have some degree of support, sympathy, or at least acquiescence from the general population. To get that kind of support or acquiescence is one of the goals of political action. If you concentrated your political attack on, for example, the electric-power industry, it would be extremely difficult to get any support outside of a radical minority, because most people resist change to their way of living, especially any change that inconveniences them. For this reason, few would be willing to give up electricity. But people do not yet feel themselves dependent on advanced biotechnology as they do on electricity. Eliminating biotechnology will not radically change their lives. On the contrary, it would be possible to show people that the continued development of biotechnology will transform their way of life and wipe out age-old human values. Thus, in challenging biotechnology, radicals should be able to mobilize in their own favor the natural human resistance to change.” [1] [1] "Hit where it hurts", Ted Kaczynski