A few days ago, a high school student attacked his classmates in France. He left behind a manifesto denouncing the system and widespread ecocide. On Monday, May 5, several major French media outlets reported that Anti-Tech Resistance is now under police investigation, allegedly linked to these crimes through ideological associations with the attacker.
It is obvious to anyone that the murder of high school students has no place in our political struggle for an anti-tech revolution.Yet the media seem intent on sowing confusion — attempting to associate us with a heinous act of violence in order to discredit anti-tech criticism.
Their goal is to shift the narrative: from a vital critique of our highly technological era to a simplistic, dangerous incitement to violence.
Let us recall facts that journalists have deliberately chosen to ignore: Anti-Tech Resistance was founded in 2022 within a legal, non-violent framework and has operated as such ever since. From the beginning, ATR has positioned itself in direct opposition to the misanthropic ideas found in Justin P.’s manifesto, instead advocating for resistance through political and collective organization.
Though not even mentioned in Justin P.’s writing, author Theodore Kaczynski is now being used by the media to create an artificial link between ATR and the attack of April 24. While ATR has drawn on Kaczynski's ideas and analyses, we have never endorsed his acts of murder, which he himself later repudiated.
In response to accusations of conspiracy theories, we affirm that our strategy is based solely on a materialist analysis of factual and official scientific data, aimed at understanding how industrial infrastructures impact the social, economic, and ecological organization of society. Saying that technology is not neutral is not conspiratorial — it is, on the contrary, a reflection that should be far more common in our time.
To the accusations of sectarianism, we respond that we reach out to the public, that our events are open to all, and that we primarily engage in popular education activities such as conferences, nature outings, and collective sports.
As for our actions, our activists have conducted awareness campaigns to inform the public about the disastrous implications of certain technologies, particularly through a campaign focused on artificial intelligence.
We continue to argue that the industrial organization of society and the spread of technology into every aspect of life foster the very conditions that make such tragedies possible — particularly through the constant exposure of youth to screens, and the resulting isolation and psychological distress. This crisis — social, psychological, and economic — affecting young people is well-documented. And into that void, extremist groups insert their ideologies — from neo-Nazism to eco-fascism.
The crimes of Justin P., now instrumentalized, are being used to condemn and distort radical ecology by all sides of the political spectrum. The left labels the crime as 'eco-fascist,' while the right and center blame the 'far left' and ecology for encouraging young people to commit such irreparable acts. Yet, based on the targeted nature of the attack, it is clear that his manifesto has little connection to his true motivations.
We strongly condemn this media-driven narrative, which seeks to associate the anti-tech movement with a murderer, branding it as sectarian and conspiratorial, despite the lack of any factual evidence to support such claims. This is clearly a political assault on anti-technological critique in France — at a time when such criticism is increasingly urgent, given the deepening social and ecological crisis driven by the relentless push for new technologies.
It is crucial that everyone who understands the significance of our critique stands with us to remind the public that the isolated crime of a disturbed individual should not overshadow decades of technocritical thought, from France to the US. In addition to Kaczynski, we can point to thinkers such as Lewis Mumford, Jacques Ellul, Ivan Illich, Simone Weil, and George Orwell — which forms the foundation of our analysis and activism.
And their conclusions, now more than ever, point to the urgent need for revolutionary change.
