Stop the Machines: The Rise of Anti-Technology Extremism

In early May 2025, a short video began circulating on X (formerly Twitter). It showed a humanoid robot malfunctioning in a laboratory, flailing erratically before collapsing. The clip quickly went viral, often accompanied by captions that read ‘the first robot rebellion in human history.’ Playing on common fears about AI and robotics, memes flooded the replies, ironically highlighting how people react to technological glitches. Yet, while jokes about robot uprisings persist, we might witness an uprising against the machines before anyone is led by them.

This is the premise of my new book, Stop the Machines: The Rise of Anti-Technology Extremism, which explores how opposition to technology has the potential to become a major driver of political violence and extremism in the near future.

It is often said, and rightly so: we are living through an era of extraordinary technological progress. Barely a week goes by without a new breakthrough in AI, robotics, or nanotechnology. These developments promise to fundamentally reshape our society and our lives, ushering in what many are calling the Fifth Industrial Revolution – a phase that will see the convergence of physical, digital, and biological technologies, promising to transform economies, redefine labour, and change human life itself.

Yet as progress gathers speed, so too does a growing sense of dread. While techno-optimists herald the wonders and benefits that innovation will bring, many are voicing scepticism and fear. Concerns about surveillance, job automation, military applications of AI, and algorithmic biases are multiplying. However, the relentless march of machines has also stoked a deeper anxiety; the fear that our creations could ultimately surpass, subjugate, or even supplant us – the fear that technology could pose an existential risk.

Of course, concerns regarding the impact of technology on our lives and society are hardly new. In modern history, beginning with the First Industrial Revolution, waves of resistance have followed major technological leaps. The Luddite movement in the early 19th century – skilled textile workers who destroyed mechanised looms – was an early and visceral response to industrial change. One and a half century later, in the 1980s, the neo-Luddite movement revived this spirit, warning of technology’s detrimental impact on the environment and human relationships. At the extreme end, extremists like Theodore J. Kaczynski (the Unabomber) condemned industrial society and advocated for its dismantlement.

From this modern history of anti-tech resistance, three recurring themes emerge. First, technology as a threat to material security – a force that reshapes the means and modes of production, jeopardising certain sections and professions. Second, as a threat to ontological security – an oppressive power that erodes our connection to each other and to nature. Third, as an existential threat: a long-term risk that endangers humanity’s very existence.

It is within this third category that a particularly violent strain of extremism has emerged – an ideological current that views the very existence of modern technology as an intolerable threat. Its adherents have given up on attempts to regulate or reform technology. Instead, they pursue the violent eradication of technology and the collapse of techno-industrial society.

Defining Anti-Technology Extremism

Anti-technology extremism is not a unified movement, but rather an ideological current that possesses one remarkable quality: flexibility. This characteristic allows it to cut across diverse ideological milieus – such as insurrectionary anarchism, eco-extremism, and eco-fascism – creating dangerous synergies between otherwise opposing movements. The common thread is a belief that technology, especially in its modern, industrial form, represents an existential threat – and that violence is justified to resist or dismantle it.

In insurrectionary anarchism, the fight against technology intersects with the class struggle and the fight against capitalism. Technology is viewed as a tangible manifestation of power structures, with the techno-elites striving to establish a dystopian ‘prison-society’ that threatens individual freedom and the environment. Eco-extremists see technology and nature as two archenemies locked in a cosmic battle. Identifying with nature, they are driven by misanthropic and nihilistic motives; they do not fight for a brighter future but rather to defend nature and exact revenge on technology and the ‘hypercivilised’ – humans that have become mere cogs in the technological system. Meanwhile, eco-fascists believe that technology weakens the bond between people and the land, threatening the supposed purity of the white race and the spirit of the nation.

Despite their differences, these ideologies share a common aim: to undo the Anthropocene, the era of human dominance over the planet. Four core elements characterise this emerging anti-technology extremism:

1. Technology as an All-Encompassing Megamachine

At the heart of anti-technological extremism lies a fundamental perception of technology not as a set of isolated tools or devices, but as an integrated, totalising system – a ‘megamachine’ – that fuses human beings and machines into a single, complex entity. Technology is not neutral; it embodies the values and power structures of the socio-economic systems from which it arises. From this perspective, technology is society. Therefore, the only solution is its total dismantlement.

Each ideological milieu interprets this through its own lens. For insurrectionary anarchists, the megamachine constitutes both an autonomous enslaving entity and a conspiracy of the techno-elites who aim to implement their vision of a prison-society. Eco-extremists view technology as a cosmic enemy to Wild Nature, a malignant force that corrupts all that is natural, whereas eco-fascists believe it severs the ancestral bonds between race and land, leading to moral corruption, decay, and the decline of the white race.

2. A Commitment to Preserving Nature and Humanity

This second element complements the urge to dismantle the megamachine. It is expressed in the impulse to defend and preserve all that is natural and human – whether that means the environment, freedom, or an idealised, racially defined past. For insurrectionary anarchists, technology jeopardises individual freedom and the autonomy of nature. Their opposition is also a pre-emptive strike against a hypothetical ‘Mechanocene’ – a future where machines have eroded the essence of humanity. Instead, eco-extremists see technology and nature trapped in a zero-sum competition where one cannot flourish without degrading the other. Unable to coexist, nature has to defend itself. From this perspective, eco-extremists frame their fight as allegiance to nature itself, their violence becoming an extension of it. In the eco-fascist narrative, instead, technology has weakened the organic link between people and land, which they seek to restore – often through deeply hierarchical and exclusionary visions of nature. While differing substantially, these visions reflect a common sense of loss of control, identity, and connection.

3. An Apocalyptic Worldview

Anti-technological extremism is infused with an apocalyptic outlook – a belief in an imminent, transformative apocalypse that will sweep away the existing order and usher in a new one. Fearing the impending rise of the techno-dystopian ‘prison-society,’ insurrectionary anarchists believe that a conflict between those who support and those who resist technology has already started. Eco-extremists present a more puzzling vision. While professing their disinterest in revolution and displaying staunch nihilistic beliefs, they also believe that techno-industrial civilisation is bent on self-destruction. It is not a struggle they will win on their own – they are not saviours or revolutionaries, just nature’s agents of entropy. Finally, eco-fascists envision an imminent racial conflict that will act as a fire cleansing society from all its impurities and returning the world to a romantic, idyllic past where nation and nature lived in harmony with one another. This apocalyptic thinking fuels a sense of urgency and contributes to legitimising violence.

4. A Leaderless and Accelerationist Fight

Finally, anti-technological extremism adopts a strategic framework that is both accelerationist and leaderless. Accelerationism, in this context, seeks to hasten the collapse of civilisation by targeting key infrastructure and human elements of the megamachine. This strategy is consistently employed, though with differences across the milieus. For instance, anarchists focus on techno-elites, whereas eco-extremists attack the ‘hyper-civilised’ and eco-fascists target non-whites and ‘race traitors.’ Tactics also vary often depending on pre-existing operational patterns within each milieu. Insurrectionary anarchists have historically shown a propensity for a range of tactics that includes arson, sabotage, and improvised explosive devices. While exceptions do exist, they tend to avoid lethal violence attacking infrastructures, but also research centres and tech companies. Eco-extremists follow similar patterns with the crucial difference that they advocate for indiscriminate violence. Their targets often include research centres, universities, but also banks, malls, and public events thought to symbolise techno-industrial civilisation. Eco-fascists inherit the propensity for mass violence that is typical of the contemporary far right. Recent eco-fascist attacks like the El Paso shooting epitomise this trend, while critical infrastructures also represent a recurring target. 

Leaderless resistance – autonomous action by decentralised individuals or small autonomous cells – increases resilience, making the movement harder to disrupt. For example, eco-fascists – and the broader far-right movement – have widely adopted this strategy following its endorsement by far-right thought leaders like Louis Beam and James Mason. While inheriting it from radical environmentalist traditions, eco-extremists have also similarly justified it because of the tactical advantages it poses in hyper-securitised environments. Yet leaderless resistance is not always adopted because of the advantages it affords; leaderlessness is integral to anarchist ideology – a reflection of its long-lasting tradition against hierarchical and coercive forms of authority.

Despite the absence of a formal hierarchy, informal figures exert influence. Among those, Theodore Kaczynski looms large. His thought, expressed in his manifesto, Industrial Society and Its Future, and subsequent texts, remains a beacon of anti-technology extremism that resonates across all milieus and offers both an intellectual critique of modernity and a blueprint for violence.

The Escalation Potential

The ingredients of this explosive mixture are already there: a flexible ideological current that cuts across different milieus, a perception of technology as an omnipresent and totalising mega-machine, an escalation-bent strategies that seek to initiate the collapse of the techno-industrial system, and an apocalyptic millenarian mindset. Together, these four elements not only offer a conceptual framework for understanding anti-technological extremism but also underscore its prospects for escalation. In the era of ‘composite and often inconsistent ideological constructs,’ the flexibility of anti-technology extremism allows it to provide common ground, creating synergies across actors who would normally be antagonistic toward one another. This convergence, in turn, amplifies its potential for violence, making it a phenomenon of growing concern in the landscape of contemporary extremism.

Yet, while anti-technological extremists present real dangers, they are still a fringe movement. They are unlikely to pose existential threats to society and should not be treated as such. Their four core beliefs outlined above reflect deep anxieties about alienation, disempowerment, and loss of agency in the face of rapid technological change. Over-securitising these movements risks reinforcing their narratives; for now, proportionate intelligence and law enforcement should suffice to monitor and contain the threat. At the same time, however, we need to address the deeper appeal of anti-technological extremism – something which requires going beyond security measures. The movement’s concerns often echo broader societal issues, such as economic exploitation, erosion of identity, and existential dislocation. As mentioned above, these are captured in the material, ontological, and existential dimensions. A meaningful response should address the tripartite nature of anti-technology sentiments by aiming to regulate the exploitative use of technology while also rethinking our ethical relationship with technology. Ultimately, the challenge is not technology itself, but how it is used within unequal, profit-driven systems. A more humane and reflective approach to technological progress – one that prioritises connection, agency, and ecological balance – offers the best path forward to stop the rise of anti-technology extremism.

This article represents the views of the author(s) solely. ICCT is an independent foundation, and takes no institutional positions on matters of policy unless clearly stated otherwise.