A text dump on eco-extremism

Eco-Extremism; An Intro & A Critique

An Intro to Individualists Tending toward the Wild

Source: The Politics of Attack.

---

[ITS] has explicitly rejected association with anarchism, and via a subsequent (i.e. second generation) moniker, rejected both the label of “leftist” and “insurrectionary”.

In a rare interview the group provided in 2014, it describes its purpose, stating:

[ITS] deemed it necessary to carry out the direct attack against the Technoindustrial System. We think that the struggle against this is not only a stance of wanting to abandon Civilization, regressing to Nature, or in refuting the system’s values, without also, attacking it.

ITS has received international attention after repeatedly targeting scientists and researchers with lethal force. ITS has stood out from other bombers due to its lengthy, academic-styled communiqués and direct attacks on individuals from outside the typical target set: heads of state and corporations, officials in law enforcement, jailing, etc. ITS is unique in at least two matters: its stated objective to kill, and its specific, tech-related target set. In the 2014 interview, cell members explain:

Our immediate objectives are very clear: injure or kill scientists and researchers (by the means of whatever violent act) who ensure the Technoindustrial System continues its course. As we have declared on various occasions, our concrete objective is not the destruction of the Technoindustrial system, it is the attack with all the necessary resources, lashing out at this system which threatens to close off all paths to the reaching of our Individual Freedom, putting into practice our defensive instinct

… ITS has from the beginning proposed the attack against the system as the objective, striving to make these kinds of ideas spread around the globe through extreme acts, in defense of Wild Nature, as we have done.

According to their own historical account, the group began experimenting in 2011 with “arson attacks on cars and construction machinery, companies and institutions … until we decided to focus on terrorism and not sabotage”. From 2011–2014, ITS deployed at least 13 mail bombs, two mailed threats accompanied by bullets, and assassinated Méndez Salinas, a biotechnologist with the Institute of Bio-Technology at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Salinas was shot in the head, and according to ITS, killed by “the most violent cell of ITS in Morelos, being already familiar with the purchase and use of firearms.”

Through their various communiqués and interviews, ITS has claimed responsibility for a series of attacks, many of which were claimed under other monikers and later linked to the ITS network. For example, in August 2014, ITS declared the formation of Wild Reaction (RS):

After a little more than three years of criminal-terrorist activity, the group … [ITS] … begins a new phase in this open war against the Technoindustrial System … we want to explain that during all of 2012 and 2013, various groups of a terrorist and sabotage stripe were uniting themselves with the group ITS, so that now, after a long silence and for purely strategic reasons, we publicly claim [10 attacks from newly affiliated networks] … All of these have now fused with the ITS groups in Morelos, Mexico City, Guanajuato, Hidalgo, Coahuila and Veracruz … Due to this union, the extravagant and little-practical pseudonym of ““Individualists Tending toward the Wild’ (ITS) ceases to exist, and from now on the attacks against technology and civilization will be signed with the new name of “Wild Reaction”(RS).

Prior to this announcement, in April 2014 a group calling itself Obsidian Point Circle of Analysis (OPCAn) activated a new clandestine cell (which would later be absorbed into RS) called Obsidian Point Circle of Attack (OPCA). The formation of OPCAn was preceded by three commentaries on ITS and the authors “becoming tired of simply writing.” In its opening declaration OPCA writes:

It has been some time since we started writing about some situations that had arisen in Mexico concerning the terrorist group ITS; we published a total of three analyses, in which we have publicly demonstrated our support of the group ITS, in their actions as much as their position. Until now we have decided to solely be those who comfortably spread and highlighted the group’s communiques and actions, but that is over. The violent advance of the techno-industrial system, the degradation that civilization leaves in its wake and the oblivion they are forcing us toward, ceasing to be natural humans to the point of turning into humanoids: there must be a convincing response.

We abandon words and analyses in order to begin with our war … We only seek confrontation with the system, the sharpening of the conflict against it. From this day we publicly put aside the word “analysis,” in order to become The Obsidian Point Circle of Attack.

Thus, according to its own narrative, ITS inspired public commentary and critique by OPCAn and, in September 2014, when ITS became RS, it was announced that RS included OPCA as well. In the first declaration by RS, the authors explain: “during this year … two more terroristic groups have united with us who have put the development of the Technoindustrial System in their sights … The ‘Obsidian Point Circle of Attack’ … [and] … The ‘Atlatl Group.’” Therefore, a complete history of ITS’s actions includes both attacks claimed under their name, those claimed under the OPCA and RS, as well as smaller groupings merged under the network’s banner. According to a chronology assembled from the networks’ communications, the network has claimed at least 27 distinct actions including 22 IED attacks (mostly mail and package/parcel bombs), three written threats, several arsons of property, one animal release, and one fatal shooting.

In early 2016, the ITS moniker saw its first usage outside of the borders of Mexico. In the second ITS communiqué of 2016, the “Uncivilized Southerners” cell “abandoned a homemade explosive charge” on a bus in Santiago, Chile writing:

The Eco-Extremist tendency spreads … We are accomplices to its ideas and acts, forming part of it. We are giving life to an international project against civilization.

Because we are bullets to the head, mail-bombs, indiscriminate bombings and incinerating fire, we are:

Individualists Tending Toward the Wild – Chile.

A few days later, in the fourth ITS communiqué of 2016, an ITS cell in Argentina claimed responsibility for placing an IED in a Buenos Aires bus station. In the message accompanying the bomb, the attackers wrote: “ITS is in Argentina”. The emergence of new ITS cells appears to be an ongoing trend. Five days after the Argentina communiqué was posted to a Spanish-language insurrectionary hub, the same site featured a communiqué signed by five cells of ITS, three from Mexico, and one each from Argentina and Chile. The communiqué traces the origin and expansion of the ITS and RS monikers and announces “a new phase of the war against all that represents and sustains the advance of civilization and progress”.

In Mexico, ITS’s bombs have targeted civilian, seemingly ‘non-political’ scientists, professors, technical experts, researchers, and technocrats and within a politic most closely described as (Green) anarcho-primitivism. Famed “Unabomber” Theodore Kaczynski popularized this framework in the 1980s during a 17-year (1978–1995) bombing campaign involving 16 bombs, which killed three people and injured 23. Following the publication of “Industrial Society and its Future” – popularly known as the “Unabomber manifesto” and released five months after his final attack – Kaczynski’s spirit has been carried forth by ITS and a few similar networks.

The group’s origins broadly

Source: Does the Unabomber have any relevance to anarchism?

---

ITS Mexico were originally part of the green & insurrectionary anarchist milieus and likely grew up on earth first monkey-wrenching manuals from the 80s:[1]

The group draws its inspiration from anarcho-primitivism, an “anti-civilization anarchy” from which ITS is largely inspired. “I took the theories of the ‘Earth Liberation Front’ further, and gave them a different tone,” explains Xale. “I was interested in the issues facing the American continent, in the indigenous cultures that opposed civilization,” assures the Mexican member of ITS in the video.

With anarchism, the relationship at the moment is one of rupture, although there is no dishonor in accepting that many eco-extremists and some members of ITS come from anarchism, mostly from insurrectionist and eco-anarchist tendencies. Although at the time there were some ties, today the vast majority of anarchists hate us.

Referring to the groups history, Xale, a member of ITS Mexico wrote:[2]

This chronology could well be added to that of Individualities Tending to the Wild (2011–2013), or that of the anti civilization cells of the Earth Liberation Front (2008–2012), but we decided to focus on RS, for now.

Searching through the over 300 sabotage actions that occurred in Mexico between 2018 & 2012, and the at least 10 with ELF in the title of the post, there do appear to be a few attacks that fit ITS modus operandi and communiqués which fit their early idiolect:[3]

Early this morning, September 21, our cell placed a bomb made of butane gas at the gates of the headquarters of Nueva Escuela Tecnológica [New School of Technology] in the municipality of Coacalco, Mexico State.

The authorities in that municipality had previously implemented security systems that belong in the worst nightmares of Orwell.

Security cameras, artificial eyes guarding their damned social peace, throughout the major avenues in Coacalco.

In the commercial area, the police presence is evident, state police and the mediocre municipal police pass through the streets and on Lopez Portillo Avenue.

Guarding the centers of domination and domestication that are also protected by surveillance cameras and the idiot guardians of the imposed order.

Facing this situation of high surveillance, it seemed impossible to strike, but rebellious creativity is greater than the highest degree of ‘security’ that the state implements.

The Coacalco commercial area had been previously visited by eco-anarchist cells who conducted significant strikes right in front of the police, who were flabbergasted by an arson, a butane explosion, graffiti and paint spilled in anthropocentric business.

Our action was censured both by the directors of the Nueva Escuela Tecnológica and the Mexico State authorities. They hid the damage that we caused and concealed the evidence of our presence at night. This is not unusual; it happened after the ‘celebrations’ of the ephemeral bicentennial celebration which were held in ‘total’ peace.

The Agencia de Seguridad Estatal [state security agency] as well as detectives from the Mexico City police department are aware of our actions and our presence; they know that we were there and that we detonated our explosive charge as the lackeys on patrol passed by unable to stop us.

We chose to attack the NET because it represents the new era of these centers of domestication called schools, where they learn things that are useless for a free life, but necessary for a life of slavery and alienation. They create beings that depend on technology in order to live in these concrete nests called cities, but more closely resemble large prisons. They train malleable minds to be used for entrepreneurship and to expand civilization over wild nature. We will not permit this.

Once again we say: not with their cameras, nor their police officers, nor with their investigators, nor their prisons, will they be able to stop us; we once again skinned the rotten bastards, godammit!

This action is dedicated to the Chilean anarchist prisoners, captured after the wave of repression in that country on August 14; we send much strength, from mexico we remember them in every direct action.

We did not want to wait until the 24^th to show our solidarity.

Support is not only for one day, it is in our everyday actions!

Direct solidarity for the eco prisoners Abraham López and Adrian Magdaleno, for the eco revolutionaries on hunger strike in Switzerland, for the animal liberation prisoner Walter Bond in the U.S., and the vegan warriors imprisoned in Italy!

Keep running Diego, you’re fucking awesome!

Earth Liberation Front/Mexico

Upon reading translated Unabomber material they started along a road that began with committing arsons aimed at sabotaging evil companies and ended with them desiring to have the wider effect of terrorizing people through fear of injury or death out of a simple hatred for humanity:[4]

… in 2011 the (newly formed) ITS was testing various modus operandi (from known and attempted arson attacks on cars and construction machinery, companies and institutions in Coahuila, Guanajuato, and Veracruz State of Mexico, until we decided to focus on terrorism and not sabotage).

Here are old members of the FAI / CCF in Mexico acknowledging former collaboration and ideological crossover:[5]

Exactly 5 years and seven months ago we signed a “joint statement” at the request of a comrade for whom we feel great affection and respect. That text was entitled “2^nd Joint Statement of the Anarchist Insurrectional and Eco-Anarchist Groups”. …

Back then, we let it be known publicly and energetically that:

“With these ITS partners, we can have theoretical differences and discuss them (always arguing fraternally in a constant attempt to update ideas and by building a unitary criticism attuned to the reality of the anarchist struggle), but we have never disagreed with the methods used, understanding anti-authoritarian violence and propaganda for the facts as they are : valid practices consistent with our ethical principles.”

Although ITS were one of the few clusters with which we did not directly coordinate when undertaking joint actions, we were in solidarity with them, in the same way that some of the comrades that made up our affinity groups obtained monetary resources for them to solve specific difficulties when requested. That has been (and is) the basis of practical co-ordination between the new anarchic insurrectionalism and eco-anarchism.

In their early communiques they would express solidarity with anarchist prisoners:[6]

Total support with the Anti-civilization prisoners in Mexico, with the Chilean comrades and with the furious Italians and Swiss. …

One more time: Direct and total support with the anti-civilization prisoners of Mexico, with those eco-anarchists of Switzerland, to the affinities in Argentina, Spain, Italy, Chile and Russia.

Here is an answer members of ITS gave in a text interview in 2014 I think showing they were part of a leftist mileu, in that they only later rejected leftist mass movement building and so are not simply post-left-&-right:[7]

Individualists tending towards the wild formed at the beginning of 2011, and was motivated by the reasoning acquired during a slow process of getting to know, questioning, and the rejection of all that encompasses leftism and the civilized, and accordingly, employing all the above, we deemed it necessary to carry out the direct attack against the Technoindustrial System. We think that the struggle against this is not only a stance of wanting to abandon Civilization, regressing to Nature, or in refuting the system’s values, without also attacking it.

Finally, ITS also claimed that more ELF and Anarchist groups joined them later when they briefly took on the name Wild Reaction:[8]

First of all, we want to explain that during all of 2012 and 2013, various groups of a terrorist and sabotage stripe were uniting themselves with the group ITS, so that now, after a long silence and for purely strategic reasons, we publicly claim:

1) The “Informal Anti-civilization Group,” which on June 29, 2011, took responsibility for the explosion that severely damaged a Santander bank in the city of Tultitlan, Mexico.

2) “Uncivilized Autonomous,” who on October 16, 2011 set off a bomb inside the ATMs of a Banamex, located between the cities of Tultitlan and Coacalco in Mexico State. …

4) “Wild Indomitables,” who on October 16, 2011 left a butane gas bomb that did not detonate in a Santander bank in the Álvaro Obregón district of Mexico City. The act was never claimed until now.

5) “Terrorist Cells for the Direct Attack – Anti-civilization Fraction,” which in 2010 and 2011 left a fake bomb in front of the IFaB (Pharmacological and Biopharmeceutical Research), and detonated an explosive outside the building of the National Ecology Institute (INE), both in the Tlalpan district of Mexico City.

6) “Luddites against the Domestication of Wild Nature,” who during 2009 to 2011 had taken part in various incendiary attacks in some cities in Mexico State and various districts of Mexico City, claimed or unclaimed.

8) “Earth Liberation Front – Bajío”, which on November 16, 2011 set off an explosive charge creating damages within the ATM area of a branch of the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) in the city of Irapuato in Guanajuato.

All of these have now fused with the ITS groups in Morelos, Mexico City, Guanajuato, Hidalgo, Coahuila and Veracruz.

Due to this union, the extravagant and little-practical pseudonym of “Individualists Tending toward the Wild” (ITS) ceases to exist, and from now on the attacks against technology and civilization will be signed with the new name of “Wild Reaction” (RS).

These were groups that other anarchists were relating to as anarchists also. As the joint declaration of the insurrectional anarchist and eco-anarchist groups of Mexico referred to earlier was signed by some of these groups who later merged with ITS or had a very similar ideology:[9]

Luddites against the Domestication of Wild Nature (LDNS)

Earth Liberation Front (FLT)

Free, Dangerous, Savage and Incendiary Individuals for the Black Plague(ILPSIPN)

Kaczynski’s influence specifically

An ITS propagandist:[10]

Born out of various radical ideologies such as animal liberation, insurrectionary anarchism, anarcho-primitivism, and the neo-Luddism of Theodore Kaczynski, it has germinated and sprouted forth into something entirely other …

ITS:[11]

We have never denied that the essay, “Industrial Society and Its Future” has been an important part of our formation into what we are now. For that reason, in the past we used such terms as “leftists,” “power process,” “feelings of inferiority,” “liberty and autonomy,” etc. that in the present we have omitted or changed for other words so that we distinguish ourselves from the “indomitistas” of Kaczynski. …

Michael Loadenthal:[12]

[ITS] specifically address their relationship to Kaczynski in their fourth communiqué:

Have ITS copied Ted Kaczynski? The million-dollar question.

Without a doubt, we see this person as an individual who with his profound rational analysis contributed greatly to the advance of antitechnological ideas; his simple way of living in a manner strictly away from Civilization and the persecution of his Freedom in an optimal environment make him a worthy individual who due to a family betrayal is serving multiple life sentences in the United States … If we cite Stirner, Rand, Kaczynski, Nietzsche, Orwell, some scientists and other people in our communiques they are only for references, we do not have reason to be in agreement with all their lines and positions … It has been said that we imitate the Unabomber; perhaps we have seen as strategic the action of [Kaczynski’s moniker] the Freedom Club against scientific personalities in the United States in the 70′s, 80′s and 90′s, and we have adopted this, but let it be clear that we have not imitated all his discourse in its totality, since as we said above, there are points that are plainly contrary to the positions of the FC.

In their sixth communiqué, ITS (2012) notes that their early writings (i.e. first and second communiqués) did in fact borrow from Kaczynski, but that after reflecting on their “poor interpretations” the group has “discarded [Kaczynski’s ideas] and now for us they have no validity.” Despite what many regard as similarities in critique, and despite ITS occasionally quoting Kaczynski directly, ITS subsequently denies ideological connections. In the first communiqué as “Wild Reaction, ‘Kill or Die’ Group” (2014) the group writes:

We deny being followers of Ted Kaczynski … we have indeed learned many things from reading Industrial Society and Its Future, the texts after this and the letters before this text signed by ‘Freedom Club’ (FC), but that does not mean that we are his followers. In fact our position clashes with Kaczynski’s, FC’s … since we do not consider ourselves revolutionaries, we do not want to form an ‘anti-technological movement’ that encourages the ‘total overthrow of the system,’ we do not see it as viable, we do not want victory, we do not pretend to win or lose, this is an individual fight against the mega-machine; we don’t care about getting something positive from this, since we are simply guided by our instincts of defense and survival.

Here one can witness RS’s declared revolutionary intent, to “bring it all crashing down” while avoiding the trapping of movement building and conceiving of the conflict in terms of winners and losers. In this communiqué, after the group changed its name, RS goes on to further declare their ideological independence from the prominent critics of technology (e.g. primitivists) as well as the global anarcho-insurrectional milieu through which their communications are circulated and consumed. In their proclamation of non-affiliation, RS states:

Thus neither Kaczynski … or any other with the (supposed) “primitivist” stamp represents RS. Nor do the Informal Anarchist Federation (FAI), the Conspiracy of Cells of Fire (CCF), Feral Faun, or any other with the “ecoanarchist” or “anti-civilization cell of …” stamp. RS and its groups only represent themselves. (Wild Reaction, “Kill or Die” Group 2014)

Despite ITS/RS’s insistence to the contrary, prominent anarcho-primitivist thinker John Zerzen, often spoken of as the “founder” of the movement, notes that “ITS group is real slavish to Ted Kaczynski” (Morin 2014). Zerzen goes on to say that he does not believe ITS’s methods will prove successful and that he is “turn[ed] off” by their usage of mailed explosives and their cavalier dismissal of human causalities (Morin 2014).

Sean Fleming:[13]

In thought and in action, Kaczynski is a lone wolf. His Manifesto articulates a theory or worldview that is peculiar to him and built from a unique combination of Ellul’s, Morris’s, and Seligman’s ideas. Terrorism scholars have recently questioned ‘whether it is time to put the “lone wolf” category to rest altogether’, since alleged lone wolves are rarely as independent as they appear: ‘ties to online and offline radical milieus are critical’. Yet, as I have shown, Kaczynski is unusual in that most of his ideological formation took place in a library, outside of any radical milieu. His association with radical environmentalists, who shared his disdain for modern technology, was a consequence rather than a cause of his radicalization. The Unabomber case shows that terrorists can emerge from a relative ideological vacuum, even if this is rare, and that the concept of the lone wolf might therefore be worth retaining.

Although Kaczynski began his anti-tech bombing campaign as a lone wolf, he has since become the leader of a pack. Just as he had hoped, his Manifesto has spawned an ideology – a public discourse of anti-tech – and inspired a cluster of anti-tech radical groups. Kaczynski is not just an extreme example of an anti-tech radical, but also the founder and lodestar of a new form of anti-tech radicalism.

In the immediate aftermath of his arrest, many of Kaczynski’s followers came from the outer fringe of the green movement. One of his early correspondents and confidants was John Zerzan, a prominent anarcho-primitivist. Another was Derrick Jensen, cofounder of the radical environmentalist group Deep Green Resistance. Kaczynski’s alliances with green anarchists and radical environmentalists were tenuous and short-lived. He ultimately fell out with Zerzan, Jensen, and their respective movements for the same reason: they are committed to many ‘leftist’ causes that he considers to be dangerous distractions. Whereas Kaczynski’s opposition to technology is stubbornly single-minded, Zerzan and Jensen see technology as only one facet of ‘civilization’, alongside patriarchy, racism, and exploitation of animals. Only years later did Kaczynski begin to attract a following that was committed to his brand of anti-tech radicalism. As he notes in his 2016 book, ‘it is only since 2011 that I’ve had people who have been willing and able to spend substantial amounts of time and effort in doing research for me’. Coincidentally or not, 2011 is also the year that the Mexican terrorist group ITS emerged.

John Jacobi, a follower of Kaczynski, distinguishes three clusters of Kaczynski-inspired anti-tech radicals. First are the ‘apostles’ of Kaczynski, the indomitistas, led by his pseudonymous Spanish correspondent Último Reducto. The indomitistas devote themselves mainly to translating and analysing Kaczynski’s writings. They comprise part of his ‘inner circle’, which also conducts research for him and operates the publisher, Fitch & Madison, which prints his books. The other two clusters are the ‘heretics’, who are inspired by Kaczynski’s writings but diverge from him and the indomitistas about the finer points of doctrine, strategy, and tactics. One is Jacobi’s own group, the wildists, which broke away from the more orthodox indomitistas to build a broader coalition of ‘anti-civilization’ radicals.The other cluster of heretics, which is my focus in this article, comprises ITS and its offshoots. Whereas the indomitistas and the wildists focus on developing and propagating anti-tech ideas, ITS is eager for dramatic and violent action.

Journalists and terrorism scholars have labelled ITS ‘eco-terrorists’ and sometimes ‘eco-anarchists’, comparing the group to Deep Green Resistance and the Earth Liberation Front. ITS itself uses the term ‘eco-extremist’, which invites these comparisons. However, ITS is not just a more bellicose variant of radical environmentalism or green anarchism. An analysis of the group’s communiqués shows that its ideology is a distinctly Kaczynskian form of anti-tech radicalism.

Although ITS was influenced by radical environmentalism, the ‘eco’ in ‘eco-extremism’ is misleading. It does not refer to ‘deep ecology’; ITS rejects the ‘sentimentalism, irrationalism and biocentrism’ that it sees in many radical environmentalist groups. Instead, the ‘eco’ refers to the group’s ideal of ‘wild nature’, which accords a central place to human nature. ITS’s central concern, like Kaczynski’s, is that ‘human beings are moving away more dangerously from their natural instincts’. Adopting Kaczynski’s ‘bioprimitivism’, as I have called it, ITS argues that ‘the human being is biologically programmed … through evolution’ for the life of a ‘hunter-gatherer-nomad’.

Although it shares the hunter-gatherer ideal with green anarchists, ITS vehemently rejects any such label: ‘we are not “eco-anarchists” or “anarcho-environmentalists”‘. The group describes as ‘delusional’ those who ‘romanticize Wild Nature’ and ‘believe that when Civilization falls everything will be rosy and a new world will flourish without social inequality, hunger, repression, etc’. This thinly-veiled attack on Zerzan’s anarcho-primitivism echoes Kaczynski’s essay, ‘The Truth About Primitive Life’, where he sets out to ‘debunk the anarcho-primitivist myth that portrays the life of hunter-gatherers as a kind of politically correct Garden of Eden’. ITS follows Kaczynski in condemning green anarchism as ‘leftist’.

Kaczynski’s influence on ITS is difficult to miss. Many parts of the group’s communiqués are merely paraphrases of the Manifesto: ‘The essence of the power process has four parts: setting out of the goal, effort, attainment of the goal, and Autonomy’. But the depth of Kaczynski’s influence on ITS is difficult to appreciate without knowing the origins of his ideas. ITS cites Morris’s The Human Zoo in support of its claim that ‘the Wild Nature of the human being in general was perverted when it started to become civilized’. The same communiqué later echoes Morris without citing him: ‘it is totally abnormal to live together with hundreds of strangers around you’.

ITS explicitly acknowledges some of its debts to Kaczynski. But this has not been enough to prevent misconceptions, because Kaczynski himself has also been lumped in with radical environmentalists and green anarchists. It is necessary to understand Kaczynski’s distinct constellation of concepts in order to appreciate the ideological distinctness of ITS. The group uses his signature vocabulary: the technological system, the power process, surrogate activities, leftism, feelings of inferiority, oversocialization, etc. This is not the vocabulary of radical environmentalism or green anarchism. With the exceptions of ‘civilization’ and ‘domination’, ITS explicitly rejects the ‘leftist’ vocabulary of anarchism: oppression, solidarity, mutual aid, class struggle, hierarchy, inequality, injustice, and imperialism. Further, as I have already shown, even the ‘green’ parts of ITS’s communiqués have been filtered through Kaczynski. ITS is not an eco-terrorist or green anarchist group, but a novel kind of anti-tech terrorist group. The group’s ideology is distinctly Kaczynskian, genealogically and morphologically.

The modus operandi of ITS is not typical of radical environmentalists or green anarchists, who tend to be saboteurs or ‘monkeywrenchers’. Environmental radicals almost always target property rather than people. ITS, on the other hand, declares that it ‘is not a group of saboteurs (we do not share the strategy of sabotage or damage or destruction of property)’. Instead, as Kaczynski did, ITS aims to kill or maim people, such as scientists, whose surrogate activities propel the development of the technological system.

Anti-tech radicals and environmental radicals have different attitudes towards violence in large part because they have different ideals. As Bron Taylor argues, environmental radicals share ‘general religious sentiments – that the earth and all life is sacred – that lessen the possibility that [environmental] movement activists will engage in terrorist violence’. As he correctly points out, there is ‘no indication that Kaczynski shared the sense, so prevalent in radical environmental subcultures, that life is worthy of reverence and the earth is sacred’. Kaczynski is instead committed to the ideal of wild nature, which serves to naturalize violence. He argues, and ITS concurs, that ‘a significant amount of violence is a natural part of human life’. Part of what it means to be a wild human being is to be a violent one, unencumbered by the fetters of civilized morality.

The ideal of wild nature helps to explain anti-tech radicals’ target selection. For Kaczynski and ITS, living things have value only insofar as they are wild, and to be wild is to be ‘outside the power of the system’. When human beings become instruments of the system, they forfeit any value or dignity that they might have had. Scientists and technicians are permissible targets of violence because they have betrayed their wild nature, and they are desirable targets because they symbolize the technological system. Whereas environmental radicals’ reverence for life tends to steer them away from violence, towards destruction of property, anti-tech radicals’ ideal of wild nature serves to justify their violence.

Yet ITS diverges from Kaczynski about the purpose of violence. For Kaczynski, violence is primarily a means to overthrow the technological system. ITS, on the other hand, argues that Kaczynski’s proposed revolution is ‘idealistic and irrational’. Not only is this revolution bound to fail; Kaczynski also falls into the trap of leftism when he models his revolution on the French and Russian revolutions. For members of ITS, violence is not a means to revolution, but a way to affirm or reclaim their own wildness: ‘the attack against the system … is a survival instinct, since the human is violent by nature’. Kaczynski condemns ITS and accuses the group of misappropriating his ideas. He hurls the charge of leftism right back at them, along with a diagnosis of learned helplessness: ‘The most important error that ITS commits is that they express, and therefore promote, an attitude of hopelessness about the possibility of eliminating the technological system’. This attitude of hopelessness gives ITS a more vengeful and nihilistic character than Kaczynski himself.

A short thread

Source: <x.com/rechelon/status/1799516136645484935>

---

nihilistgf: book a friend gave me. no I’m not pro-ITS.

Anon: Counterpoint: you are an eco-fascist who has promoted ITS while pretending not to and approve of Atassa

nihilistgf: atassa and ITS are not eco-fascist. they’re eco-extremist. I call myself an eco-extremism because it has a lot to do with indigenous resistance. cope.

This Desiring-Machine Kills Fascists: To be clear, ITS’s “indiscriminate attack” is code for rape. It’s a deeply misogynistic collective and anyone looking approvingly on at them is not a friend of anarchists

ITS and its english language press office Atassa are not technically “fascist” because they’re not nationalist. They’re just hyper reactionaries who want to exterminate everyone on the planet, delight in misogyny, praise nazis, and had an alt-right trad cath spokesman/editor.

ITS was basically just a Mexico City crew that weren’t indigenous and tried to murder anarchists, plus, in the US, a trad cath Berkeley graduate lawyer who married a vivisectionist and hosted all their content on the Atassa site back before he turned it into a journal.

Like the Mexico City ITS crew, Arturo was not indigenous in the sense of involved in any tribe or community, etc, he just had some genes and fetishized that on occasion.

He was also, and this is important, a snitch who snitched on anarchists to the FBI

https://web.archive.org/web/20200601041750/https://325.nostate.net/2018/11/16/eco-extremist-mafia-arturo-vasquez-submits-legal-fbi-threat-to-anarchist-counter-info-site-325/

Arturo was Atassa. He created the website and popularized it, pretty much exclusively as the press office of ITS, then later he got together a crew (of mostly white contributors like the rich WASP John Jacobi) and edited them together in a print journal version of his site.

What NihilistGF is attempting to do with the “ITS is just ecoextremism which is just indigenous resistance” is a long chain of blurrings. This turns on the fact that when Arturo published the print journal version of Atassa he included an article cheering rape of colonizers.

Later, when there was anarchist blowup over the absurdity of LBC publishing Auturo and his Atassa website as a journal, they crafted the second issue with a pinwheel design on the cover taken from indigenous americans in the most immature “this’ll get them” level provocation.

Arturo is mexican and not a member of any tribe that used said pinwheel designs, plus the tribes in question explicitly retired and forbid use of the swastika/pinwheel after world war 2. Again Arturo is a trad cath. He’s fucking catholic!

It’s completely absurd to frame ITS and Atassa as being about “indigenous resistance”, they’re anarcho-primitivists who loudly and publicly ditched anarchism for nihilism, siding with Ted K over John Zerzan. Any reference to indigenous struggle was adopted opportunistically.

Ted explicitly rejected anarchism on the grounds that he believed that a non-industrial society would be patriarchal and warring, and that this was good. John clung to basic anarchist values against hierarchy. ITS were ideological primitivists who followed Ted in this.

ITS encouraged people to blow up nuclear plants and “kill 200 million in your local bioregion” as part of a campaign to exterminate humans. That kind of edgelording has absolutely nothing to do with indigenous struggles against settler colonialism and it’s gross to pretend so.

Now a whole fucking grip of edgelords in the US loved ITS, fucking adored it. The “anarchist” podcast Free Radical Radio that was prominent back then and run by the rich white dude Rydra pumped out endless praise for them and their “nihilism.”

In this original context “nihilism” was explicitly chosen as a term to signify a rejection of anarchism and break from it. Like ITS, over time Rydra repeatedly denounced anarchists and presented his nihilism as a rejection of anarchism.

While in Mexico City, ITS planted a bomb at an anarchist infoshop and planned to gun down an anarchist prisoner, in the US a bunch of rich white dipshit edgelords masturbated furiously to their provocations like endorsing murdering women for sport.

These US edgelords were completely unprepared for any sort of consequences, and after some Seattle insurrectos threw hands against them and the UK insurrecto journal 325 doxed Arturo and promised to murder him, they all fell apart trying to find excuses.

LBC tried pushing the line that Atassa was unrelated to ITS (utterly preposterous), and was just a journal that “raised interesting points that anarchists should engage with.” In this backpeddling the article praising indigenous warriors raping colonizers got held up.

In this desperate twisting, folks tried to reframe the entire issue as one of “do we abet violence and collateral damage in struggle?”

In this they tried to rally a bunch of older anarchists still smarting from the ideological nonviolence wars of the late 90s.

Basically LBC could go to a bunch of their genx and boomer connections and explain the backlash they were getting in terms these disconnected olds could get and would sympathize with. “The dastardly pacifists are back!!!”

Instead of being frank about the ITS/Atassa ideological platform of killing all humans, warring with anarchists, and endorsing rape and femicide as a return to “wild nature,” the shit got reframed as “some indigenous radicals said we should use violence and people hate that.”

But the problem is of course that while LBC’s middle aged book peddlers were terrified of drawing real fire and getting punched or even bombed and murdered by anarchists like we would respond to ITS directly, a bunch of younger edgelords didn’t want to retreat at all.

So the LBC line that Atassa doesn’t have anything to do with ITS got ignored, folks continued distroing ITS communiques (Atassa’s translations, but also it’s been widely claimed that Arturo just wrote his own communiques as ‘ITS’).

But of course occasionally they need to throw out defenses online when they get too much heat.

This creates a situation wherein the bullshit defense used to reframe Atassa as not ITS is now applied just as opportunistically to backpropagate into a defense of ITS.

Anyway, 325’s line on ITS/Atassa was shared widely by insurrectionary anarchists: It’s that ITS/Atassa should be ruthlessly murdered by anarchists and violence should freely be used against their defenders. This is not a pacifist position.

On eco-extremism and anarchy

Source: <autistici.org/cna/2016/05/23/chile-comunicato-del-branco-di-sabotatori-heriberto-salazar-fai-fri/>

---

We really do not want to stand in firm defense of every soul that sets itself up as an enemy against the state and every form of government (over man, animals and nature). We believe that — and many anarchist and other prisoners agree with this — not everyone can be friends and that it is not possible to develop a relationship with everyone.

More specifically, we want to encourage discussion about direct action groups that reject anarchy as a political goal and as a daily struggle. These are the so-called eco-extremists who relentlessly shout “death to anarchy”, rejecting their own origin and formation, an idea that nourished them through a fraternal relationship with the urban guerrilla fighters of today and the past, only to later move on to emphasize certain aspects that have always been part of anarchist milieu and its struggle for the liberation of man, our animal brothers and the earth.

Far from the constant tension that we who want and fight for a life of anarchy want to maintain, a certain trend that is considered eco-extremist throws in the trash the libertarian ideal that manifests itself through the insurgent struggle.

One small group, tied to a certain imaginary of “symbolic” peoples and to musical/alternative and university environments (they reject the university they still attend... and study what they hate so much), hates the human animal and therefore sees the enemy everywhere.

In that “wild fog”, caused by their own smugness and messianism, they include the last worker, the victim of this crappy exploitative system, among their enemies. They talk about killing workers, farmers or any other person who, let’s be honest, the discussion of our relatives over the years has not considered worthy interlocutors. Although we are accomplices, the enemy is someone else, and that is quite clear to any anarchist, libertarian, punk or nihilist. But for the eco-extremists, it is not so, in an attempt to be avant-garde and even trendy.

That is why we call on individuals and coordinated affinities who are fighting today to continue fighting for the liberation of all living beings and the earth, without losing sight of the political aspect of our actions, and the real enemies and targets.

Seven years since the death of Mauricio Morales, we salute the group “Manada de Choque Anarquico Nihilista” for its sober and insurgent action during the protests of May 1 and April 21, when they once again proved the success of coordination among affinities. In order to be clear and refute the “Maldicion Ecoextremista” page, which tried to present these acts as an act of irresponsible urban guerrillas, in order to appropriate libertarian activity!

We salute the fighters of the Paulino Scarfó Revolutionary Cell (FAI-FRI), who wrote in their statement of responsibility for the attack on the Santander Bank in La Cisterna: “ The attack has its ethics and is not indiscriminate; we have embraced the arson attack and we no longer support the ideas that are trying to spread .”

Pack of Saboteurs Heriberto Salazar (FAI-FRI)

There’s Nothing Anarchist about Eco-Fascism

Source: <https://itsgoingdown.org/nothing-anarchist-eco-fascism-condemnation/>

---

“When horror knocks at your door, it’s difficult to hide from. All that can be done is to breathe, gather strength, and face it….I shared news of the woman found in University City. From the first moment, I was angered and protested the criminalization of the victim. The next morning I woke up to the horror and pain that she was my relative.”

– Statement from the family of Lesvy Rivera to Mexican society

“[W]e take responsibility for the homicide of another human in University City on May 3^rd….Much has emerged about that damned thing leaning lifeless on a payphone… ‘that she suffered from alcoholism, that she wasn’t a student, this and that.’ But what does it matter? She’s just another mass, just another damned human who deserved death.”

– 29^th Statement of Individualists Tending Toward the Wild (ITS)

Some things shouldn’t have to be said, but as is too often the case in this disaster of a world, that which should be most obvious often gets subsumed to the exigencies of politics, ideologies, money, emotion, or internet clicks. The purpose of this piece is to condemn the recent acts of eco-extremists in Mexico and those who cheer them on from abroad.

This critique does not aspire to alter the behavior of Individualists Tending Toward the Wild (ITS), Individualities Tending Toward the Wild (ITS), Wild Reaction (RS), Indiscriminate Group Tending Toward the Wild (GITS), Eco-extremist Mafia, or whatever they will change their name to tomorrow. Like any other deluded, sociopathic tyrant, these individuals have declared themselves above reproach, critique, reason, or accountability. They have appointed themselves judge, jury, and executioner; the guardians and enforcers of Truth using a romanticized past to justify their actions. As absolutist authoritarians, they have constructed a theoretical framework that, while ever-shifting and inconsistent, somehow always ends with a justification for why they get to hold a knife to the throats of all of humankind. In short, they think and act like the State.

There was a discussion about ITS on an IGD podcast from last December. For those unfamiliar, ITS and its spawn of affiliated acronyms publicly emerged in 2011 as an anti-civilization grouping that blew things up and tried to kill people they didn’t like, primarily university research scientists. In early statements, they spoke of favorably of anarchism and revolution. Over the course of just a few years and various groupings and splittings, they adopted a firm stance of rejection and reaction. They disavowed anarchism, revolution, leftism, or anything related to the social or human. They proudly adopted the mantle of eco-terrorism and proclaimed their disgust for the likes of John Zerzan or Ted Kaczynski, who they previously praised.

Unsurprisingly, through their increasing isolation and reactivity, ITS has turned into just plain murderers. (Or at least they’d like you to think so.) “The human being deserves extinction” and “We position ourselves against the human being, without caring about the use of civilization to carry out our acts” is now their creed. As such, in the State of Mexico, ITS claims it went out hunting for loggers to kill, but not finding any, they decided to ambush, shoot and murder a couple on a hike on April 30^th, because, “We just want it to be clear that no human being will be safe in nature.” They suggest humans should instead stay in the cities, but then claim responsibility for the May 3^rd femicide of Lesvy Rivera at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, stating, “Not even in your damned cities will you be safe.” The ITS phenomenon, while beginning in Mexico, has spread throughout much of Latin America, with groups using the ITS name claiming responsibility for attacks – including attempts at the mass murder of ordinary, working-class people – in multiple countries.

Understanding what led to the creation and evolution of groups such as ITS is a topic best addressed in a separate piece. As mentioned above and in the podcast, they find their roots in the insurrectionary and anti-civilization streams of anarchism. Mexico in particular has a vibrant clandestine, direct action insurrectionary movement. Mexico is also where 99 percent of all “crimes” go unpunished, where narcos, police, military and politicians either work hand in hand or kill one another and anyone else nearby in the tens of thousands. They also team up against aboveground social movements – repression being the only language the Mexican state speaks. It is not difficult to understand, in a country being gutted by neoliberalism, where appeals to the state are met with batons and bullets, where anarchists are already blowing things up, and where everyone else with an agenda seems to be killing people and getting away with it, why a group like ITS would emerge.

Yet at the same time in Mexico, aside from a few websites, ITS and its actions have not been praised or embraced by anarchists or anyone else. This likely also contributes to the escalating violence on ITS’s part – no one really pays attention to them except to dismiss or condemn. At least one anarchist group has publicly stated its belief that ITS is a state-run operation, designed to delegitimize the broader radical movement.

It seems more likely that ITS is a genuine group that believes what it says. Whether it has actually done what it says is another matter. Some attacks have certainly occurred, but a curiously large number of ITS attacks fail or go unmentioned anywhere except in their statements. They claim this is due to the police and media conspiring to not call attention to their acts. Yet the typical insurrectionary anarchist direct action is almost always reported with precise information, photos showing the damage caused, and can be verified in corporate media reports. How ITS is so much worse than other direct action groups at carrying out direct actions is an unanswered question. That ITS killed any of the three people they recently claimed to have killed is unlikely. The statement shares no details of the killings and only includes a photo taken from Facebook. Especially with regards to the femicide of Lesvy Rivera at UNAM, ITS is likely seeking to get a free ride on the coattails of a tragedy that has generated considerable action and coverage amongst the anarchists and radicals they hate so much yet whose attention they so desperately seek.

So do we anarchists give it to them? Admittedly, even the existence of this piece is a capitulation to their attention seeking. But worse are those that promote, even implicitly, the actions of ITS. Sites such as Anarchist News, Free Radical Radio, Atassa, and Little Black Cart. The “a retweet does not constitute endorsement” excuse doesn’t fly here. As ITS says, “We’ve been warning you since the beginning.” And now they are claiming to have killed three humans simply because they were human. Will ITS fans continue to distribute the propaganda of a group that by its own admission is not only not anarchist, but proudly terroristic, rejecting of all ethics, morals, or principles of liberation? They solely exist to kill people. It should not have to be explained why such a position does not merit support. Of a less pressing matter is the way in which ITS conceives of “nature” is itself a social and civilizational construct. Their (already constantly shifting) ideological basis for murder falls apart under any real scrutiny.

Some defend the publications and discussions (or trolling, as it were) they engender because while perhaps they don’t agree with killing people, the analysis ITS presents is intellectually stimulating and worthy of consideration. If ITS did kill her, Lesvy Rivera can surely appreciate that her brutal murder was found intellectually stimulating for some. It is the peak of colonial, racist arrogance that those from the safety of their U.S. or European homes feel comfortable debating the finer points of an ideology that amounts to brown people killing other brown people. We eagerly await the publishing on these sites of ISIS or al-Qaida communiques due to their intellectually stimulating critiques of U.S. imperialism in the Middle East.

The only support ITS should be receiving from anarchists is encouragement that they practice their dedication to human extinction on themselves. Just as the fascists of ISIS are meeting a true anarchist response, the fascists of ITS should be called to task, rather than coddled.

Eco-extremism and the indiscriminate attack

Source: <web.archive.org/.../325.nostate.net/.../>

---

“And Severino Di Giovanni’s actions were never violent for the sake of it. They were never indiscriminate or striking at anything at all in order to create a tension that would favour power and its politics of consolidation. They were always guided by a precise revolutionary reasoning: to strike the centres of power with punitive actions that find their justification in the State’s violence, and which were aimed at pushing the mass towards a revolutionary objective. Di Giovanni always took account of the situation of the mass, even though he was often accused of not having done so”

— JW & AMB, Anarchism and Violence: Severino Di Giovanni in Argentina by Osvaldo Bayer, Elephant Editions

I don’t represent any organisation or group, I am writing this from my personal perspective, as nihilist-anarchist of an anti-civilisation insurrectional tendency. I have carried out direct action in defense of the Earth, so the state and society would probably view me as an “Eco-Extremist,” although I’m unconcerned with this term as it’s become a sect-like ideology of the Church. I haven’t written before about the Church of ITS Mexico or the idiot pseudo-nihilist(s) in Italy because over the last few years they clearly became reactionary and more akin to far-right “black” groupscules.

It has been some years since the Church of ITS Mexico said something like that “the FAI doesn’t represent us,” that the “CCF doesn’t represent us”… Well I can’t recall anything like that being said by CCF or FAI or anyone else in the first place, so why is the ITS Church still issuing sermons about it now and why have they not embarked on a one-way trip far away from the black anarchy they proclaim is irrelevant and gone off into the nihilising abyss like they said they would, leaving all us anarchist nuns alone?

It was obvious to foresee what this groupscule and their related neurotic fanclub was going towards—cultish green authoritarianism, paganism, irrationalism and indiscriminate attacks—and haven’t we seen this before? Although the Church of ITS Mexico with its tiny few self-described eco-extremists and pseudo-nihilists like to pose as the most radical and truly anarchistic and chaotic latest trend that is very different and abyssal, far from anything that goes before, they are just another offshoot of an old idea with rotten roots in soil and blood, either that or they just have shit for brains.

The murders that ITS Mexico has done in their current phase and the words that accompany the actions are those of one of the enemies, no equivocation—it doesn’t matter at this point what justifications and philosophical manipulations they use to explain how they became irrationalist fanatics. Those who indiscriminately attack regular people are authoritarians and would-be dictators, mass killers, and they and their fanclub of sychophants brag and boast as such behind a myriad of regressive ideas.

Reactionary, nationalist, neo-nazi, racist and pagan networks converging inward autonomously in Europe at least, is nothing new, because for decades we can find their groups dwelling in a spectrum of misanthropic nihilist-right planes of thought, often informed by various degrees of biocentrism, traditionalism, green authoritarianism, anti-humanism, anti-progress etc. It’s easy to find their blogs with old runic indigenous obscurantism, glorification of mass murder, death camps, genocide imagery and glorification of weapons and killing.

In the UK in the 90’s, a tiny few anarcho-primitivists also flirted with this eco-fascist thinking which had seeped in amongst “when animals attack”-type stories and news-clippings about earthquakes and plagues, in the newspaper “Green Anarchist.” The idea was that indiscriminate attacks and/or mass killings of people are justified as “war against civilisation/society.” There was a split in the newspaper “Green Anarchist” about the topic (“The Irrationalists” by Steve Booth). One of the editors left and started an eco-fascist paper. Green Anarchist continued to provide lists of direct actions which were taking place and had articles and reports. The controversy came during an operation by the state against the earth and animal liberation movement which was strong at the time (so-called GANDALF operation). The state spent millions of pounds trying to shut GA down and one of their editors was jailed. Looking back on the text that started the affair it is nothing in comparison to the shit that ITS Mexico have been spewing for the last few years, a hex upon them.

Indiscriminate killings and attacks only have authoritarian outcomes, the methods are elitist and fundamentally anti-individualist. The acts end up only entrenching power and the existing strategy of the techno-industrial system. It is a very dominant and conditioned human behaviour of mass psychology to harm or kill indiscriminately. It’s what humans do to each other all the time, it gears the machine and it’s certainly not an anti-civilisation act or one that cuts radically to the social system. Each person is just pathologically programmed under the stress of society—by religion and hierarchical orders—socially coded to distrust, hate, abuse and kill others. I want something different; it enlightens me as an anarchist and a nihilist—an individual defending their life and experience of the world. Discrimination of thought, choice and action.

The last couple of months in UK there have been three spectacular indiscriminate killings: the Manchester suicide bomb against a crowd of mostly (very) young women at an Ariana Grande concert, the London Tower Bridge suicide van and knife attack, both by those inspired by Daesh, who ITS Mexico and their adoring flock seem to idolise and fetishize now, much like the rest of the misanthropic and nihilist-right; and there also was the Grenfell Tower fire, which killed unknown scores of people, arguably a massacre which had an unavoidable class basis and which is a social murder. But who cares, society is the enemy, right? In the ultra-moralising Church of ITS Mexico where they issue regular sermons you don’t have to think about things too much.

The Church and the sheep have already rejected anti-authoritarianism and “liberation,” so such concepts do not illuminate them, by their own admission, opting for a direction where from their friendless epic-loser script they endlessly preside over their dastardly marginalisation of anarchy and the extermination of humanity in the lowly and minor acts they have recently been taking responsibility for.

Their critique of the anarchist movement is both nothing new and yet deluded with ignorance about many facts and yet they want to use the names of Severino di Giovanni and Mauricio Morales to cover their cowardice. I’m no stranger to criticising civil anarchism but the Church of ITS Mexico have remained so boringly obsessionate in their anti-anarchism discourse that it is obvious that they don’t know when they are banging a dead horse. Their desperate clinging to the anarchist movement—now issuing death threats against anarchists that bother to publically criticise them—is indicative of individuals who, claiming to have shot dead a hiking couple from the bushes and choked a woman to death in a phone box at university, at heart don’t appear to feel they have any power in their own lives and obviously spend too much time on the internet worrying what others think of them whilst taking their pain out on other people. Sounds like quite a few civilised people I know except some don’t see the results of their actions. I mean, haven’t ITS actually killed some people, why are they crying about it on the internet? As the saying goes, they “gotta lot to learn” as a terrorist group. Hearing that ITS apparently got “tired of waiting for 325’s critique” is a sloppy, revealing and highly amusing admission of how much they actually do care about being the subject of dialogue and discussion amongst an (unruly and anarchic) humanity they hate!

To go back to why I haven’t bothered to write anything before now about ITS recent experiments in serial killerdom, I think just simply I had better things to do and my comrades were debating whether or not it was even worth making any critiques since, we figured, we don’t make critiques of any other random serial killers?! Why would we bother contributing to the fiction that ITS are actors with any validity by commenting on their wanton acts of pointless and sadly untargetted murders? And nor are they anarchists, saying for many years to the anarchist movement internationally that they were not interested, and were even hostile to concepts such as prisoner solidarity, internationalism, anarchist revolution (so leftist!) and so on and to just leave them alone. So we did… And so why are they now chasing after our views and after the opinions of FAI/IRF cells, anarchist-insurrectionalists, blogs of counter-information, etc. when they have been rejecting them for years and years? Why is their fanclub sending us their ridiculous texts and claims? To remind us they exist in anger and frustration? And who cares? I don’t care but the Church of ITS Mexico evidently does care and can’t bear that somehow others have a path seperate to theirs. It shows up their blatant isolationalist narcissism and sociopathic psychosis.

Consequences…

Reading the nationalism, racism and homophobia evident in the recent communiques of ITS, a new pathological, repetitive, singular voice trying to lash out vainly is emerging. I’m sure they will respond with a threatening old testament sermon; or is that an earthquake coming?!

Although the Church has given many sermons where they pontificate about feeling superior, laughing in fantasy, it’s striking how much they reveal their silly obssessions, psychological loops and regressive traits in public. This key weakness is certainly a sign of the regressive nature of narcissistic authoritarians, who as individuals display, collectively, unintegrated psychologies, lacking in empathic intelligence and emotional centering.

Maybe in the age of the internet the ITS Church did not know there was a far-right of maladjusted pagan eco-religious fanatics in Europe already? Join and share your savage racialist rituals of purity, blood and black metal records! The Pope of ITS Mexico should issue an immediate elect order to direct the faithful sheep to send their bible of testaments to those web-crazies of the nihilist-right and failing that, “New Scientist” magazine or some such other shit as they seem to be obsessed with, instead of bothering those nasty sectarian anarchist nuns who have excommunicated them. Wouldn’t want you to get upset and send in the inquisition after killing some women.

After banging their keyboards on anarchists for running around the world “intervening” in every topic under the sun other than killing random individuals in the name of some wacko gods, they offer out an invitation to intervene in Mexico and have it out with them! Why would anyone bother? I certainly shall stay here in my own native indigenous lands and get on with my life. If they feel that strongly, why don’t they come here? We have gangs and murders here too, not just the Queen and Cricket. I think that the ITS in “Church of ITS Mexico” stands for “Idiots Tending toward Stupidity.” Who knew that the Church was so linked to the “Mafia”? Pretty hilarious really, as it fits into their displaced wish to project a “strong” or “hard image”; “ruthless,” “organised,” “murderous” etc. The reality appears that they have dropped any individualist or nihilist-egoist values, any pretense of ecological struggle and are rather weak, conduct easy (basically cowardly), opportunistic, random and valueless actions and come across like a bunch of wet bananas with a hurting self-obsessed sociopath as leader, blowing their mouths off in public. So what’s new?

The idiots that we know of in this “Eco-Extremist Mafia” are all wee dafties, like the pseudo-nihilist fool in Italy[14] and this Greek robot of chaos, Archie the Scot[15], who are exactly the same types, socially disfunctional mal-geeks, arseholes basically and losers without a sense of humour, looking to play the bigman. They definity don’t have a sense of humour, but we guess you have to have some “human” values to have a decent sense of “humour” never mind “humility.” I mean, some of the actions we just laugh at, you are a joke, Church of ITS Mexico and faithful flock! Even the killings, you are embarassing yourself! Like a shit on a corpse! And you want the names of Severino Di Giovanni and Mauricio Morales to cover your shit?! Fuck off and die! You are a joke!! Ha Ha Ha!

I shit on your pagan gods!

Love to all the friends and comrades; imprisoned, out and on the run!

L

Arrests & Doxxings

The capture of Individualist Tending to the Wild member Camilo Gajardo

Bus stops, universities and public administration: the targets of the “lone wolf” obsessed with bombings

Source: <biobiochile.cl/noticias/nacional/region-metropolitana/2022/09/02/declaran-culpable-al-individualista-tendiente-a-lo-salvaje-por-atentados-explosivos-en-la-rm.shtml>

Date: 09 August 2019

Author: Valentina González

Note: The information is from Felipe Cornejo

---

The South Metropolitan Prosecutor’s Office described Camilo Gajardo Escalona as a “lone wolf” , the 28-year-old who was arrested for his alleged participation in at least six attacks with explosive devices in the Metropolitan region.

According to the investigation, Gajardo would be behind the preparation, placement and shipment of at least five “package bombs” that reached, among others, less than the former president of Codelco, Óscar Landerretche and the president of the Metro board, Louis de Grange.

It was in January 2017 when, after 6:00 p.m., an alleged “gift” that had arrived at Landeretche’s home in La Reina ended up exploding , causing minor injuries to the then-president of the state mining company.

The following year, in April, the headquarters of the Raúl Silva Henríquez University had to be evacuated due to a bomb warning. Carabineros found a cardboard box with a battery with cables and a copper tube.

Meanwhile, in September 2018, a box with a bottle and gunpowder was found at a Transantiago bus stop on Santa Rosa Avenue, in front of the Faculty of Agronomy of the University of Chile.

On January 4, 2019, the capital experienced a new explosion , when an explosive device detonated at a Transantiago bus stop, leaving five people injured.

A few months later, in May of this year, the police managed to deactivate a bomb package addressed to the chairman of the Metro board, Louis de Granje.

After two years of investigation, the suspect is arrested

It was in the commune of Puente Alto where the operation carried out by the Carabineros OS-9 to arrest the alleged perpetrator of the explosive attacks was concentrated, after the South Metropolitan Prosecutor’s Office requested his arrest warrant in the 20^th Second Guarantee Court of Santiago.

Christopher Escobar | ONE Agency

It was the result of months of investigation carried out by the prosecution, with expert reports that intensified after the latest attacks on the 54^th police station in Huechuraba and the package bomb received by the former Minister of the Interior, Rodrigo Hinzpeter, in his office in the district of Huechuraba. The Counts.

And it is that despite the fact that a “group” of anarchists was always targeted behind these attacks, the investigation of the Public Ministry has revealed that it would be a 28-year-old man, the only author behind a series of attacks since 2017 To the date.

Although there were attacks that were attributed by the eco-terrorist group Individualists Tending to the Wild, for the Prosecutor’s Office it was a “lone wolf” , identified as Camilo Eduardo Gajardo Escalona.

Carabineros General Esteban Díaz explained that the procedure consisted of the arrest of the main suspect behind these attacks, as well as a search of his home to seize items that would link him to these crimes.

The police raid was carried out in the town of Atenas de Mena. At the scene, the police seized various elements linked to the making of explosive devices, without confirming whether it was a bomb with a possible future recipient.

The prosecutor in these cases, Héctor Barros, ruled out that the defendant is part of an anarchist group and emphasized that, based on the investigation, he would be the person behind the making and placement of these bombs.

Even so, the national prosecutor Jorge Abbott referred to his alleged link with ITS, pointing out that “they are organizations in which the behaviors are displayed by individual people and belong to a larger group, but they are not attached to an organization, but rather an idea ”.

Camilo Gajardo Escalona has three previous arrests since 2012, all related to the crime of public disorder.

During this day, Gajardo will be transferred to the Justice Center for his detention control in the evening block. At the moment, the South Metropolitan Prosecutor’s Office has not ruled out requesting an extension of the detention, in order to carry out expert reports on the elements seized yesterday from his home and present them at the next formalization hearing, where he will face charges for the preparation, placement and shipment of explosive devices.

They declare guilty the “individualist tending to the wild” for explosive attacks in the RM

Source: <biobiochile.cl/noticias/nacional/region-metropolitana/2022/09/02/declaran-culpable-al-individualista-tendiente-a-lo-salvaje-por-atentados-explosivos-en-la-rm.shtml>

Date: 02 September 2022

Author: Felipe Delgado

Note: With information from Daniela Forero-Ortiz.

---

Camilo Gajardo was found guilty of planting and sending explosive devices in the capital, under the group “Individualists Tending to the Wild.” Among them are the explosives sent to Óscar Landerretche and Louis De Grange, as well as the placement of a bomb in a Transantiago bus stop.

The South Prosecutor’s Office managed to get Camilo Gajardo Escalona convicted , who perpetrated various explosive attacks in the Metropolitan region that were claimed by the group “Individualists Tending to the Wild” (ITS).

The individual was charged with the crimes of sending and placing explosive devices between 2017 and 2019 in different parts of the capital. This after an investigation carried out together with the Carabineros OS9.

Gajardo was accused of the following facts:

1.- The device that detonated in the house of the then president of Codelco, Óscar Landerretche , on January 13, 2017, where the charges of frustrated homicide, injuries and damages are added.

2.- An explosive that detonated on a public transport bus in La Reina, on September 28, 2017.

3.- The placement of a bomb on a bench in front of the Raúl Silva Henríquez Catholic University (UCSH), on April 13, 2018. Here he is accused of frustrated homicide.

4.- The installation of another explosive in a bus stop in front of the Faculty of Agronomy of the University of Chile in La Pintana, on September 7, 2018.

5.- The explosion of a device at a Transantiago bus stop in Vicuña Mackenna with Bilbao, on January 4, 2019, also with the accusation of frustrated homicide.

6.- The sending of an explosive package to the president of Metro, Louis De Grange , on May 5, 2019, which was found abandoned and did not reach its destination.

In the trial, Gajardo was found guilty in facts 1, 3, 5 and 6 , but not in facts 2 and 4 in which he was acquitted. In addition, terrorism was ruled out.

In this regard, Louis De Grange told Radio Bío Bío that after what happened he experienced “a period of great anguish, and it was difficult to understand why this was happening to me. Fortunately, I received a lot of love and support from many people, both from Metro and from Carabineros and the Prosecutor’s Office. Today is part of the past, of the difficulties that all of us have to face”.

Gajardo risks more than 100 years in prison for what happened. Prosecutor Alex Cortez highlighted that in the explosion that affected Landerretche, the conviction for qualified frustrated homicide was achieved , the same as for the explosion in the bus stop of Vicuña Mackenna.

Meanwhile, Alejandra Rubio, Gajardo’s public criminal defender, highlighted the acquittal obtained in two of the accused crimes. Along with this, she indicated that the legal qualification for the device installed at UCSH and the one directed at Louis De Grange was finally lowered.

As he pointed out, this will lower the penalty he could obtain, which will be announced on October 19. Only then, Rubio pointed out, will the steps to be followed be decided.

45 years in prison for subject who detonated bomb in Transantiago bus stop and who sent explosives

Source: <biobiochile.cl/noticias/nacional/region-metropolitana/2022/09/02/declaran-culpable-al-individualista-tendiente-a-lo-salvaje-por-atentados-explosivos-en-la-rm.shtml>

Date: October 19, 2022

Author: Felipe Delgado

Note: The information is from Daniela Forero-Ortiz

---

Camilo Gajardo, guilty of sending explosive devices and detonating a bomb at a Transantiago bus stop, was sentenced to 45 years and one day in jail for various crimes, including attempted murder.

Camilo Gajardo Escalona was sentenced to 45 years and one day in jail , who perpetrated several explosive attacks in the Metropolitan region and who were claimed by the group “Individualists Tending to the Wild” (ITS).

Gajardo was found guilty of various shipments and installations of bombs , all this between 2017 and 2019 in different parts of the Metropolitan region.

They declare guilty the “individualist tending to the wild” for explosive attacks in the RM

These are the following episodes:

1.- The device that detonated in the house of the then president of Codelco, Óscar Landerretche , on January 13, 2017.

2.- The placement of a bomb on a bench in front of the Raúl Silva Henríquez Catholic University (UCSH), on April 13, 2018.

3.- The explosion of a device at a Transantiago bus stop in Vicuña Mackenna with Bilbao, on January 4, 2019.

4.- The sending of an explosive package to the president of Metro, Louis De Grange , on May 5, 2019, which did not reach its destination.

Meanwhile, he was acquitted of the accusation for an explosive that detonated on a public transport bus in La Reina, on September 28, 2017; and for the installation of another explosive in a bus stop in front of the Faculty of Agronomy of the University of Chile in La Pintana, on September 7, 2018.

The South Prosecutor’s Office had requested more than 100 years in prison for Gajardo, given the various acts for which he was convicted, where charges of frustrated homicide were added.

Finally, the Sixth Oral Criminal Court of Santiago decreed 45 years and one day in jail for him. Prosecutor Alex Cortez pointed out that the conviction was achieved thanks to the large amount of evidence obtained together with OS9, Labocar and GOPE de Carabineros.

In the breakdown, he was given 20 years in prison in its maximum degree for all placements of explosive devices. Another 20 years more for the frustrated qualified homicides of the wounded in the home of Óscar Landerretche and in the bus stop of Vicuña Mackenna.

To this, another five years were added for the injuries in the last mentioned events.

Camilo Gajardo and Bajos De Mena

Source: Siete Kabezas by Iván Poduje. Pages 148–149.
––– Worldcat + Author’s Website

---

Founded as a rural hamlet next to a cemetery Puente Alto, Bajosde Mena shared a lot of low-cost urban land with La Pintana, which facilitated the construction of eleven thousand homes to receive families living in camps. One of the first settlements were the El Volcán I, II and III villas, which totaled more than three thousand social housing units in five-story buildings known as blocks.

The Volcano made the news in 1997, after a storm flooded Santiago and flooded the recently delivered homes, generating indignation among the neighbors. The construction failure of the Copeva company was serious and extended to thousands of apartments that had to be covered by plastic tents to prevent them from continuing to get wet. The press discovered that the owner of Copeva had given a fine blood horse to the Minister of Housing and Urban Planning, Edmundo Hermosilla, whose distribution entails the obligation to assign the contracts and then supervise their compliance. That scandal ended with the departure of the minister.

Almost fifteen years later, the first administration of Sebastián Ptôera decided to demolish the blocks of the El Volcán villas to move the families to better quality houses. The works began in 2011 with the transformation of an old La Cafiamera garbage dump into Juan Pablo II Park and was complemented with paving projects and the creation of public spaces.

In the second government of Michelle Bachelet, the metropolitan mayor, Cláudio Orrego, promoted a comprehensive plan that combined training for leaders, control of public order and social investments to break segregation, whose symbol would be a new civic center, with a modern police station and a fire station that were inaugurated before the former president left La Moneda.

The post continues in the second term of Sebastián Pinera, who announced the extension of Line 4 of the Metro from the Plaza de Puente Alto to the intersection of Juanita and Sargento Menadier streets in the center of Bajos de Mena, which would be a key milestone for the definitive inclusion of the district to the city network. A few blocks from where that future Metro station would be located, lived Camilo Gajardo Escalona, a twenty-eight-year-old young man who every morning went to work in a mechanical workshop in the commune of San Joaquin, near the foundation center. His colleagues described him. as a shy and withdrawn guy, who limited himself to doing his job and interacted very little with the rest.

When I arrived at his house, Camilo changed. He locked himself in his room for hours browsing pages of hard anarchism, downloading manifestos and manuals to make homemade bombs. His work in the mechanical workshop helped him find parts for factories and so he began to assemble in the bedroom of his home. He also went out to try out in places with few people, such as nearby Bajos de Mena.

This is how he tried until one day he detonated the first explosive device at the Vicuna Mackenna and Bilbao bus stop, near Bustamante Park. When Camilo sent the bomb letter to the president of the Metro, Louis de Grangç, the cameras in the Post Office where he left the parcel noticed him with a suspicious attitude.

The PDI studied those records for hours and compared them with those that had been taken near Vicuna’s whereabouts Mackenna and created profiles to begin tracking several suspects, until they closed the circle. On August 6, 2019, Camilo was arrested by PDI agents and accused of being the only person responsible for the attacks on Oscar Landerretche, Louis de Grange and the whereabouts of Vicuna Mackenna. Camilo was the one behind Individualistas Tendientes a Io Salvaje. There was no European anarchist collective, nor Chilean accomplices nor Codelco mafias who wanted to take revenge and mislead the police. Camilo was a lone wolf who had become radicalized in his house in Bajos de Mena. I do not know if that urban context influenced his decision to go out and kill authorities and users or if he saw in Codelco a symbol of the State that left its population abandoned for years. His case is very relevant in this story, since it brings together several of the forces that were activated on October 18: the segregation of Bajos de Mena generated by bad housing policies and increased by public transportation, the Metro as the focus of the attack and the expectations excessive in relation to the authors. Excessive expectations about the threat posed by the attacks. It was thought that they were European anarchist cells, linked to Chileans, when in reality it was just one person. This same situation began to be seen when the first arrests were made for the attacks on the Metro and for the looting of commercial premises....

Satanist ITS member’s communique and arrest report

Communique of the Individualists Tending Towards the Wild #48

Source: A text dump on eco-extremism

---

My End is My Beginning.

Abyss rises. The sound of the tunnels is thumping to my ears. I walk in desolation into the fields of urban greyness. All that surrounds me, every ”normal” humanoid, is performing a litany towards crushing determinism. One more time I seize the opportunity to act and unleash My Hatred. I get ready not to stray from the mechanistic ”life-form”. I call upon Death and we enter in a maelstrom of the heartbeat of Chaos that transforms blood into a pumping engine in the libido of voidance that dissolves humanity attempting indiscriminate Destruction and Murder.

In extreme misanthropic skepticism and experimentation, beyond any human notion, I claim nichilistically the following attacks:

-The arson of 2 mini buses transporting elder people.

Why? Why don’t you ask the guys from the books you read to tell you why? Oh shit! They’re dead? I’ll tell you why then! Because I hate old people! Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahaha!!!

-A package bomb left totally indiscriminately at a central location selectively.

Why do I not think of the ”innocent” people one might think… I answer with a question… Did my birth giver’s pussy think when it was fucked to be fertilized with microscopic semen that creates the vessels that I hate? Did anybody ask me to be born? Did anyone know what I would become? Do you know that some see consciousness as a curse? Fuck you, pathetic pricks, you don’t know shit then! I do not seek justification for existence, neither do I seek someone to blame. I seek the amoral rape of existence through the injection of life passing from the Death Gate. Anti-human odium is my life’s blood, transforming my vessel into the Beast.

The joke of human consciousness and what it creates I confront with nihilistic laughter, unconscious cynicism and misanthropic passion! When I say ”fuck you all”, it might as well be the most sincere thing I have said my

whole life! I wish my scream could burn you all, but it can’t do fuckin shit! Hahahahahahahah! This is why I have to experiment with fire, poison, bombs, even if the attack fails. Next time it might not, until I satisfy my Egotistical Satanity.

I do not care at all to offer an ”alternative” to the cops’ rhetoric, I will let them have it their way, since this is not a conversation anyway! Though they broke my heart that they didn’t share my ”message” to the world! Hahahahahahaha! My acts and their claims are personalised and I will enjoy them in the way I want. In this only I make the rules. I learned what my mistakes were this time and I am not going to repeat them. But for me the experimentation is all that matters. Really beyond good and evil and not just in words.

All those who think they have theoretically banished morality make me laugh morbidly. To destroy morality one carries the knife and jabs it in the flesh till it reaches the bone. I blow myself amorally against the foundations of ethics to nihilistically recreate myself. Going beyond the normal nihilist and the tolerant attitude of internalized humanist emotional limit created by the evolutionary disease of the training epiphanies of modernity and the anthropocene.

Any judgement comes through thought. A world that for me doesn’t exist. All I hear is vomit coming out of a hole we named mouth. The correlation of thought with reality is for me as contemptible as is the human condition itself. I do not judge, I do not justify, I take the instance of Nihility and I transform it into an attack on Life and a flirt of Death. I obliterate any ethical question as a clutch of conscience that devours an organism. As a concept that conciliates its creation with the supposed ”reality”. If humans were to go extinct this instant nothing would happen except that there would be no consciousness to tell about it. What are ethics if not sophisticated human artificiality? What are ethics if not the soothing, illusory agreement of the valuer and what is valued? What are values if not a leap of faith in the continuation of ”human” existence? Values, either metaphysical or not are a branch for the human being to grasp in order not to fall into the Void of the Abyss, stare at itself, and see nothing.

In my descent there are no words to describe how I feel or who I am. Language is a useless mass of human sounds and holy scripts that limit my Ego. The foundationless Nihilism is concluded Anti-human, at least for me. If only we could be free of metaphysicality! But especially today where the image makes a host out of everyone and consolidates ideology nothing can be expected. Beyond good and evil means only one thing. Not even I am liable to re-establishing this concept. This human notion.

I am an enclosed circuit, but one that wouldn’t exist without the world that surrounds it. I am not a spirit. Nothing is ethically important. I have no important targets and others not so important. In my scorn for the human animal and its projection of existence I experiment with Total Nihilism into Unknown territory. I seek the dissolution of the limit, ”spiritual” or ”physical”, that had been imposed by man. I deny any injection of the spirit through the flesh opening the window to ideological compartmentalization. Flesh has its own life and the metaphysical gate is denied. I deny god without replacing it with anything and for this I am Satan. For every ethics and ideology I will always be Satan.

It takes one to have known the spirit in all its aspects to be able to negate it. The illusion of freedom of the ”untouched ones” by civilization, hahahahahahahahahaha, this is another form of slavery, a form of humanistic denial of reality. Misanthropy will either be real experimentation through Nihility or it will be the will of Christ. You choose. My Misanthropy is a bomb at the core of ”human existence”. I see the human condition and consequently the human being as an inherently artificial animal. Its cognition and the conciliation of the perception/ value/ judgement/ reality/ action with the world is an error. If human consciousness is a ”privilige” of ”being human”, I only see imbecility of the highest kind and I attack it nichilistically, embracing the Dead End.

Everything I write is blood, sweat, flesh and semen. This creates My Spirit that claims itself in the Moment of emanation out of the Abyss in direct contact with reality. Everything else is humanistic trash that will be eradicated through Nihilism. The human spirit runs rampant today and every word is diarrhoea blown backwards. Idealism is crushed in the same way humans are crushed like bugs by the cycles of nature. Knowing of course that every aspiration, passion and ego worshipping desire will never be the same in contact with reality. The correlation of the two is totally discarded. But this is not an impediment for me and My Will, only an admittance and realization.

I believe in uniqueness but not as an ideology which sees it as a value, but only as a reductive tool for analysing a neverending battle that can never be completed inside human nature. After Stirner became an ideology throughout the years, it was a clear example that ideology is part of human nature, and that freedom, whichever the approach, is a disease.

I ask all those who want to create an ideological consciousness, or let’s call it for what it is, conscience, where is the clear distinction between determinism and free choice? Where is the clear distinction between ”domination” and ”free relations”? I assume they have the answer in hand because all of them have lived these ”pure” relations in reality and know how to go about them. And how to synchronize their minds with others to learn how to do it! But it appears that some have taken it upon themselves to become the next relics taking their rightful and righteous place among the legacy of humanochristianism.

Just to make it clear I am not conducting an anti-anarchist war nor an anti-fascist war, these are concerns that I don’t give a fuck about. I have seen so much hypocrisy in people that I cannot forget. I have seen so much torment by ideas but also from habit, I have seen hidden but also crude moralism, I have met so many people that wasted my time, I have been betrayed indirectly and directly. My Hate has moved to other fields, I have become something else and I thank all of you for creating me!

Furthermore I claim myself as part of the international Terrorist Mafia known as ITS. Between egoist conspirators I accepted a criminal offering on the basis of common interest. This is no spiritual union like those of the anarchists. I am not an Eco-extremist, I am a Nihilist Misanthrope as I like to call myself. Of course words mean nothing and are used in a specific context and for my own benefit.

”ITS is no longer a merely eco-extremist group but is nourished by the strongest egos, the most isolated solitaires and the most resentful individuals with civilization / humanity, within ITS there are people who do

not share spirituality either, they do not have beliefs, they do not have deities or anything like that, and we respect that completely, for the purpose is destruction and not so much “creed affiliation” or any other affiliation to some rotten and decadent ideology. That is, we want to make ITS a unique group, primordial, that represents everything we think and do, that is a latent danger, constant and mobile to act anywhere, unstoppable and dangerous.”

-X

We unite on the basis of egoistic respect, for concrete things that we share, for the materialization of our instincts against artificiality and not for the spiritualization of our desires, that dissolves the foundations of anarchochristianic solidarity and seeks to maximize power amongst interests for destruction of this humanistically pious world.

”The expansion of knowledge and egocentric experimentation are very important for individualists like us, climbing animalistic violence to more extreme degrees makes our personal war unique, so that we can experience and nurture our experiences, at the end of the day ITS is just a timeless meeting of individuals with a desire for destruction, where you can learn and teach with tangible facts, destroying the idea that a “terrorist group” “must be” a circle where only rotten ideologies are shared among the members. The passion above all!”

-X

Misanthropos Cacogen is a lover of nihilist anti-political violence. Terror inside the pettiness of this world is fun! My attempts for ”unholy” pleasure and murder are not over yet. All aspects of humanism are dead! Long live Death! Who would have the power to face the intensity of Nihil and survive? Then the question that arises is, who would become a Nihilist instead of a christly ”contemplator”?

Nihilist aggressor, Misanthropos Cacogen – Individualists Tending towards the Wild

‘Eco-terrorist’ who planted bomb in Edinburgh park jailed

Source: <theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/16/eco-terrorist-who-planted-bomb-in-edinburgh-park-jailed>

---

Nikolaos Karvounakis had placed improvised device at Princes Street Gardens in January 2018

Nikolaos Karvounakis, 35. Photograph: Police Scotland/PA

A self-styled eco-terrorist who planted a viable homemade bomb in a popular public park in central Edinburgh has been jailed for more than eight years.

Nikolaos Karvounakis, originally from the Greek island of Crete, had placed the improvised device packed with 58 nails and sections of metal pipe in a shelter at Princes Street Gardens in January 2018.

Written on the flap inside the box were the words “fuck you all”. The device included low grade explosive, and a primitive but disconnected fuse made from a light filament and a battery.

Army explosives experts believed that had it been made operational or accidentally detonated, it would have been capable of causing significant injuries, the high court in Edinburgh heard. Karvounakis later claimed to be linked to a fringe group accused of eco-terrorism which originated in Mexico.

It took nearly two years before Karvounakis, 35, a former Greek national serviceman, was arrested. In December 2020 Police Scotland counter-terrorism officers received intelligence from European counterparts linking him to the offence. DNA taken from tape used in the device was found to belong to him.

Six weeks after the device was found, the Edinburgh Evening News received an email headed “International Terrorist Group in UK”. It contained a link to an extremist website where Karvounakis had anonymously claimed responsibility with a picture of the device and signed “Misanthropos Cacogen”.

Speaking for the prosecution, Angela Gray, the advocate depute, said Karvounakis claimed to be a “lover of nihilist anti-political violence” and to support an anarchist terror group Individualidades Tendiendo a lo Salvaje. The group has been blamed for bombing a nano-technology lab in Mexico City in 2011 that seriously injured a robotics researcher.

Gray told the court: “This is known as ITS, an abbreviation of a Spanish phrase translating to ‘individualists tending to the wild’. This Mexican terrorist organisation was formed during 2011. The group focuses on eco-terrorism, which involves acts of violence committed against people and or property in support of environmental causes.”

John Scullion QC, Karvounakis’s defence counsel, said he had been struggling with anxiety and low self-esteem, and had spent increasing amounts of time online. There he had drifted into conversations with extremists, whose beliefs he now repudiated.

Scullion said his client, who pleaded guilty to an offence under the Terrorism Act, had intended to cause disruption but had not planned to injure people, so had left the detonator unconnected. “It is fair to say he now bitterly regrets what he did and will bitterly regret it for the rest of his life,” Scullion told the court.

Lord Braid jailed Karvounakis for eight years and four months, and said he would have been jailed for 10 years had he not admitted his guilt and had no previous convictions.

“The offence involved a high degree of culpability on your part as shown by the significant degree of planning,” the judge said. “Afterwards you appeared to exult in the commission in your claim of responsibility.”

Det Chief Supt Stuart Houston, Police Scotland’s head of counter-terrorism, said: “The ideological beliefs held by Karvounakis were unusual.

“His reckless actions showed utter disregard for the safety of anyone within Princes Street Gardens [and] there is no doubt his presence and engagement online after the event could have easily encouraged others to carry out similar acts, with potentially catastrophic consequences. Not just in Scotland.”

The doxing of the eco-extremist propagandist Abe Cabrera

Who is [censored], a Paralegal or an Eco-Extremist Mafia?

Source: <web.archive.org/.../325.nostate.net/2018/10/23/more-non-news-about-the-eco-extremist-mafia-by-l-uk>

---

[censored]
[censored]
[censored]
Telephone: [censored]

ES: ¿Quién es [censored], un asistente legal o uno de la “Mafia Eco-Extremista”? — https://web.archive.org/web/20210302230609/https:/325.nostate.net/2018/09/19/ee-uu-quien-es- [censored] -un-asistente-legal-o-uno-de-la-mafia-eco-extremista/

BAHASA: Mengungkap Art Cabrera! (Mengungkap Gereja ITS bag i)

DE: Wer ist [censored]? Ein Anwaltsassistent oder ein Oeko-Extremist? — https://web.archive.org/web/20210302230609/https:/325.nostate.net/2018/10/07/wer-ist- [censored] -ein-anwaltsassistent-oder-ein-oeko-extremist/

Let’s help pull back the curtain on the so-called “Eco-Extremist Mafia” and expose them a bit more with the aid of our contacts. Tracking and collecting information on our authoritarian, fascist, reactionary and irrationalist enemies is part of our activities as anarchists. This “Mafia” have said they have been hiding in the shadows for a long time, but possibly this one has been hiding in the broom cupboard with the envelopes, papers, pens and computers.

“Art Cabrera” is [censored]. Who is “Art Cabrera”? That is the editor of the eco-fascist journal Atassa, which is the English language mouth-piece of the Church of ITS Mexico, ‘Individualists Tending Toward the Wild’.

[censored], a piece of trash who is responsible for translating and spreading so-called ‘Eco-Extremism’ from the United States, is trying to advance his reactionary doctrine whilst living a completely fake and inauthentic double-life. We are happy to publish his real name, photo and workplace contact details to cause him problems, minor or major. Since [censored] has always been very glad to serve the Church of Eco-Extremism, instigated death threats against our anarchist comrades and is believing he is untouchable, we take great delight in doxxing him. This is the company he works for in his real life, not the fantasy one where he is the boss of the “Eco-Extremist Mafia” in America:

https://www. [censored]

Maybe some of the anti-fascist and anarchist comrades in America would like to contact his workplace and his wife to warn her that he is a dangerous member of the “Eco-Extremist Mafia”, all their contact details are to be found there.

[censored] is a paralegal in his day job. If he isn’t fully lying, his day job is supposed to be legal work for migrants, but he claims he voted for Trump. Considering the infusion of corporate espionage these days, it’s just as probable that a troll like [censored] might just as well be a corporate spy, as a deluded fantasist authoritarian. According to the workplace website of his real life, [censored] graduated from the University of California, Berkeley with a Bachelor’s Degree in Latin American Studies, and he works primarily in the area of employment-based immigration law. It also mentions that [censored] spent considerable time in both Mexico and Argentina, and is fluent in Spanish, which certainly fits the picture of a Berkeley University graduate who travelled abroad and thinks himself rather clever.

That this simple-looking, ugly, bald, fat-necked Catholic asshole has convinced quite a few supposedly radical ‘anarchists’ and ‘nihilists’ to join the Choir of the ITS is hilarious, more fool them. This is who Aragorn and LBC is willing to get into bed with just to irresponsibly try to stir shit up. [censored] is a fucking loser and should be used as target practice. Shot, stabbed, beaten, burned, whatever. Come to Europe, [censored], on a speaking tour and promote your book, let’s see what will happen to you. May there be some willing anarchists of praxis near-by who will put you out of your misery, you misanthropic waste.

And, as what most of us suspected to be true, the editor of Atassa is a Catholic, ex-Liberation Theologist, with a Marxist back-story. [censored]’s wife works for the same Legal firm, her name is [censored]. Apparently, neither [censored] nor [censored]’s kids know about his online eco-fascist “Mafia“ life at all. [censored] studied Biomedical Engineering in Texas A&M University and has a doctorate in Neurobiology from the University of [censored]. Are they not similar studies to those ITS targeted in Mexico?

Maybe [censored] wants his wife dead, raped or maimed too in his secret life.

[censored], maybe it’s time to tell your wife [censored] and your kids that you believe in rape culture, femicide, and indiscriminate terror in the name of your newest religious concept, Wild Nature. Or does [censored] already know you had a ‘Wild Nature’, a Janus? Is there something else that also is as two-faced and inauthentic in [censored]’s inner life that expresses itself in a life lived in deceit? Let’s find out.

L.

Thank you to our source.

More non-news about the “Eco-Extremist Mafia”

Source: <web.archive.org/.../325.nostate.net/2018/10/23/more-non-news-about-the-eco-extremist-mafia-by-l-uk>

---

Our last release [https://325.nostate.net/2018/09/15/who-is- [censored] -a-paralegal-or-an-eco-extremist-mafia-usa] of information about the so-called “Eco-Extremist Mafia” caused a commotion in the Church of ITS Mexico. Without giving them the oxygen they require in their parasitic nature on the international anarchist movement which they need to survive, we release a report and reply to the smears and idiocy of their position.

Within 12 hours of the doxxing of [censored] being released, the so-called ITS “Mafia”, who virtually live on the internet now, were so upset they had to describe the age and dryness of my Vagina! And take responsibility for the “massacre” beating of an anarcho-punk after a Zapatista rally last December! What is there left to say either to or about these misogynist, misanthropic, psychopathic high priests of the ITS death-cult?

Predictable smears from the post-truth ITS, who take responsibility for actions they have not done, imitating a tactic of IS/Daesh, and now, calling us “cops” who apparently emailed the UK police to inform them that the laughable ‘Archie the Robot’ “Archegonas” is responsible for the ‘Misanthropos Cacoguen’ ITS bomb that was indiscriminately left in a busy street in Edinburgh, Scotland where young people hang out and meet each other. Hilarious! And the basis for this? That a mainstream newspaper reported that cops received the communique (which reads more like a psychotic meltdown), from a Riseup.net mail server! It is more likely that the ‘Archegonas’ or another member of the “Eco-Extremist Mafia” did such a stupid act just to cause shit for Riseup, as they hate it so much, and now print lies against us as befits them. After years of shit from this idiot ‘Archegonas’, is this all that he and ITS can achieve? No, their words and texts reveal it all, and we are fucking laughing at the Church of the ITS Mexico and their choir-boys. That is the tactic of their silly smear, now repeated by some delusional idiot in Brazil. If that is the extent of their logic, it is no wonder that they have made the ideological and practical mistakes which have taken them to the abyss of shit, taking responsibility for minor homicides and planting bombs in public places with the sole intention of hurting as many people as possible. Eco-fascist scum.

After almost ten years of threats, smears and attacks, we are fighting back with some of the means we have, and we will continue to collect and publish information about the Eco-Extremists; the same as we do with the fascists. This is a known anti-fascist tactic proven to work, and we are not afraid of any reprisals. This tactic is an open source method to alert true comrades to the location and identity of their enemies: Our comrades who have been repeatedly smeared, threatened and harassed by this cringing little ITS gang. It has nothing to do with the police, we don’t give a fuck about the police, it is for us. Our comrades are using this tactic to great effect in UK, Germany, Spain, Australia, Canada, United States, Greece, Italy, Netherlands and everywhere that there are anarchists of action. Since ITS have always made it clear that they intend to kill us, that they are not anarchists and their actions and their ‘philosophy’ are not anarchic, we owe them nothing, nor do we owe their sheep-like supporters in America or Europe anything. The Church of ITS is nothing more than the murderous and mentally disturbed acting-out of any ordinary psychopath to whom we equally owe no allegiance whatsoever. We are not sure why they think they can demand any silence from us on the grounds of, what? Comradeship (or not even)? Criminalism? Don’t make us laugh, the ‘code of the streets’? ‘Moralism’ from those who don’t believe in anything? As one of our comrades in America wrote to us, “Funny how the nihilists turn into politicians as soon as another side draws a line in the sand and says enough is enough”.

The Church of ITS is an opportunistic authority of those that try to throw enough shit until some of it sticks, the classic tactic of fascists and bosses – “repeat a lie enough times and it becomes true”, propaganda at its best, written like the liars that they are. In the typical way of ITS, they try to use the words of other anarchists against us, in this case the CCF. We cannot and will not speak for our comrades of CCF, but in the quoted section by this minor ITS Brazil loser, CCF are describing their relationship to those they have worked with, not those who are already enemies and targets. Information regarding targets is to be circulated, and ITS are now Eco-fascist targets, having always eschewed any anarchist solidarity and comradeship. Maybe there was a time in the past there was some confusion as to the destination of the Church of ITS Mexico and their choir-boys, but now it is clear and has been for so long. Where are the original comrades of ITS? Where has the intelligent and articulate writing concerning technology and the direction of the techno-industrial-society gone? Disappeared in injuries, in arrests, not made public? Disappeared into hatred, fear and terror? Reduced to the garbage of blogs and social media? The international anarchist space is much more than this, and ITS needs conflict and division to feed their project, which has been given a platform by some of the most irresponsible shit-stirring post-modernist gamers and book-nerds in Europe and USA.

ITS and their sub-groups are simply vile, abusive performers in their own sick circus of hate and homicide. If we have the ability to fuck with them and make things difficult for them, even disrupt or attack them, then we will. Especially their “Eco-Extremist theorists” like [censored] and co. If it is possible for us to arrange for dozens and dozens of comrades to travel to Iraq and Syria to fight IS/Daesh, then we can send a few comrades to Mexico and Brazil. We are not scared, come and try to attack us, we will obliterate your wee dafties ‘Wildfire Cell’ and ‘Archegonas’. It’s not a problem for us, they know that they have never even emailed us to arrange a meeting in all this time. Same goes for the pathetically proud and thin-skinned ‘Maldicion Eco-Extremista’, what a joke. We have been emailing you, why won’t you meet our people in Mexico? Is it because your IP address is in Berkeley, San Francisco? The Church of ITS are nothing but cowards playing games, using the anarchist space for their own entertainment, just fucking scum who will get hurt and die soon.

[censored], ‘Abe Cabrera’. Now he has problems. Both himself and Guillory, his partner ,‘removed’ from the website of their employer, and here we publish his address, as a response to the smears of ITS. This is how your ‘indomitable’ translator and “theorist” [censored] ended up. A coward, and his “comrades” all betrayed him in public and left him for the dogs. That is the “Eco-Extremist Mafia”, the “theorists” who will go “forward”. The deafening silence from the “eco-extremist theorists” is really revealing after all the baiting, smears and threats taking place. And for each new provocation of the Church of ITS we will add the fire to the flames for the Americans and those we find in Europe. That each threat and attack will be answered.

[censored]
[censored]
[censored]
Telephone: [censored]

[censored]’s house is a $250,000 family home, not in the Latin American “Jungle” nor the “Ghetto”, nor the “Favelas”. He’s just another poser and fake like the rest of the “Eco-Extremist Mafia”. As part of our doxxing campaign, let’s look now at the emails we received from [censored] via the Atassa email account as [censored] tried to formulate an exit-scam and mitigate the impact we had on his life. These emails reveal a lot about his character and state of mind, and that of an “Eco-Extremist theorist”…

–

From: Atassa
Date: Sunday, September 16, 2018, 4:21 am
Subject: You Win

While we only have a vague idea of who told you that paralegal guy is the master mind behind all this, it’s evident that you care about this stuff more than we do. So you win. We’ve disappeared and you will never hear from us again. We wish you well in your projects.

–

Yes, [censored] wishes us well. What a cowardly piece of shit. He immediately ceased his Atassa project and took down every online evidence that Atassa existed, helped by the pseudo-comrade Aragorn/LBC, who continues to distribute the Atassa book-journal; hell, everything helps sales, right? [censored], who was translating the ITS texts, helping ITS/MaldicionEE write texts, make threats and glorifying in the murders, buckled so quickly. He even sent this next email shortly after, just to beg us a little more to save his miserable life, here it is.

–

From: Atassa
Date: Sunday, September 16, 2018, 5:12 am
Subject: You Win

Also, in exchange for taking down the supposed doxxing post against Mr. [censored], we can offer a public retraction of the Atassa project which you can publish on your site. You can assess whether that retraction is enough to end this whole business. We are not entirely unsympathetic to your aims and regret any damage that our actions have caused.

–

A retraction to “regret any damage that our actions have caused”. I had to repeat that, because it is just so beautiful. The Church of ITS Mexico who gave a long pontification about my old ‘anarcho-cop’ Vagina, and who had so much faith in [censored], and in his Catholic vivisectionist wife [https://325.nostate.net/2018/09/16/ [censored] -wife-of-eco-extremist-mafia-is-a-vivisectionist-usa], and this is how he repaid them. Beautiful. [censored] has no idea how much danger he is in, maybe now he’s starting to understand. What did the so-called “comrades” of [censored] have to say about it? Nothing. They dumped him. All of them.

–

From: Ramon Elani
Date: Wednesday, September 19, 7:10 am
Subject: Re: 7

Thank you for sending this to me. I no longer have dealings with this person or his project.
for the wild
ramon

–

Thanks Ramon, for confirming [censored] was Abe Cabrera, you did the right thing and it’s good to see that kind of solidarity “eco-extremist theorists” show each other.

–

From: Ramon Elani
Date: Wednesday, September 19, 8:56 am
Subject: Re: Betrayal

yes, i’ve long since regretted my involvement. though i still feel that my essay was misunderstood.
for the wild
ramon

–

Poor Ramon, he’s so misunderstood. As a co-editor of the ‘Black Seed’ garbage journal distributed by Aragorn/LBC, which tries to mix green anarchism and eco-extremism, and insert this toxic poison into the international anarchist ‘movement’, you are not misunderstood. It was clear in the decision to print the text ‘To the World Builders’ and it’s inclusion in the ‘The Anarchist Library’ what the position is you all have taken. Post-modern crap theorising around rape culture and murder, fuck you and die.

Elani is so “misunderstood” that the shit eco-academic-activist philosophy and creative writing project ‘Dark Mountain’, has published his new text, where he takes the opportunity to fully renege; disavowing property destruction, sabotage and attacks. So much for the “indomitable” Eco-Extremist theorists, what cowards.

–

From: Armenio Lewis
Date: Sunday, September 22, 2018, 1:46 pm
Subject: Atassa

I dont even know how to really word this so im gonna make this simple.
ALL participants and friendlies around the atassa project have reached out to me hoping I can, for lack of a better term, alleviate any animosity over the atassaproject.
Abe went off the deep end. What started as theoretical exploration of violence with no one except abe actually declaring and supporting ITS
Nobody wants beef, I’m just a middle man relaying this.
You can email back, call @ +150********, or completely ignore.
Fuck with abe all you want, he deserves it, but everyone else doesnt.

–

There it is; there is “ALL the participants and friendlies around the Atassa project”, which we assume includes LBC/Aragorn totally throwing [censored] under the bus just to save themselves any bother. They must seriously underestimate us to write such ridiculous shit – Ah, just a “theoretical exploration of violence”. What a fucking collection of cretins. So much for the claims of the Pope of ITS Mexico about their “theorists”, these people couldn’t theorise themselves out of a paper bag.

“Eco-Extremism” is an opportunistic trend of parasitism, online fakes and sacred beliefs, recycling on facebook, twitter and the “altervista” or “wordpress”. Although they would like you to think that their groups are spreading, instead they are dwindling, with a few people traveling between countries (or staying put in Mexico!) and believing in their sacred misanthropic mission. A mission which is expressed as hatred of women, hatred of anarchy, and ‘humanity’.

What we did find out, was that a few months ago [censored] promoted on his summer reading list on Atassa Facebook, the book “Iron Gates,” which is a fascist written and published book that is set in a concentration camp. Part rape fantasy, part pro-Nazi propaganda. It’s also one of the ‘go-to’ texts promoted by Atomwaffen Divison in the USA, which is like the American version of National Action (Neo-Nazi group in UK). A lot of comrades have pointed to a potential cross over between the Eco-Extremist material and Satanic/Neo-Nazi crap like Atomwaffen who has killed about half a dozen people in the US.

Yeah, so much for all these “theorists” and ITS “cells” that like to philosophise about what is and what is not “fascism”, and how dare the ‘anarcho-cops’ call them fascists.

We specifically warn against this EE tendency because of the potential for cross-overs with the nationalist-autonomous & nationalist-anarchist, neo-nazi and indigenous pagan “white tribe” eco-fascists who target the dredge of the anarchist scene with their irrationalist, green authoritarian and runic occult bullshit.

In the last text-threat from ITS Brazil, where they blame the Hambach Forest defenders for the death of the comrade who fell from the trees, we find the jealousy, the resentment, the bitterness of those who understand nothing about what it is that we are fighting for. In all the texts from ITS these past years we find a gross lack of understanding of what the anarchist ideas are and what anarchist methods are. Instead we just find a perverse and fanatic pathology and a weakness, leading to their ongoing blatant failures and authoritarian outcomes.

The “Eco-Extremist Curse” remains a joke, and for all the lies and smears that come from their mouths, we will target those that come within our reach.

As one of our comrades remarked “keep on threatening me with the evil-eye, come on…”

From my vast, old, soul eating Vagina…

L.

“Eco-Extremist Mafia” [censored] submits legal & FBI threat to anarchist counter-info site 325

Source: https://325.nostate.net/2018/11/16/eco-extremist-mafia- [censored] -submits-legal-fbi-threat-to-anarchist-counter-info-site-325

---

Just as we had been convinced that the eco-extreme/nihilist-right “Mafia” could not get even more ridiculous, we were sent this email below by the comrades of nostate.net. It’s a threat via their domain provider by the boss of the North American ‘indomitable’ “eco-extremist theorists”, [censored], editor of eco-fascist journal Atassa to call the FBI. After all those other ‘indomitable’ ‘comrades’ of his hung him out to dry the only thing for him to do is threaten to call the police.

This threat the eco-fascist makes is nothing but a gift to us and shows what the pope Atassa is really about. A miserable snitch fantasist who thinks he can mock and threaten without consequences, moving around online spaces and blogs promoting the indiscriminate terrorism and authoritarianism of the Individualists Tending Toward the Wild (ITS) whilst attacking anarchy. A Catholic flea attached to the anarchist space and the controversy of spreading death threats against comrades, mixing up anarchist ideas with irrationalist and religious ones.

[censored], informer and worthless coward, doesn’t he think that the FBI and dozens of other security agencies don’t already monitor our site? Doesn’t this “Mafia” already know that if our small organisation can find out exactly where he lives, who he associates with, where he works and spends time, then the FBI might also know exactly who and what he is? [censored] always was a useful idiot to the arms of the State, just like the entire “Eco-Extremism” trend.

Counter-information is an ongoing, continuous practice directed towards our anarchist, nihilist and anti-authoritarian aims. It really doesn’t matter to us if our site is taken down, it will be back in one form or another. Everything will continue.

Solidarity to the comrades fighting against authoritarian and misanthropic trash.

–

Dear Sir or Madam: My name is [censored], and I live in the United States. I have been the target of a harassment campaign based on mistaken identity from a site that you host, namely: 325.nostate.net

The offending links are listed here:
https://325.nostate.net/tag/ [censored] -art-cabrera-eco-fascist
https://325.nostate.net/2018/10/23/more-non-news-about-the-eco-extremist-mafia-by-l-uk

As you can see, my picture, a picture of my wife, and my address have been posted on that site, as well as death threats. Due to the nature of the threats, I do not believe that the webmaster would take these articles down. Please advise if you believe that this content is acceptable according to your current policies of website hosting, otherwise we will be forced to investigate legal action, as well as inform the FBI. Their posting of my address and our pictures on their site is not acceptable. Please find my contact information below. I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely, [censored]

phone: [censored]
email: [censored]

— Primary Source Documents —

— Essays & Zines —

Indirect Response

The non-direct public response, of the terrorist group “Individualities tending to the wild”, to the criticisms of the publishing groups “Último Redoducto” and “Anónimos con Cautela”.

Note to this work

“Ediciones Aborigen” reproduces one of the entries from the blog “El Tlatol” (eltlatol.wordpress.com) that was published in August 2014, in which , those in charge of updating it realize a curious fact that is undoubtedly worth publishing.

September 2014

EA

The indirect response of the Individualities tending to the wild, to “Last Redoubt” and “Anonymous with Cautela”

Introduction of EL Tlalol

Reading in more depth the communications of the Its group, the group that updates the blog “El Tlatol”, we were able to realize that the sixth text of Its is a response to the criticisms written by a couple of publishing groups faithful to Ted’s ideas Kaczynski, we refer to “Last Redoubt” and “Anonymous with Caution”.

These two criticisms were made public on January 8, 2012 in a blog that no longer exists, so Its responded to them indirectly on the 28^th of that same month, without mentioning the signing editorial groups.

Perhaps these criticisms, and especially that of Último Reducto, because it is the one with the most weight and simplicity, were the ones that pushed Its towards self-criticism and the definition of positions. We will not really know until they declare themselves about this event.

We clarify that the “Tlatol” blog update group does not believe or have the intention of adhering to copyright, so we consider it viable to publish texts that are not our authorship (as in this case), but that serve us selfishly , for a specific purpose. So if someone thinks to write to our email address and ask us for an explanation regarding the use of their text (or texts), without the author’s permission, our response will always be to ignore and go over their marked desktop rules.

Some comments in reference to the communiqués of Individualities Tendendo a lo Salvaje.

For the Last Redoubt.

After reading the five communiques that the Individualists Tending toward the Wild[16] (ITS) have published on http://liberaciontotal.lahaine.org, Último Reducto (UR) wish to make some comments about these texts:[17]

We are not going to go into the worn and generally sterile debate here about whether or not the use of violence as a means for combating the techno-industrial system is appropriate. Our critiques will go in other directions:

1. It is unfortunate what an overwhelming number of spelling mistakes, syntax errors, failures of grammatical concordance, stylistic defects, punctuation mistakes, etc., appear in ITS’ first four communiques, since it makes reading them much more difficult and less attractive for those who might want to do so.

Some probably think this critique is rather superficial, that the content of the communiques is what matters, not their form. And, in a certain way, they are partly right. But, without denying that what they say is what is fundamental, and how they say it is secondary, we must point out that it is also important to take care of form, even though it may only be for purely practical reasons. Terrible grammar and poor style in expressing oneself makes it difficult not only because fewer readers correctly interpret the text, but also because fewer even go through the annoyance of reading it to the end. If almost every line makes you have to stop, forcing you to go back and/or mentally correct the spelling mistakes or reread the sentences over and over trying to imagine the true meaning of what you’re reading because of the stylistic and syntax failures, the function of the text as a means of expression and diffusion becomes greatly reduced. Moreover, the fact that ITS uses Spanish so badly in these communiques could make it easier for certain technophiles (and other people who are scandalized by the attacks, verbal or non-verbal, against modern technology, leftist values and civilization) to pass the buck, making superficial critiques of the form and avoiding going deeper into the content of the communiques. For many it will be easier to dismiss ITS as a gang of uneducated people because of their bad grammar and preemptively reject the validity of everything ITS says than to force themselves to understand it and work on a serious response to their ideas. If those who position themselves against the techno-industrial system and civilization want their ideas and/or actions to be taken seriously, by their possible allies as well as by their enemies (and this supposes they therefore make their ideas public through texts), they should make clear that they are not a bunch of irrational, ignorant and/or negligent nobodies, forcing themselves to carry out their work in the most competent way possible (even though this implies going to the trouble of learning or exercising certain linguistic skills and adequately revising and correcting their texts before making them public; as well as forming, documenting, etc., in other non-linguistic aspects).

It must be pointed out, in any case, that in their fifth communique (from December 19, 2011, which claimed the attack on Greenpeace), a notable improvement could be noted in this aspect.

2. Also in relation to the use of language, it is worth pointing out that the excessively insulting and contemptuous tone that ITS use not only to refer to technophiles but also to leftists, to the defenders of other versions of anti-civilization theory, and to people in general, is overboard. It is overboard, not because many of them do not deserve contempt, but because expressing it such an exaggerated way does not contribute anything to the rational comprehension of the text and can give the impression (true or not, the practical effects are the same), that the members of ITS suffer a lack of self-control over their emotions and that the hidden aim of their communiques is, after all, to vent. [18] And this could also subtract respectability from their communiques.

3. And, continuing with the practical critique of form, it must be pointed out that ITS’ communiques tend to be excessively long and contain redundancies, digressions and unnecessary fragments (for example, Último Reducto are still asking ourselves what the supposed mathematical formula on the principle of causality in their fourth communique was all about). One could say the fundamentals in many fewer words, and that would improve the reading and the readers’ comprehension of it.

In fact, mere common sense should have dictated to ITS the convenience of measuring their words and being brief and concise when claiming their actions, even if only so as not to unnecessarily leave a trail.

That is all regarding the practical importance of taking care of form. Below UR will make some critiques about the content of ITS’ communiques.

4. It is obvious that ITS have drawn upon on the work of Ted Kaczynski (alias Unabomber or Freedom Club–FC for short) and UR, among others, in expressing themselves.[19] But it must be pointed out that, in UR’s opinion [20], ITS have misinterpreted some aspects of Kaczynski’s ideas, despite it being obvious that ITS have understood them for the most part (something that cannot be said for most of those who believe themselves in affinity with him, nor for the majority of his critics).

So, in the 2^nd communique, ITS lead one to believe that Ted Kaczynksi defends the position of “educating people about the technology that will carry us to our destruction,” when Kaczynski has defended no such thing. In fact, he has instead expressed that those who try to combat the techno-industrial system should not waste time or energy trying to convince the majority of people that they are right or to join their side (see, for example, Industrial Society and Its Future, paragraph 189 [21]).

Also in the 2^nd communique, ITS say that “[Kaczynski] also says that a change of values must come from an education taught from now on; [and that] Kaczynski has based his ideas on the French “Revolution” in order to make the example of that during the Renaissance many values began to flourish in Europe in many people’s minds and just then the uprising in France arose,” and again they are wrong. In the first place, when Kaczynski speaks of a change of values as the prelude of a revolution, he is not referring to educating the masses so that they accept the new values, but rather that a prerequisite for revolutions to happen is that some new values and ideas arise which defy the old ones. He does not in any way speak of “educating” the people, nor that such values should be extended to all of society first or simultaneously through education. [22] And secondly, Kaczynski is educated enough to know that between the Renaissance and the French Revolution several centuries passed (“just then”??). The Enlightenment (which is what Kaczynski spoke of [23]) is one thing, and the Renaissance is another. If one does not know the difference, how do they expect to be taken seriously?

In the same communique, ITS, err in saying that Kaczynski has said that “now many people is [sic] questioning the use of technology, that they are thinking seriously about abandoning it.” What Kaczynski has said is that there are ever more intelligent people who seriously question technological progress [24], which is not at all the same. The individuals who are sufficiently intelligent to be able to seriously question technological progress are and will always be a small minority. It is just that, within that minority, there are more and more doing it.

ITS, in their communiques, critique Kaczynksi for defending the concept of revolution. UR will leave until later the discussion of what is correct about this critique and here will only focus on pointing out that ITS appear to not be very clear on what the concept of revolution [25] that Ted Kaczynski defends is, since, for example, they explain that all revolutions seek not only to destroy the preexisting society, but also to build a new one. But in Industrial Society and Its Future, paragraphs 104 (Fourth Principle of History) [26] and 182 [27], without going further, FC makes clear that one should not try to create a new society, but only to destroy the preexisting one. [28]

ITS also say, in the 2^nd communique, that “… Kaczynski is in a maximum security prison, isolated from the world that surrounds him since 1996; surely

if he left the prison in this very moment, he would realize the error he has made in writing such a vague declaration…” It seems that some of those who speak publicly about Kaczynski without having tried beforehand to even really have contact with him, believe and try to make others believe that Kaczynski is completely incommunicado, totally isolated from the outside. It is necessary to explain that Ted Kaczynksi has not only kept correspondence with people from different countries from the beginning of his incarceration, he also has access to various publications from the written press and the prison’s library. And, at least for several years, he has had contact with other prisoners and received visitors. If he was misinformed it would not be primarily due to his seclusion. In fact, in his writing and correspondence he has frequently shown himself to be much better informed of how industrial society functions than many of those who erroneously believe that he is isolated from the world.

5. The scientific rigor of ITS’ arguments often leaves much to be desired.

The most obvious, though not the only, example of this is that ITS leads one to understand in their 2^nd communique that earthquakes are the product of disequilibrium produced in the Earth by the techno-industrial system, without supporting this idea with empirical data, nor even citing references to research that can point in that direction.

In fact, on many occasions, references to serious works and studies are left lacking in ITS’ communiques.

6. Even though going deeply into philosophical discussions is not usually very useful or practical in effectively combating the techno-industrial system, it is necessary to develop and have a minimally solid philosophical basis on which to construct an ideology and an appropriate discourse. And logical contradictions in one’s discourse are not exactly a sign of solidity.

For example, ITS should make clear what their real position is toward “absolute truth” (or, what is the same, their position toward relativism) rather than expound on it in such an obviously sloppy and contradictory way as they did in their second and forth communiques. In their second communique (22 May 2011), ITS wield the extremely worn-out relativist cliche that consists of accusing others of believing they “have the absolute truth” in order to criticize the “anti-civilizationists” and “primitivists” who defend the concept of revolution, while in their fourth communique (21 September 2011) ITS try to criticize relativism and admit that they consider “Wild Nature and Individual Autonomy as an absolute and objective truth.” That is, ITS, in their second communique, brazenly fall into what they criticize in the fourth. And vice-versa: in the second communique they criticize what they defend in the fourth. This inconsistency does not reflect well on ITS’ capacity for logical reasoning, or at least their capacity for correctly and logically expressing their ideas.

But there is something more to say about this whole matter of the defense or denial of the existence of absolute truths. It is a useless and impractical debate when it comes to effectively combating the techno-industrial system. All the time and energy invested in this debate are a waste. Obviously, those who are really against techno-industrial society and civilization and who really love wild Nature do not believe that everything is relative (and, however they call it and whether or not they recognize it, they always take certain things as absolute truths). But not being relativist and knowing that relativism is a sign of pseudo-intelligence, pseudo-rebellion and/or lack of honesty are one thing, and it is another to go around explicitly and spontaneously declaring that absolute truths exist. The first is indispensable, the second superfluous (it only leads us to unproductive digressions and debates). The aim is not to combat relativism. It is enough to not fall into it.

7. Even though one cannot rule out that nanotechnology may manage to pose a serious threat (because of the risk of the so-called “grey goo” or something similar), the distance that exists between the nanotubes and similar nanostructures of the present and those invasive, intelligent nanomachines that are completely autonomous and capable of self-replicating directly by means of the materials of their surroundings–the ones presented to us in science fiction novels or the futuristic speculations of some technophiles–is enormous and will probably be much delayed in being traveled, if it ever manages to be. There are much more imminent threats such as the progressive hybridization of artificial systems with non-artificial systems (for example, the gradual hybridization between human beings and informatic and robotic systems which, in a certain way and degree, is already happening at present: cerebral implants, the implantation of limbs with artificial intelligence, growing psychological and physical dependence on the Internet and mobile phone, etc.), or the mere substitution or elimination of the latter by the former (something that has been increasingly happening over thousands of years and is extending and worsening with every new technological advance. It could be that to a certain point some branches of nanotechnology (those applied to genetic engineering, for example) form an active part in these imminent threats along with many other modern technologies, but they do not constitute the principal core of the threats, and perhaps they are not essential for those threats to be made reality. If one takes all of this into account, perhaps ITS should have better chosen the immediate target for some of their attacks.

8. In their communiques, ITS say they are not defeatist. If by “defeatist” we understand the attitude of abandoning struggle because one considers it already lost, ITS are not defeatist, since they have not abandoned their struggle. But if we understand “defeatist” to mean the attitude that denies in advance all possibility of victory when in reality it isn’t clear that no possibility exists, ITS are defeatist, as indicated by their way of understanding the concept of anti-technology revolution (or whatever one wants to call the hypothetical process of demolishing the techno-industrial system, assisted at least in part by a movement). Let us analyze ITS’ way of understanding the anti-technology struggle. It would seem that for ITS there are only two general possibilities of thinking about the struggle against the techno-industrial system: the illusory, or “revolutionary,” consists, according to ITS, of believing that a movement against techno-industrial society must be created that is capable of destroying that society through its mere activity (also, according to ITS, of constructing a utopian new society that isn’t industrial or civilized) and the realist one, also according to them, consists of attacking the techno-industrial system with the available means without hoping or pursuing its destruction and without organizing any movement. The second strategy, to call it something, would be the one that ITS follows; the first, according to ITS, is the one followed by all those individuals and groups that are against the techno-industrial system and are the target of ITS’ critiques in their communiques. UR will not deny that many of those who declare themselves against the techno-industrial system defend [29] proposals that are extremely naive, inefficient and unrealistic about how to carry out the struggle against that system and about what is worth hoping for and pursuing and what isn’t as regards that struggle. Even so, ITS seem not to realize the extreme simplicity of the dichotomy they propose. Between fighting without hope, only to never give an inch and to die with our feet planted (launching attacks like ITS’), and fighting for a chimera, overestimating our own abilities (believing in the future arrival of non-industrial or even uncivilized utopias and/or believing that the mere activity of a movement against the techno-industrial society will result in its demolition), there is room for other possibilities that ITS completely passes over.

To begin with, the techno-industrial system at present is certainly too strong to be destroyed solely or principally through the activity of those who fight against it. But in other circumstances, the situation could be different. In the future, the techno-industrial system could suffer a serious crisis, a great enough weakening to cause its own collapse, or at least as to make it susceptible to being successfully destroyed by a movement that was strong and well-organized enough at that time. It is probable that this crisis will happen sooner or later, since the system is presently faced with various serious threats to its survival (from global ecological problems to problems of maintaining its internal functioning and structure) and it is not clear that it will be able to overcome them all easily and without weakening itself. But a movement against the techno-industrial system that is organized and capable enough will not fall from the sky the day this crisis happens (if it does happen), instead it is something that needs to be created beforehand by means of a patient and laborious process of recruitment and organization. This movement, if it manages to constitute and fortify itself enough, could even assist in the arrival of the crisis. In fact, it must try to do this, since the later this crisis arrives, the less likely it will be for something wild to survive the demolition.

Of course, all of this is only a possibility. It could be that a serious crisis will never happen. It could be that, although this crisis happens, the collapse of the techno-industrial society does not arrive and this society overcomes. It could be that a movement is never created that is organized and strong enough to annihilate the techno-industrial system when the opportunity arrives… But also, there also exists the possibility for these things to happen and for the techno-industrial system to be destroyed in time. And this possibility should not be discarded lightly. Not only because it could be the only opportunity to manage to end with the techno-industrial system, but because it is not absurd. It could happen. And whether this possibility happens depends in part on the attitude toward it (defeatism or hope) adopted by those who today declare themselves against the techno-industrial system.

On the other hand, between fighting without hope of victory, just to not surrender, and fighting with the hope of achieving victory (as small as the possibility of this happening may be), there is a great difference. Human beings normally try much harder, and with greater tenacity, when they hope to be victorious than when they fight without hope. And as we have seen, there is hope even, though it is remote.

As for non-industrial and/or uncivilized utopia, it must be pointed out that utopia and the design or creation of a new society (or world) prior to the destruction of the pre-existing society (or world) is completely naive. It never goes as expected. To dream that after the fall of techno-industrial society a new world without civilization or domination will arise is to not absolutely understand how the world, societies and human nature work. It is not likely that techno-industrial society will at some point collapse (in a way that leaves a habitable environment for the human beings who would probably survive), but it is possible. It is completely impossible that civilization and domination would disappear if human beings survived after that collapse. Wherever ecosystems permit, great and complex new societies would again arise over time (if they did disappear completely in the collapse), and human beings would continue to be human and behave as such in any kind of society, level of technological development, or ecological environment. To a greater or lesser extent, while the world is the world and human beings are human, there will continue to be injustices and abuses, there will continue to be hierarchies, there will continue to be at least certain kinds of imposition and submission, etc. Forever. And even so, that is not a reason to not take as a reference certain forms of society, certain forms of life and certain levels of technological development that have been the least harmful to the autonomy of wild Nature (including human nature). We know that human nature is the product of the evolutionary adaptation produced over hundreds of millennia of hunter-gatherer nomadic existence. That is the form of life we are biologically programmed for. It is not a matter of dreaming that the world will go back to being populated solely by hunter-gatherer nomads again. But we have to keep in mind that, if techno-industrial society collapses at some point, some human beings would be able to return to living in that way (at least for some centuries).

9. ITS end their 3^rd communique with the phrase: “Nature is good, civilization is bad,” and in their 4^th communique they try to explain what they mean. This, like the matter of relativism, is another example of the philosophical tangles that theory and discussions really against techno-industrial society should avoid falling into. Discussing whether Nature is good, whether the techno-industrial system is bad, what is good and what is bad, whether there are absolute or intrinsic values, etc., is completely futile in effectively combating the techno-industrial system. Of course those who really love wild Nature and reject the techno-industrial system and civilization have a morality or ethic, that is, they have some values. They think–consciously or not–that some things are more important or valuable than everything else, [30] and that some other things are incompatible with the important ones–that is, they are bad. And they think that at least some of the bad things are bad in themselves, always and independently from everything else (that is, they are intrinsically and absolutely bad). And their ideological positions arise, obviously, from this moral basis. But it is one thing to have a moral and non-relativist opposition to civilization and it is another to go from there to unnecessarily provoke discussions about morality and get tangled up in them. The first is indispensable and inevitable, the second is superfluous and hardly effective in advancing the struggle against the techno-industrial system.

10. From what one can infer from their communiques, ITS have demonstrated a fairly good understanding of what leftism consists of in broad strokes (which is much more than can be said of the majority of radicals who believe themselves to be non-leftists), but one detail or another makes one suspect that in some concrete aspects related to this topic (as well as in other matters like the rejection of relativism, grammar and the use of language, the

understanding of some of Kaczynksi’s ideas, the understanding of the concept of revolution, etc.), ITS are, in any case, still too green.

Perhaps the most significant detail of their incomplete rejection of leftism is their “wager on insurrectionalist immediatism” (2^nd communique). ITS seem to not be aware that insurrectionalism, like almost any other kind of anarchism, is leftism, however much many insurrectionalists may rant against the “leftists.” Insurrectionalism has not absolutely broken with its historical origins. The insurrectional theoretical basis, terminology and methods are the inheritance of certain branches of anarchism from past ages (and anarchism has almost always been leftism [31]). This, which is obvious in “pure” insurrectionalism, continues to be evident also in green or anti-industrial insurrectionalism. [32] And going into terminological and conceptual subtleties such as differentiating between “anarchy” and “anarchism” (something very proper to insurrectionalist discourse, to be sure) does not invalidate it. The discussion over the two terms/concepts doesn’t interest anyone except anarchists or libertarians, and they, almost without exception, are what they are: leftists and/or brainless.

Another detail, although much less important (if ITS’ leftist contamination were reduced to just this it would hardly be a problem), is the use of “x” to try to avoid the masculine gender in certain words. Putting aside that this ridiculous custom comes from certain ludicrous feminist (and therefore leftist) theories about the macho nature of language and that it is typical of much of leftism, one must note that attempting to eliminate the masculine gender from words denotes a concern with machismo (and therefore inequality, oppression and injustice in general), which is not typical of those who have really broken with leftism and have realized what is really important, what is it worth fighting for (and/or against) and what is only a decoy for keeping rebellion in good hands. Someone who really cares about wild Nature and really rejects techno-industrial society shouldn’t give a damn about combating supposed social ills like machismo (especially imaginary “linguistic machismo”). That is not to mention that ITS, consistent with their deficient use of the rules of traditional Spanish grammar, aren’t even able to use the “x” adequately (often they do not place it where one supposedly should place it according to this “anti-sexist grammar”, and other times they place it where it shouldn’t be placed–for example, “lxs individuos”).

11. In relation to the topic of leftism, in their 5^th communique ITS say that “the war against academics and technologists is declared (that is more than clear and we have shown it) but also the war against leftism”. UR is very much in agreement that leftism is a serious threat for those who want to really damage the techno-industrial system, since the true function of leftism is serving that system as a mechanism of self-defense, self-repair and self-perpetuation. Nevertheless, declaring war on leftism, that is, taking combating leftism as an aim, is a tactical error. And it is an error not because leftism does not deserve to be exposed and rejected. In fact, those who really want to seriously and effectively combat the techno-industrial system should firstly be very clear about what leftism is and learn to identify it (in all of its facets and versions, including the forms of leftism that present themselves as critiques of leftism); and, secondly should very clearly mark their distance from leftism and keep away from it and, vice versa, should keep leftism away from their ideas, discourse, close circle and ranks. Declaring war on leftism is a tactical error because leftism is not worth capturing the attention of those who intend to fight the techno-industrial system beyond the mere critique necessary to keep away from it. The objective that those who really love wild Nature and hate the techno-industrial system and civilization have to focus their limited energies, time and resource on is fighting against the techno-industrial system, not against leftism. All serious opposition to the techno-industrial system has to have the rejection of leftism as a prerequisite and has to keep separated from it if it wants to stay healthy, well-directed and effective, in the same way that it is necessary to also keep away from individuals who are vague, irrational, pusilanimous, lacking in self-control, etc.. But it would be a mistake and a waste to declare war on them. As in the case of relativism, it is one thing to take care not to fall into it and another to dedicate yourself to combating it.

Here this critique ends for now.

Much less do we now believe that the struggle against techno-industrial society could or should be carried out through the education of the people, the rational, generalized spreading and argumentation of ideas against techno-industrial society or civilization, the development of ways of life and social models consistent with those ideas, etc.

Therefore, whenever readers find contradictions between what is said in different works by UR, they should consider that the position expressed in the most recent writing is the one that UR presently defends (or at least the closest to this).

On the other hand, the majority of the classical supposed anarcho-individualists, like the contemporary individualists who take them as a reference point, are very contaminated by positions that come from socialism (for example, identification with and defense of groups of supposed victims–the oppressed, the working class, the excluded, the marginal, etc.). Even the most recalcitrant anarcho-individualists, like Stirner, who could not be so easily categorized as leftists, leave much to be desired as ideological references, since much of their work is infested with pseudo-rebellious attitudes like relativism or irrationalism.

In light of the situation, referring to oneself as anarchist not only doesn’t contribute anything practical to the fight against the techno-industrial system, it suggests the existence of a series of awful ideological references and affinities. And this is something that it is better to avoid.

Public criticism of Individualities Tendendo al Salvaje by Anonymous with Caution.

By Anonymous with Caution[33][34]

“... The current movement [against the techno-industrial system] is ineffective because among the people who are part of it there are too many who are there for the wrong reasons [...] For [some], revolution is just a kind of game they play to give vent to their rebellious impulses. For others, participation in the movement is pure egomania. They compete for status, or else to write ‘analyses’ and ‘critiques’ that serve more to feed their own vanity than to advance the revolutionary cause.”[35]

Anonymous with Caution (A.C. onwards) has read the four communiqués of Individualities Tending to the Wild (I.T.S. onwards) published on the anarchist website “liberaciontotal.lahaine.org”, dated April 27, May 22, August 9 and September 21, the four of the year 2011.

It is high time someone responded publicly to their arguments.

This work was initially prepared to respond to the four communiqués, but days later A.C. realized that I.T.S. republished another communiqué on the same page, dated December 19, 2011, in which it again expresses its rejection of leftism; Upon reading it, A.C. decided to modify his original answer and focus on this other, more important aspect: I.T.S.‘s relationship with leftism.

Although it is worth mentioning that it would have been best to raise a criticism of each of its communiqués and all the issues that are dealt with in them, since A.C. does not share at all some of the ideas of I.T.S. and considers that there are many things to say in relation to its actions, Discourse and ideology, deepening and focusing on an ideological discussion would exaggeratedly lengthen this article and would take an excess of time in matters, to some extent, inconsequential[36].

I.T.S. and leftism

The type of conduct of I.T.S., although it may not be classified as one hundred percent leftist,[37] it does share (although I.T.S. says otherwise) some similarities with “leftism” of the apparently most radical type (that of those groups calling themselves “contestatory”, “autonomous”, “libertarian”, “countercultural”).

The kind of similarities with leftism found in I.T.S.‘s speech are abundant (those honest and lucid readers will find them), however, in order to be concrete A.C. will only mention two no less important aspects:

• the intention to eliminate the common gender of nouns (in this case the “a” or the “o” for the “x”), behavior of progressive individuals who seek gender equality through political correctness,[38] a somewhat insignificant matter, although as already mentioned, typical of the leftist behavior of the present.

• the kind of tactics used to spread its ideology, tactics that are also related to those of traditional leftism, those that it uses, for example, the struggle for the so-called “animal liberation”, and that have served to give outlet to the hostility of its activists; although more importantly, as a means to show the system where it is flawed, creating a series of positive feedbacks between the system and leftists.

At first glance, the type of tactics used by I.T.S. appear to be the most radical and therefore the right ones, but on closer inspection you can discover that they are not so good. For example, what kind of tactic is it to tell your enemy your plans to fight him? With its tactics, it is likely that I.T.S., despite its “good” intentions to do something useful (or precisely because of them), has created a major obstacle to ideas truly contrary to techno-industrial society, ending up helping the system it intended to damage. Because what ideas that are really contrary to techno-industrial society need the least now is to be related primarily or exclusively to such tactics.

It must be made clear that A.C. is not saying that the public dissemination of ideas against techno-industrial society should be renounced, but that those who decide to do so should be able to identify leftism in any of its forms, assume an attitude of total rejection of it and try not to express themselves or act like leftists so as not to attract pseudo-radicals who later convert these ideas to leftism.

On the other hand, A.C. also wants to ask I.T.S., what does it intend to combat, engineers and scientists, technological progress, the techno-industrial system, modern civilization or “domination”?

It has already been mentioned that his speeches are not at all clear, but even so, it can be seen that I.T.S. is more irritated by “domination” and is more inclined to try to combat that which is exercised on human Freedom and towards the mechanisms of self-regulation of non-artificial systems (the wild in general).

Currently, in the current called “antidominadora” there are a variety of characters, some really critical and rational, of non-leftist psychological tendencies and potentially useful to effectively combat the techno-industrial system, although still with more or less progressive and humanist contamination coming from the hippy subculture. and leftist, and other (most) characters of irrational psychological tendency, and / or leftist, settled in this subculture and totally ruined by the idealistic, humanist, progressive ideological influences, etc., typical of those bizarre and / or rebellious environments. “Anti-domination” constitutes, at best (that of the potentially critical and useful “anti-dominators” of non-leftist and non-hippy psychology), an immature stage in the development of a non-leftist current truly opposed to the techno-industrial system. And in the worst (that of the “anti-dominators” who, due to their nature, do not just break with hippy, leftist and / or humanist pollution and, therefore, do not evolve), a wrong path doomed to failure.

I.T.S. should think about this before re-expressing its tendency to try to combat acts of domination, and therefore, before again favoring its association with that current.

A.C. considers that it is best to give greater priority to a single, clear, feasible and most important objective: the physical destruction of the techno-industrial system.[39]. For if one chooses another objective than this one (such as: fighting against “domination” or the need to do something useful but not effective), the energies and resources of those who pursue other objectives will be dissipated in trivial or impossible struggles and the techno-industrial system will end up completely eliminating true human freedom and autonomy, and subduing the wild Nature.

What has been said so far are only a few general lines, A.C. hopes that this criticism and all its conclusions will make I.T.S. (and not only them) reflect and see, that in reality their speech, their behavior and part of their ideology are wrong, and that their actions and misdirected criticisms have served to a large extent to attract more individuals of the leftist type to the struggle against the techno-industrial system.

SIXTH RELEASE: Indirect and self-critical response of Individualities tending to the wild, in the face of criticism from UR and AC

The following text is intended to be a self-critique, in addition to accepting publicly the mistakes that we made in past communiques and in claiming responsibility for some attempts against the Techno-industrial System.

Certainly, ITS will always accept critiques that are based in reason, those that are not founded upon strong and well-cemented criteria will be rejected as has been done before.

I

ITS considers it to have been an error in past communiques to substitute the letters that denote gender with an “x” since we do not focus on things like this, nor do we want to denote a certain inclination to the linguistic postures of the politically correct. And we say that we do not focus on these kinds of grammatical currents because the attack on the system is our view, and no other struggle. Generally, those people who write with these kinds of corrections have roots in their postulated senseless struggles like “equality,” “solidarity,” “egalitarianism” (etc), that is, they defend the ideology of leftism and reductionism, which we do not share. It is for this reason that we reject this kind of “grammatical subculture” (as it is called).

II

Many of the things that we have written in the first as well as the second communique–such as the supposed liberation of animals and the earth, which are based in sentimentalism, insurrectionalism, which in many cases justifies itself with emotions of vengeance, the poor choice that we had with the thing about the earthquakes, the critique that one must see with respect to the poor interpretations of some ideas of Ted Kaczynski (truthfully speaking, very few)–we have discarded and now for us they have no validity. The lack of more printed material that correctly explains, or at least has a certain closeness to, Kaczynski’s ideas does not make the task of understanding them with clarity easy for many.

Obviously, we continue to defend the critique against the terminology “revolution-revolutionary,” without a doubt.

Because:

• The so-called “revolution” that so many bet on perverts the nature of the human being because it always tends to reform the system.

• “Revolution” is a blind hope (faith) that many want to see achieved, if they do not achieve their task (which has never been done) their efforts will be in vain, and everything, absolutely everything for which they fought will sell them short, making such efforts useless.

• “Revolution” is a leftist concept.

• Many leftists want to make from their puposes and/or approaches something so profound that they exaggerate themselves, digress and come to limits outside of reality. There are many examples: “the destruction of capitalism,” “a world without states or borders,” “a planet without animal exploitation,” “world peace,” and among others the so-called “anti-technology revolution.”

The struggle against the Techno-industrial System is not a game which we should win or lose, defeat or be defeated, that is what many have still not understood and it seems that many are still expecting to be “recompensated” in the future for the current actions of “revolutionaries.” One must accept that many things in life are not recompensated, that many tasks and/or ends are never achieved (including Autonomy) and the destruction of the techno-system by the work of the “revolutionaries” is one of them. Now there is not time to wait for the imminent collapse, for those who want to take their time as if technological progress is not growing by leaps and bounds and devouring our sphere of individual Freedom little by little. We are the generation that has seen technological progress grow before our eyes, the specialization of nano-bio-technology in various fields of civilized non-life, the creation and marketing of graphene [40], nuclear disasters such as in Fukushima, accelerated environmental deterioration, the growth of biometrics [41], the qualitative and quantitative expansion of artificial intelligence, bioinformatics, neuroeconomics, etc. That is why ITS sees in terms of what is tangible, palpable and immediate, and that immediate is the attack with all necessary resources, time and intelligence against this system. We are individualities in the process of achieving our Freedom and Autonomy, within an optimal environment, and together with it we attack the system that quite clearly wants us in cages, obeying our wild human instincts. With this we apply ourselves as individuals in affinity to try to keep ourselves as distant as possible from leftist and civilized concepts, practices and ideologizing.

That is our real purpose, what we seek, and not an unreal dream with irrational tintings and full of speculations.

For now there is no movement that positions itself radically against Technology, neither organized nor solid, if some day there is (if it triumphs and we are alive) then we will accept our mistake, in the meantime we will not accept futurist speculations that bet on a movement that helps to destabilize the system in its totality. Those who believe in the uprising of such an anti-technology movement can keep hoping or can put all their strength into that task. It seems that some have not realized that in speaking of a “sufficiently strong and organized anti-technology movement” they are also entering into the language of leftism.

III

Now, we have become aware of an increase of discourse against Civilization in claims of responsibility for actions that are poorly directed and useless with respect to the point of reference (against the Techno-industrial System). One must take into account that the critique in a communique against Civilization or against Technology does not do anything if the action is not effective and well-aimed against these.

This “fashion” (to call it such) has been expanding year after year, we believe because the ideas against civilized progress have spread greatly through the internet and other media.

If we turn to look at history, we would realize that the same thing has happened before and after the arrest of the Unabomber in 1996, we remember the pathetic campaign that was initiated in those years called “Unabomber for president” [42], and the emergence of the Earth Liberation Front in the United States [43], and while the individuals coming together in that group were for years the strongest domestic terrorism threat in that country, nevertheless the majority of their discourses were carried on the path of sentimentalism, irrationalism and biocentrism. In other words the “radical environmentalist” fashion was popular those years, as the “anti-civilization fashion” is now. But it is worth remembering with this that every wave or fashion ends some day, and only those who have well established the critique against the Techno-industrial System will keep the same path, over the years what has to happen will happen, and the things that have to occur will occur.

We are aware that ITS has been responsibile in large part for this “fashion” having grown in great proportion, we accept this mistake, and what we want to do (for now) is only to wait for those individuals who have copied our discourse and have mutated it, to stop doing so, or for them to recognize, accept and take on the critique with these kinds of texts not only because we have made it but also because it is absolutely necessary to reject the deceptive leftism and attack the Techno-industrial System in a congruent and radical manner (if that is what the intended objective is, of course).

IV

We have analyzed these questions to the source and it seems that for the moment there are two important parts within the struggle against the Techno-industrial System.

To summarize we will put it thusly: there are those who question and critique the system and others who not only do this but also attack, like ITS[44].

Faced with this, the critical and not active part (that is to say the part that doesn’t place in its sights the attack against the system by means of violence) will always say that what the ideas against Technology and Civilization need least is to be related with those tactics. Which we do not share. The majority of these people (anti-civilization, primitivists, salon “anti-technology revolutionaries,” etc) speak of destroying the system but feel an apparent fear in seeing that the ideas are related to the attacks on the same system that they want to destroy.

Sooner or later, through ourselves and through others, the ideas against the Techno-industrial System and/or Society will relate themselves with attempts and acts of violence, undoubtedly.

V

With respect to our position that has to do with the war against leftism. We have reevaluated what we said before and we have analyzed that leftism is just a factor that deseves only rejection, critique, and the distancing of those of us who fight against the Industrial Technological System, nothing more. We made the effort to send an incendiary package to Greenpeace Mexico[45], another package of similar characteristics to the leftist director the the Milenio paper in Mexico City in November 2011 (Francisco D. Gonzales), and an explosive package to the leftist director of the same paper in its office in the city of León, Guanajuato in December 2011 (Pablo Cesar Carrillo). But in seeing our mistake, we have ceased these attacks and now focus all our efforts for the frontal attack against the Techno-industrial System.

The leftists can kill one another, or can be “victims” of the state and its apparatuses of control (as has traditionally happened), but not by us anymore. We will not stain our hands with their dirty blood, nor will we persist in attempting against their lives since there are more important and certain targets than their dispicable lives.

We know our tactics, to speak of leftists is one of them, we know what we do and that is all.

VI

ITS’ actions and its discourses are an attack in every sense of the word, and that is why we utilize offensive language against those who make the system keep functioning.

Technologists, leftists and the Techno-industrial Society in general do not deserve flowers nor good treatment, they deserve hard critique; which will be uncomfortable for some (and in truth, we do not consider our language exaggerated, we have never written with high-sounding or highly vulgar words since by our criteria if we utilize them then we discredit our ideas).

We are a group of radical environmentalists who carry out attempts against the physical integrity of persons specializing in developing, maintaining and improving the system that reduces us to artificialization; we are not a group of critics of the cafe who hold themselves solely in theorizations, if we were then we would watch our language a little.

We decided to publish this in order to dispel all doubt with respect to what motivates us to carry out acts of violence against the technologists, since one will surely say that the way we refer to these people shows a supposed lack of self-control in our emotions, or that we are motivated by psychological necessities based in feelings of hostility. Which we do not share in the least. ITS bases its attacks (as we have already stated before[46]) on reason and on instincts.

We critique by reason and we act by instinct, the two go hand-in-hand, one serves us for deeply analyzing and critiquing what is presently happening and the other serves us to attack in a frontal way without any compassion and rejecting any consideration of Civilization’s pseudo-morality.

We said it in our first communique and we repeat it again:

“Because although some elements within Civilization tell us that we have been domesticated for years biologically, we nevertheless continue to have Wild Instincts that we hurl in defense of the whole of which we are a part — the Earth.”

Unlike many others, ITS does not hate this system, nor do we base our actions and discourses on sentiments like vengeance, frustration, hate and/or desperation (even though some want us to accept that), as we have already said, what moves us is reason and instinct, the defense of Wild Nature (including human) and consequently Freedom and Autonomy. Do not dig deeper, because you will not find more than that, since those are our real motivations.

VII

With all that said, ITS makes itself responsible for the following attempts against the Techno-industrial System:

• August 28, 2011: Attempt on CINVESTAV (Center of Research and Advanced Studies [of the National Polytechnic Institute]) in the municipality of Irapuato in Guanajuato. The objective was all of the researchers-biotechnologists who were working and studying in that place, but because the Mexican army intervened, the attempt was frustrated.

• November 2011: Package with incendiary charge addressed to Dr. Pedro Luis Grasa Soler, general director of Monterrey Tec campus in Mexico State.

• November 2011: Threat on Dr. Manuel Torres Labansat director of the Institute of Physics of UNAM (Autonomous National University of Mexico) and on the director of scientific research Carlos Aramburo of HOZ in Mexico City. The package contained a .380 caliber bullet along with a threat from ITS, part of which read:

“[...] As we have shown in our previous communiques, the system would not be the same without mathematicians, physicists, researchers and other technoswill like YOU (and by YOU we refer to you, to the researcher Carlos Aramburo of HOZ and to those who work in the Institute of Physics), that is why when YOU are determined to create nanoscience and carry out technological projects that attempt against Wild Nature (including the human), we place ourselves in its defense and we attack.

“Without any doubt, YOU are a key component for the system, those who have the technical and intellectual knowledge for perverting the ecosystems on this Earth where we try to develop. YOU modify matter for the creation of a life totally dependent on Technology, which will lead us and is leading us to self-destruction. The Reality is this, the more animal and human species that are domesticated, the more disastrous will be the consequences of using all possible means to keep that modern “stability” on its feet.

Planet Earth already has enough with urbanization, deforestation, contamination, wars that affect the natural equilibrium, ecological epidemics, oil spills (and more) for YOU to come and hypocritically try to help it, as if to undo the damage that we have done depends on the pathetic altruistic scientists, as if something is helped by saying that YOU develop nanoscience and advanced technologies for the “well-being” of humanity and of the Earth.

In no way do we pretend to change the way of thinking of a civilized person, an alienated person, one who graduated from the Faculty of Sciences at UNAM and who received a doctorate at the University of Oxford some years ago. Something brought your studies to the maximum point, there is some reason you are where you are, but we have news for you, what you have lived is nothing more than a life absorbed by the system, which will pay you very little.

This is a direct threat against your person and all the researchers and department heads who hide themselves between four walls tending toward the Domination of all that is potentially free. This is only a warning, it will cost us nothing to leave an explosive package in your facilities [...]

As you must have realized, Mr. Manuel, this package carries with it a bullet, which can symbolize many things: detonation, explosion, wounds, terror, force, gunpowder, death. But now we use it to symbolize the material that we will use to puncture your head and/or those of your colleagues [...]”

— December 8, 2011: Package with incendiary charge for the director of research Marcela Villafaña of the Polytechnic University of Pachuca in the municipality of Zempoala in Hidalgo. In the attempt an academic who opened the package was wounded, a story similar to our first attack in April 2011 at the UPVM (Polytechnic University of the Valley of Mexico) in the State of Mexico.

For the moment that is all that we have to say…

— Individualidades tendiendo a lo salvaje (Individualists tending toward the wild)

Other texts managed by “Ediciones Aborigen”

Jack London Tales:

— The law of life

— The mocked

— light a bonfire

Feral: Survival Techniques

— Primitive tools

— Skinning and tanning of mammals (translation of the American zine “Feral Forager”)

Feral: Survival Techniques

— Fire by friction

— List of wood to make fire

The debate (discussions between anarchy vs. the stance against technology)

— Note from Aboriginal Editions

— Last editorial of Rabia y Acción

— Culmination note to the last number of Rage and Action

— RyA’s public response to Culmine

— Comment (ir) rational to the latest editorial of RyA

— Entering the tension derived from the last number of RyA

— Social war or war against civilization?

-Argentina: Response to RyA

-For the debate regarding the system of domination

-Claim for attacks against the “Ramón de la Fuente” National Institute of Psychiatry

-Some final clarifications from the ex-editors of the RyA

-Us and the controversy of Rabia y Acción

-Some critical comments about the text: “We and the controversy of Rabia y Acción”

-The black sheep and the wolf

Harmful words I: set of texts against technological progress

-Introduction

-First communication of ITS

-Second statement

-Third statement

-Fourth statement

-Fifth statement

Harmful words II: set of texts against technological progress

-Introductory note

-Sixth communication of ITS

-Nanotechnology: The Armed Resistance (translation of the international science journal “Nature”)

-Seventh communiqué

Harmful words III: set of texts against technological progress

-Introductory note

-About the latest statement from ITS (By the “Circle of Analysis — Punta de Obsidiana” / (CA-PO)

-Contextualization and claim note of ITS

-The snooper, the press and the terrorists (by the CA-PO)

-Bomb threat: immediate response to so much infamy (by the CA-PO)

-Notes of Aboriginal editions

Harmful words IV: set of texts against technological progress

-Introductory note

-Fear under the microscope: ITS and the conflict with technology (translated from the Canadian anarchist magazine “The Peak Magazine”)

-ITS interview

-Eighth communiqué

-Uncomfortable tales

-Introduction

-What are you?

-The butterfly cocoon

-Towards the undomesticated

-Alexander the Great and Diogenes

-Alexander the Great and Diogenes II

-ideal crazy

Let’s go back to the roots

-The eagle and the hawk

-The only one, his property

-Resignation

Harmful Words V: set of texts against technological progress

-Some history of “Aboriginal Editions”

-Package-bomb sent to the rector of the UNAM

-How solidarity helps the Techno-industrial System

-Comic

-Recommendation

-Other texts handled by us

Indirect Response (The non-direct public response, of the terrorist group “Individualities tending to the wild”, to the criticisms of the publishing groups “Último Redoducto” and “Anónimos con Cautela”.)

-Note to this work

-Introduction of “El Tlalol”

-Some comments in reference to the communiqués of Individualities Tendendo a lo Salvaje

-Public criticism of Individualities Tending to the Wild

-SIXTH RELEASE: Indirect and self-critical response of Individualities tending to the wild, in the face of criticism from UR and AC

Aboriginal Editions

Regresión Magazine 1

Notebooks against Techno Industrial Progress.

Author: Anonymous

Date: 2014

Source: http://regresando.altervista.org/

Editorial

Why and for whom is “Regresión”?

Regresión is a publication consisting of content critical of the values and the material basis of the techno-industrial system. We propagate these ideas (by means of the Internet and in print) not so that others may adopt our positions. We aren’t looking for sympathizers, nor for the approval of those who call themselves “radicals” and “revolutionaries.” We publish these texts because we have something to say, because in the context of so much hypocrisy and so many lies, we must shout the TRUTH. It is important to point out that, even though these texts are available to all, they aren’t intended for the society at large. This is an intervention from our individuality to those few who dare to think beyond typical “radical and revolutionary” criticism. It is for those who have understood that the root of all the evils of our situation lies in the techno-industrial system and the civilization that drives it. It is for those who have left the utopias of old ideologies behind and have assumed their role as individuals within this complex reality. It is for those individuals who are tired of speaking, reading, and being “critical spectators,” and who believe that theory is only part of the foundation of their acts against the system. More than anything, however, the content of this journal is for those few people who are familiar with this discourse and practice, and for those who are new to these topics, we hope to be explicit enough so that they catch on quickly.

Why regression

The word “regression” can mean many things to various disciplines or sciences, but we are using it as the antonym to “progress”, specifically civilized and artificial techno-industrial progress. For us, it is important to look back to see how humans lived in the past, how they developed, and how they died from the beginning of the species until the present. It is only in this way that we will shed light on our present situation: how we have gone from being human to being simply an instrument of the system. The irresistible advance of technology (as it has been formulated by critics of civilization) is generating serious problems for the environment and human beings, problems which range from physical to psychological damage. The consequences of following the same path will lead us toward unimaginable catastrophes. Some advocate a revolution or the building of a movement that would contribute to the overthrow of the techno-industrial system. We refer specifically to the ideologues who follow the words of Theodore J. Kaczynski literally. To a certain extent, it is understandable that they assert various propositions to resolve the central problem. Our position, however, does not see the formation of an international movement to overthrow the system as being viable. For that reason, we renounce the term “revolution.” The strategy, like the term itself, is too fanciful, it lacks a realistic view of things, and that is why we renounce it.

For many moons now, we have stopped dreaming of a “better world,” which is either politically or “primitivistically” correct. Today, all we see is our present, the pessimist present to which we are condemned, and even though this is what we assume, we don’t surrender before it:

-The system always goes in the same direction, progress stops for no one and nothing.

-Wild nature for the most part will be exterminated or subjugated in the coming years. In our modern context, only the most deluded minds think that trying to “liberate” it is even possible.

-Maybe in 30 or 40 years (considering the current situation) all of the wild nature that is left will be reduced to recreational or tourist areas. “Ecological” or “conservationist” organizations governed by “green” bureaucrats will regulate them as they see fit, so that those spaces are preserved for scientific and economic purposes. This has already happened in Europe, and in Mexico it is the current trajectory of things.

-The behavior of the human being is being domesticated to a deplorable and maddening degree. Only the strongest and most intelligent will be able to not fall for the system’s games, trying to resist and cling to their nature.

-The whole system (or most of it) will not fall to a movement that accelerates a revolutionary process. The only thing that can overturn this complex system is wild nature itself or its very own complex technology causing collapse.

-We do not trust nor do we hope for a movement, a “great crisis,” or the “revolution.” We do not hope for change. The present is all that we have.

We have no certainty that “revolutionaries” will hasten “the destruction of the system.” Frankly, we think that if one day a movement emerges that seeks to destroy the system, it will be crushed immediately. Would the nuclear, timber, pharmaceutical, automobile, mining, and oil industries allow such a movement to exist, a movement that seeks to halt the forces that propel science and technology? Would they allow that movement to obtain victories that destroy the techno-industrial system that they have forged over the decades? No, they would not allow it, unless they could find a manner to profit from the situation after the supposed “destruction” of the system. The reality of things is rather bleak for those of us who criticize the techno-industrial system and want it to collapse one day. We have realized this, and we accept the situation as it unfolds before us. We assume our contradictions without falling into them, nor do we resign ourselves to accept what is being imposed on us.

For years, within political movement and intellectual circles of any given ideology, solutions to the problems of the time have been proposed, for example:

-According to the history of Mexico, after the arrival of the Spanish and the death of the governor of Tenochtitlan, Moctezuma (1520), the Mexica warrior Cuitláhuac led a war against the invasion. This leader led his men in a war against the Europeans with the aim of reviving that great Mesoamerican civilization. Cuitláhuac died of smallpox without achieving anything.

-During the independence movement, the priest Miguel Hidalgo led revolts against the Spanish crown (1810). He assembled men who wanted to be free of the creole ruling elite. They wanted to form a government not imposed on them by Westerners. They wanted mestizo rulers, etc. After a bloody war, they shot the priest and cut off his head. Did they achieve independence? Maybe we should ask the Spaniards who are still owners of a large part of what is considered Mexican territory.

-In 1910, there was the “Mexican Revolution”. Emiliano Zapata was one of the most representative leaders who organized an armed struggle against the dictatorship of Porfirio Díaz, as well as the rulers who followed him. He and his soldiers wanted a new constitution, one which granted land to the peasants and would create modern public services (electricity, water, sewage, education, etc.) They asked for democracy and not a dictatorship. They betrayed Zapata in an ambush and killed him. Did he accomplish his task? Maybe we should ask the current inhabitants of the region where Zapata fought, one of the poorest and most degraded regions of the country today in 2014.

-In 1968, the student movement spread throughout Mexico in the midst of a communist revival. These ideas were the tip of the iceberg after the October 2^nd massacre [in Tlatelolco] in that year. Various guerrilla groups formed and waged a war to the death against the regime of the Institutional Revolutionary Party [PRI], the party that emerged after the Mexican Revolution. One of these groups was the Communist League of September 23^rd (1973), and, as its name indicated, its goal was to implant socialism in Mexico. Its leader, Ignacio Salas Obregón, organized kidnappings, armed robberies, gun smuggling, prison breaks, armed uprisings in the countryside and the city, attacks on politicians and businessmen, executions of police, etc. They disappeared Obregón once his group was defeated by the government, the paramilitaries, and infiltrators. Socialism never came to Mexico.

-In 1994, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN), led publicly by Subcomandante Marcos, took control of various municipal houses of government in response to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), as well as to the maltreatment of indigenous people and the poor of Chiapas by consecutive federal governments. The initial goal of the EZLN was to “go to the capital and defeat the Mexican army.” The EZLN waged war on the government, and the government counterattacked. After days of shootouts, downed helicopters, deaths, kidnappings, and tortures, a truce was called. The government offered reforms and rights to indigenous peoples, as well as autonomy to the Zapatistas for their “liberated spaces”. The initial goal of the EZLN was to overthrow the government. That didn’t work out, and they remain in their communities. Their “revolution” was only local.

-In 2006, there were many popular uprisings (the striking miners in Michoacán, the peasants of Atenco, etc.) that had the goal of creating a political crisis and accelerating the fall of the government. This occurred after a political campaign undertaken by the EZLN throughout the country. The movement of teachers in Oaxaca was an example of this. Out of a failed expulsion of the municipal and state police, the teachers were able to draw in the masses and forge a popular movement (the Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca / APPO) that aimed at overthrowing the state government of Ulises Ruiz. After months of armed street battles, deaths (on both sides), and disappearances of activists, the federal police removed the protesters by force from all of their strongholds. Everything appeared to return to normal. At the end of the ordeal, President Ruiz was still in office, and various leaders of the APPO joined political left parties. Did they achieve their goal of popular government? Of course not.

-During the presidential term of Felipe Calderón (2006–2012), the government waged a war against the drug cartels, which left 60,000 dead (not counting those buried in hidden graves). The power of the drug lords is such that they have been able to buy off municipal and state presidents, politicians, the police, and even the army. This left the populace completely abandoned by the government. That’s how the current self-defense groups arose, principally in Michoacán. These are armed groups in towns defending themselves from cartel assassins, extortioners, and informers for the narcotraffickers.

The goal of these groups is for everything to go back to normal in their communities. Unfortunately, Michoacán, until recently, was considered one of the most violent states in Mexico, and even the Americas.

What these historical cases have in common, and the reason we bring them up, is that, for many years, mass movements and ideologies have aspired to something more. They have defined ends, and many of them are so complex that they become illusory or impossible to achieve. Seen from a more realistic point of view, they seem well beyond the realm of possibility. Along with the historical events, there is the proposing of a “revolution against the techno-industrial system.” This position has been advocated by Mr. Theodore Kaczynski since the publication of his article, “Industrial society and its future”, in 1995. We repeat that we don’t believe in this revolution, nor do we think it is ever going to happen one day, not in 1000 years. The system’s current state is untenable, and trying to overthrow it is just perpetuating the same self-deception into which leftist revolutionaries past and present have fallen. That is why we don’t advocate for a total collapse. We aren’t out to win the battle, we aren’t aspiring to “liberate” the earth from the technological yoke so that wild nature can rise from its concrete tomb. We propose a criticism embodied in practice, in individual attack, without anything to show for it, without any hope of winning or losing. Disinterested attack, guided by reason and feeling, is what characterizes us. We are human beings who refuse to form part of any of this. We refuse artificiality in our bodies and our environment with all of our being.

Regresión is not a magazine containing criticism for the consumption of the passive. It does not contain tame articles for those who do nothing. It is for the lone wolves or the clans of accomplices who cast off fear and decide to burn machines and place bombs in institutions that attack nature. It is for those who decide to plan the murder of a particular scientist in the shadows… In Mexico, from 2011 onward, some groups have come to light who align with how we think and act. These are the Individualities Tending Toward the Wild (ITS), the Direct Attack Terrorist Cells – Anti-Civilization Faction (CTAD-FA), the N.S. –Fera–Kamala y Amala (NS-F-KA), and now the Obsidian Point Attack Circle (CA-PO). All of these groups have carried out physical criticism against technology and civilization. They have done so not expecting anything to change, they have attacked for the sake of attack and to deliver blows to the megamachine. It is for this reason that one of the central aims of this publication is the creation of new groups that attack the material basis of the techno-industrial system and those who foster it. The terrorist war to the death against the system began in 2011 with these groups, and we would like to continue it. Thus, we support their attacks, their arson, and the execution of those who deserve it; those who have committed offenses against wild nature for years.

Let us continue on the war path, the same as that of our hunter ancestors. May society and civilization tremble at our exploding dynamite. If technology doesn’t stop, neither will our war against it. If technology keeps advancing, so will terrorist groups opposed to it. — The Regresión Editors April 2014.

Chilcuague, Chichimecas and Cinvestav

The Chilcuague is an ancient native plant, also called the “Aztec root,” “pelitre,” or “golden root.” It is a natural antibiotic used for digestive tract and respiratory infections. The root aids in treating inflamed gums, tooth decay, toothache, and lesions to the tongue, gums, and palate. Its extract helps to treat external wounds. The leaves are used by people in the Bajío (lowlands) of Mexico in hot sauces and alcoholic drinks. It is also used as insect repellent.

The Chichimecas The nomadic and semi-nomadic hunter-gatherers of what is now called Mexico (specifically in the central and northern part of the country) had comprehensive knowledge of their environment (as most native peoples around the world have had). They also knew the benefits and usage of the medicinal plants that grew in their region.

One of these plants was the chilcuague. The hunter-gatherers like the Guachichiles, the Zacatecos, the Guamares (the three Chichimeca groups that most ferociously resisted the Spanish invasion) used this plant for the hunt, but it proved useful in their fight against the invading Spaniards. The natives made a concentrate from the root and soaked their obsidian, bone, or wooden arrow points in it. When a Spaniard was shot with such an arrow, his muscles were paralyzed and he could no longer move, after which he was completely vulnerable to the attacking Indians. It should be pointed out that the Chichimecas not only attacked the Spaniards, but also anyone who accompanied them: black slaves, mulattoes, mestizos, young women, indigenous people, etc. The foreigners were all indiscriminately killed in ambushes in the desert and forests, since they all represented for the Chichimecas an invading foreign people. They were a threat to the tribe and their way of life in the midst of wild nature. It is said that when the Chichimecas had captured a fallen enemy alive who was incapacitated by the root, they took out the tendons from his back and used them to tie the arrowheads onto their arrows, atlatls, and axes, or they made strings for their bows.

The Chichimecas also used the root to escape when they were captured. They would store a piece of the root in their clothes (though many went about naked) or in their long hair and chew it when captured; within minutes they would start sweating profusely and foaming at the mouth, as well as crying and urinating all over themselves. The Spanish would think that they had a strange contagious illness and then leave the prisoner outside the city to die. After a while, however, the symptoms ceased since chilcuague causes the body to purge liquids but doesn’t harm it in any other way. Thus, the savage, through his exceptional knowledge of his environment, was able to escape without being enslaved or shot.

The Cinvestav The Center of Investigation and Advanced Studies (Cinvestav) depends on the National Polytechnic Institute (IPN), which is one of the most respected institutions in biotechnology, chemistry, genomics, etc. at the national level.

Cinvestav has changed and genetically altered a number of wild native and foreign plants. One of these plants has been the chilcuague, the root of our ancestors, the one by which many were saved from death in their war against civilization; for we can say that the Mixtón War (1540–1541), the Chichimeca War (1550–1600), and the Guamares Rebellion (1563–1568) were all authentic wars against civilization, progress, and technology. The wild Chichimecas did not want the new rulers or even better ones for their land. They did not want to live in or defend the cities or the settlements of the defeated Mesoamerican civilizations. They did not seek victory. They sought to attack those who attacked and threatened them. They looked for confrontation, as one can gather from their cry, “Axkan kema, tehuatl, nehuatl!” (Until your death or mine!)

Ambitious investigators like Abraham García Chávez, Enrique Ramírez Chávez and Jorge Molina Torres of the Biotechnology and Biochemistry Laboratory at the Cinvestav-Irapuato are only some of those responsible for having converted the ancient chilcuague root into a simple commercial anesthetic for dentists.

The wild nature of the root has been perverted, and it has been converted to a product mixed with addictive chemicals for the propagation of civilization. The scientists with their technology have offended even that which is found under the earth. Using humanitarian and altruistic justifications, they cover up the true reality of domestication of the wild under the yoke of technoindustrial artificiality.

For this reason and many others, Cinvestav and similar institutions have been the target of many extremist cells from 2011 onwards:

-Beginning of April 2011: An explosive device was detonated in front of the National Institute of Ecology (INE) in Mexico City. The INE is the federal institution in charge of “environmental authorization” at centers such as the Cinvestav, allowing them to experiment and investigate wild flora and fauna on the biotechnological level. The “The Terrorist Cells of Direct Attack – Anti-Civilization Faction” claimed responsibility for the attack on September 5^th, 2011 in an extensive communique. The group also noted that it had been operating for months but had not to that point issued any claims for their responsibility for their actions. It was only with the emergence of ITS activity that they decided to issue a formal communication.

-February 27^th, 2011: The Earth Liberation Front took responsibility for the attack on a lab at the Inifap (National Institute for Forest, Agrarian, and Aquacultural Investigation). The individuals placed explosive devices in warehouses, greenhouses, and in the entrance of one of the buildings. Also, they left identifying and threatening graffiti against the scientists who work at that facility. Since 2005, the Inifap has collaborated with Cinvestav on experiments concerning genetically modified organisms, especially corn.

-August 9^th, 2011: Hours after the group Individualities Tending Toward the Wild (ITS) published its communique taking responsibility for the attack on the Monterrey Institute of Technology campus in Mexico State, an attack that gravely injured the technologists, Alejandro Aceves López and Armando Herrera Corral, the alarms went off at the Cinvestav in Mexico City, since the brother of Armando Herrera, the world-renowned physicist Gerardo Herrera, was frightened by action along with the murder of the biotechnologist Salinas in 2011. The investigator left Morelos for the city of Ensenada in Baja California where he currently works at the Center for Nanosciences and Nanotechnology of the UNAM.

-December 28^th, 2011: The military police was alerted to the presence of a suspicious package in the Cinvestav facility in Irapuato (Guanajuato). The security cameras showed a man dressed in black who got past security and entered the facility. Soldiers removed the package and increased security around the facility. They also carried out an operation which consisted of helicopter patrols and checkpoints on the highway going towards Querétaro. The group ITS took responsibility for this action in its sixth communique (January 28^th, 2012), as well as other attacks.

-November 8^th, 2011: The noted biotechnology investigator at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) campus in Cuernavaca, Morelos, Ernesto Méndez Salinas, was shot in the head while driving his truck on one of the principal avenues of the city. According to the press and police reports, two men on motorcycle drove by and shot him, killing him instantly. The group ITS later took responsibility for the attack. The Biotechnology Institute of the UNAM where Méndez worked, along with the Cinvestav of the IPN, are the principal institutes for biotechnological study in Mexico. These two institutions constantly collaborate on the development of this technological evil.

-August 20^th, 2012: The “Anti-Civilization Faction of the Earth Liberation Front” (FA-FLT) took responsibility for an attack with an incendiary device in front of the Mexican State Council of Science and Technology (Comecyt) in Toluca, Mexico State. The blast dealt damage to the building. Comecyt is another institution connected to Cinvestav. One of the most significant joint projects is “Abacus”: an investigative space that contains a supercomputer. Among the applied mathematical tasks being worked on by this computer are: the development of new medicines and surgical procedures, genetic sequencing, the study of gas contamination, subsurface model analysis, seismic movements, petroleum extraction, finance, market economics, the aeronautic and automotive industry, nanotechnology, and logistics. The Abacus Center is found in the middle of the forest of Ocoyocac, in Mexico State.

-September 4^th, 2012: The FA-FLT was attributed with the arson of a Cimmyt truck (Investigative Center for the improvement of corn and wheat) in the municipality of Toluca, Mexico State. Cimmyt along with Cinvestav focuses on biotechnology and advanced genetic engineering, and also collaborates frequently with Cinvestav.

-September 2012: In an article published in the scientific journal, Nature, the biotechnology investigator of the Cinvestav, Beatriz Xoconostle Cázares, condemned the arson of her laboratory and a similar arson of the laboratory of her friend a month afterward. These acts were not publicized by the press, nor did anyone take responsibility for them.

-February 11^th, 2013: A package bomb arrived by messenger to the nanotechnology investigator, Sergio Andrés Águila of the Biotechnology Institute of the UNAM in Cuernavaca, Morelos. The package failed to explode and the investigator was unharmed. The military police arrived at the institute and evacuated hundreds. ITS claimed responsibility for this

-June 16^th, 2013: FA-FLT claimed responsibility for the second detonation of an explosive device at the installations of the Comecyt in Toluca, Mexico State.

-February 18^th, 2014: ITS claimed responsibility in its eighth communique for the sending of a package bomb on September 2012, along with two other attacks. This attack was directed to neurologists of the Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico (ITAM) in Mexico City. The ITAM’s specific areas of research are Neuronal Adaptive Behavior, Neuroscience, and Simulations (Cannes). ITAM collaborates frequently with Cinvestav in projects involving robotics, neuroscience, and advanced computing.

-April 14^th, 2014: The group, “Attack Circle – Obsidian Point” claimed responsibility for the sending of a package bomb to the Rector of the UNAM, José Narro Robles. The Rector is in charge of organizing and facilitating scientific and technological projects at the distinct institutions and universities, among which is the Cinvestav.

These attacks are wholly justified. These scientists and academic leaders – along with their laboratories, institutions, and universities – deserve to be hit in one way or another. Wild animal and human nature will not be totally domesticated while individuals like this exist: those who oppose completely the techno-industrial system.

Mahogany’s Last Stand

Illegal logging has all but wiped out Peru’s mahogany. Loggers are turning their chain saws on lesser known species critical to the health of the rain forest.

Mahogany is the crown jewel of the Amazon, soaring in magnificent buttressed columns high into the forest canopy. Its rich, red grain and durability make it one of the most coveted building materials on Earth, favored by master craftsmen, a symbol of wealth and power. A single tree can fetch tens of thousands of dollars on the international market by the time its finished wood reaches showroom floors in the United States or Europe. After 2001, the year Brazil declared a moratorium on logging big-leaf mahogany, Peru emerged as one of the world’s largest suppliers. The rush for “red gold,” as mahogany is sometimes called, has left many of Peru’s watersheds—such as the Alto Tamaya, homeland of a group of AshéninkaIndians—stripped of their most valuable trees. The last stands of mahogany, as well as Spanish cedar, are now nearly all restricted to Indian lands, national parks, and territorial reserves set aside to protect isolated tribes.

As a result, loggers are now taking aim at other canopy giants few of us have ever heard of—copaiba, ishpingo, shihuahuaco, capirona—which are finding their way into our homes as bedroom sets, cabinets, flooring, and patio decks. These lesser known varieties have even fewer protections than the more charismatic, pricier ones, like mahogany, but they’re often more crucial to forest ecosystems. As loggers move down the list from one species to the next, they’re cutting more trees to make up for diminishing returns, threatening critical habitats in the process. Primates, birds, and amphibians that make their homes in the upper stories of the forest are at increasing risk. Indigenous communities are in turmoil, divided between those favoring conservation and those looking for fast cash. And some of the world’s most isolated tribes are in flight from the whine of chain saws and the terrifying crash of centuries-old leviathans hitting the ground. Illicit practices are believed to account for three-fourths of the annual Peruvian timber harvest. Despite a crackdown on mahogany logging that began five years ago and a sharp decline in production, much of the timber reaching markets in the industrialized world is reported to be of illegal origin. Most of those exports have gone to the U.S. but are now increasingly bound for Asia.

A short distance southeast of the Alto Tamaya, a 15,000-square-mile mosaic of protected areas known as the Purús Conservation Complex teems with gigantic trees that first sprouted from the jungle floor centuries ago. This region embraces the headwaters of the Purús and YurúaRivers, and tribes living in extreme isolation maintain a presence in its rugged upland folds. It is also believed to hold as much as 80 percent of Peru’s remaining big-leaf mahogany. Illegal loggers are using surrounding Indian settlements as a back door into the protected lands. Many communities have been tricked by men offering cash for help in obtaining logging permits, which they later use to launder mahogany illegally cut inside the reserves. Along the HuacapisteaRiver, a Yurúatributary that forms the northwestern border of the MurunahuaTerritorial Reserve, duplicitous dealings have left half a dozen Ashéninkacommunities impoverished and disillusioned. At the height of the rainy season I join Chris Fagan, executive director of the U.S.-based Upper Amazon Conservancy, and Arsenio Calle, director of Alto Purús National Park, on a foray up the HuacapisteaRiver. Boyish in his oversize khaki fatigues, Calle, 47, has jurisdiction over much of the Purús Complex. “Arsenio has done a remarkable job removing loggers from the park,” Fagan says. “But there is still strong demand for illegal mahogany.” Fagan’s organization created a Peruvian sister group called ProPurús to help the park service and indigenous federations protect the forests. One initiative involves organizing community “vigilance committees” to patrol around the edge of the national park and keep intruders out. ProPurús field director José Borgo Vásquez, a crafty 60-year-old veteran of conservation struggles throughout the Peruvian Amazon, is also aboard one of our motor-powered dugouts.

“The loggers are stealing from you and getting away with it,” Borgo tells a gathering at our first stop, the Ashéninkavillage of Dulce Gloria. “Why? Because you are doing nothing to stop them.” Borgo believes that conservation efforts will succeed only if local communities take an active role in the defense of their native lands. Two major obstacles, he says, are poverty and lack of education, which make the lure of cash so seductive and the need to protect the forest so difficult for many villagers to understand.A third obstacle is distance, which gives timber poachers an overwhelming advantage. The Amazon rain forest is so vast and its farflung river valleys so remote that it is impossible to patrol everywhere effectively. The absence of authority on the ground has given rise to a sense among loggers that the forest is theirs for the taking. A local informant tells us that a logger named Rubén Campos is using an illegal track farther upriver to drag mahogany logs over the divide to an adjacent watershed. (Efforts to reach Campos for comment were unsuccessful.) Such a move would allow him to float any ill-gotten timber down to the Ucayali River and on to sawmills in Pucallpa, the regional capital, without the Ashéninkaon the Huacapisteaeven knowing what he’s taking.

The next day, in a downpour, local guides lead us deep into the forest in search of the illicit operation. We pass a giant mahogany tree, an X etched in its bark, apparently slated for cutting. Anchored by sprawling buttress roots, the great trunk rockets into the canopy, where its branchesdrip with orchids and bromeliads. A gash in the forest leads into the rain-soaked jungle and vanishes in a blur of electric green. We soon find the culprit—a John Deere skidder with outsize tires parked in a shed made from rusted sheets of corrugated metal. We press on, passing a dozen massive mahogany and Spanish cedar trunks awaiting removal by the skidder. Calle measures their diameter—about five feet each. He says the trees are hundreds of years old.

We reach a clearing dominated by a shaggy thatched shelter. It’s guarded by a lone watchman, a specter of a man named Emilio, rousted from his hammock by our approach. “A man needs to work,” he says defensively. “If there’s no other work, what can one do?” It’s a question that vexes Calle as well. This logging operation is clearly beyond the bounds of legality; no one is authorized to cut this forest. But the camp itself is beyond Calle’s legal reach.

Given the torrential downpour, it would be too difficult to follow the skidder path across the rain-swollen creek and into the reserve, so we turn back. Calle will alert authorities once he gets back to Pucallpa, but no one is likely to have the stomach for charging or prosecuting anyone. Without hard evidence from inside the reserve, it would be a tough case to pursue. Loggers are apt to be well connected to power brokers in Pucallpa. Honest cops often face smear campaigns, even outright dismissal, if they overstep boundaries. What’s more, the government in Lima recently shifted forest enforcement responsibilities back to the regional governments, where officials are often more susceptible to arm-twisting. “The protected areas are going to be reduced to fragmented forest if we don’t take a more proactive approach,” says Calle, who fears loggers will now have even more latitude to undermine the rule of law.

The bad guys won’t have any freedom at all in Edwin Chota Valera’s territory, not if he can help it. Chota—a sinewy, 52-year-old firebrand with rakish, jet-black hair and a hawk’s beak of a nose—is the leader of the Ashéninkavillage of Saweto, some 60 miles northwest of the Purús Conservation Complex. Since 1998, when local Ashéninka established Saweto, they have stood by helplessly as, season after season, logging crews floated colossal trunks downriver from the headwaters of the Alto Tamaya and Putaya Rivers to sawmills in Pucallpa.

In the face of these trespasses, a decade ago villagers undertook a quest to get the regional government in Pucallpa to grant them legal title to their land—more than 250 square miles of river-laced forest stretching from Saweto all the way to the Brazilian frontier. Their claim was ensnared for years in red tape, while poachers pillaged their forests. It appears their petition may finally be resolved later this year.

The illegal logging epidemic prompted U.S. lawmakers in 2007 to require a series of reforms as a condition for approving a free-trade agreement with Peru. The agreement committed Peru, among other things, to implement a plan of action on big-leaf mahogany that would comply with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Officials in Lima say they are experimenting with other measures, including an electronic monitoring system, that will help modernize Peru’s timber industry. Changes have been slow to take effect and have brought little relief for many remote communities like Saweto, victims of timber mafias that have already snatched their mahogany for pennies on the dollar, if they paid anything for it at all. But this is a new era for the Ashéninkaof the Alto Tamaya. At a meeting in Saweto’s one-room schoolhouse, a woman named Teresa López Campos urges her people to stand up to the loggers. “Where are we going to go if they drive us away from here?” she says vehemently. “This is where we will die. We have nowhere else to go.”

Two days later ten or so Ashéninkamen and women have come together under Chota’s direction to follow illegal loggers into the headwaters of the Alto Tamaya and demand their departure. Since dawn we’ve been following the twists and turns of the emerald green MashanshoCreek through dense jungle along Peru’s eastern border with Brazil. Poling dugouts through sand-rippled shallows, pausing to spear catfish in crystalline eddies, my Ashéninkahosts are biding their time, confident that somewhere upstream we’ll confront a band commanded by an elusive man they call El Gato—the Cat. The expedition is fraught with risk, likely to incur the wrath not only of the loggers but also of their paymasters in Pucallpa—the sawmill owners and timber brokers, who are closely connected to the city’s power elite

The men of Saweto were away when El Gato motored upstream past the village a week earlier. Ignoring shouts from the women on the embankment to stay out of their forests upriver, El Gato kept right on going, his three boats piled high with enough food and fuel to keep his sullen-faced crew cutting trees in the backwoods all summer long.

“As long as we don’t have title, the loggers don’t respect native ownership,” Chota says, standing at the rear of the canoe, propelling us with thrusts of a ten-foot pole. “They threaten us. They intimidate. They have the guns.” The target of frequent death threats, Chota has repeatedly been forced to seek sanctuary among the Ashéninka’stribal relatives in Brazil, a two-day hike from here along ancient footpaths.

“Titling is a critical ingredient in the fight against illegal logging,” agrees David Salisbury, a University of Richmond geographer who’s sitting beside me. The lanky, fair-haired Salisbury has served as the villagers’ adviser since he first learned of their plight while doing doctoral research in 2004. “The native communities are the ones most invested in their place,” he says. “They’re the most capable of making long-term decisions about how to use their homeland and resources in a sustainable way.”

Peru’s logging industry operates within a framework of concessions and permits designed to allow a community, company, or individual to extract a sustainable yield from a given area. Transport permits are also issued to track the chain of custody of a shipment from stump to sawmill andon to the point of export or final sale. But permits are easily traded on the black market, enabling loggers to cut timber in one place and say it came from somewhere else.The Alto Tamaya area offers a case in point. The government’s nearest inspection station is several days downriver from Saweto, Chota tells me. So when it comes time for El Gato to float his logs out during next year’s rainy season, he can claim that any timber he illegally cut in Ashéninkaterritory was harvested on a legitimate concession nearby. “Welcome to the land without law,” Chota says, with a sweep of the arm. “From that inspection post all the way back here, there is no law. The only law is the law of the gun.”

As we pole our way up MashanshoCreek, it becomes clear that outsiders are not the only ones pillaging the forest. We disembark on a beach where the highpitched whine of a motor reaches us from back in the woods. Minutes later we come upon five young men, shirtless and barefoot, in the midst of toppling a massive copaiba tree. They’re all Ashéninka, all relatives of our party’s eldest member, “Gaitán” (not his real name). Amid a blizzard of sawdust and flying debris, Gaitán’s son cuts deep into the trunk. Suddenly it cracks like a thunderbolt. Everyone dashes for cover, the saw still purring as the behemoth starts a free fall and lands with an earthshaking thump.

Pungent, pine-scented sap oozes from the fresh stump. The oil is renowned for its curative properties, and left standing, the tree could have fetched far more over the years for its medicinal oil than the onetime cash payout—probably less than a hundred dollars—that Gaitán’s family will get for its timber. But with El Gato’s crew on the loose in these woodlands, these men decided to lay claim to it first. Such are the distortions created by the absence of law; in this jungle free-for-all, it’s finders keepers. Chota shakes his head in disgust at the sight of the copaiba stump. “Everyone who logs here is illegal, period,” he says. “No one hasthe proper permits.” Chota has been trying to wean the Ashéninka away from such destruction. But he must tread lightly or risk further dividing his people. Native communities can subsist on game, fish, and crops if their forests are intact. Still, they need things like clothes, soap, and medicine, and for many, logging—or taking handouts to let loggers in—is the only way to acquire those goods. As the sun drops low, painting the treetops in splashes of yellow light, the team decides it’s time to leave the canoes behind and cut a straight line on foot through the jungle. The shortcut will put us upstream of El Gato. Trudging through dank forest as the last rays of sun fade from the sky, we ford the winding creek for a third time and look for a place to camp for the night.

Because permits are commonly used to launder wood taken from adjacent lands, Peru’s concession system has been widely criticized for providing cover for illegal logging. But the forestry engineers and harvesters with a company called the ConsorcioForestal Amazónico (CFA) say they are trying to do things right. CFA operates a huge concession in the dense woodlands astride the Ucayali River in the heart of the Peruvian Amazon. The enterprise is the very model of rational exploitation, with fluorescent-vested saw operators guided to their targets by computerized maps and databases. Its 455,000 acres of primal forest have been divided into a grid of 30 parcels, each corresponding to a single year’s harvest in a 30-year rotation plan.

At a base deep inside the concession, supervisors consult with crews to plan the day’s work. “Delineators” crouch over drafting tables, updating computerized maps that crews will take into the forest. Every harvestable tree is color-coded by species and identified by number. Each two-man crew will cut approximately ten trees by sundown, working a line through the forest that matches a strip of the larger map. Seed-bearing adult trees, which will be left standing to regenerate the woodland, are also identified.

“We try to leave the forest cover as undisturbed as possible,” says Geoffrey Venegas, a Costa Rican forestry engineer who oversees the cutting. “We’re light-years ahead of what I’ve seen elsewhere.”

We clamber out of a pickup truck at an acre-size collection point fringed with piles of freshly cut logs, three to four feet in diameter, from trees with unfamiliar names: chamisa, yacushapana,and the aromatic alcanformoena.There’s hardly any mahogany in CFA’s concession. For Venegas, the future of tropical hardwoods lies with these less glamorous trees. “We’ve identified 20 different species with commercial potential,” he says. “This year we’re cutting 12 of them.” CFA executives say that making use of multiple species increases the value of the forest, providing a greater incentive to take care of it, even if mahogany and Spanish cedar have already been logged out. “Socially responsible” investors are impressed with the company’s practices, its potential for long-term profits, and its certification from the Forest Stewardship Council, an international third-party auditing body that sets standards and recommendations for sustainable forestry. But the impact of even these practices comes as a shock to a visitor to a forest that just weeks ago was an untouched wilderness. In the stillness of midmorning a screaming piha’scry resounds through the woods. An iridescent blue morpho butterfly the size of an outstretched hand flits past, like a kite jerking in the breeze. Monkeys play peekaboo from a stand of uncut trees. The dry season is already well along, but the forest floor remains spongy, exuding a damp vitality resistant to drought—the hallmark of a healthy tropical rain forest. What will this forest look like 30 years from now, though, when rutted roads and feeder trails extend into the far corners of the concession, and when men and machines return here to begin the cycle anew? Will the forest have regenerated? CFA is banking on it. “If we’re able to do it, the whole Peruvian timber industry will benefit,” sales manager Rick Kellso says. “You can get a nice profit by doing things right. You don’t have to be illegal.”

Back in the upper reachesof MashanshoCreek, beneath a sky blazing with stars, Edwin Chota Valera and David Salisbury gather the Ashéninkaaround the campfire to plot tomorrow’s showdown with El Gato. “He’s going to ask to see your papers,” Salisbury says, referring to the title the Ashéninkastill do not have. “But remember, he has no papers either. He’s logging here illegally. He has no justification for being here.” We enter the logging camp at first light, swarming the squalid huts before anyone has time to reach for a rifle. A fair-haired man in a yellow soccer jersey rises to his feet. His green eyes betray bewilderment.

“Are you the man they call El Gato?” Chota asks. “I am,” the man says warily. Without putting up a fight, he agrees to leave but pleads with the Ashéninkafor permission to take out the trees he’s already cut upstream. “We’re just working people trying to put food on the table.” There’s a ring of defeat in his voice. He says he’s mired in debt to a man named Gutiérrez, who fronted $50,000 cash for the logging expedition. “That guy will hound me until the day I die,” he says. Chota is unmoved. “Things could turn bad for you if you stay up here,” he warns. The government in Lima, Chota tells him, has promised indigenous communities a greater voice in their own affairs. “Things are beginning to turn in our favor.”

But within days of our encounter with El Gato, vandals steal into Saweto under cover of darkness and sabotage three outboard motors that were used by Chota’s party, a devastating blow to the impoverished community. The Ashéninkahave little doubt who did it. Prosecuting the crime will be another matter entirely.

Notebook 1

Author: Chahta-Ima, Bowlegs

Date: Autumn 2016

Source: https://regresando.blackblogs.org/

“Saving the World” as the Highest Form of Domestication

“Each Apache decides for himself whether or not he fights. We are a free people. We do not force men to fight as the Mexicans do. Forced military service produces slaves, not warriors.” – “Grandfather,” quoted in, In the Days of Victorio: Recollections of a Warm Springs Apache, by Eve Ball and James Kaywaykla

The context of this quote is of interest as it is uttered in a meeting of Apache leaders concerning whether or not they should continue resistance against the invading white man or succumb to the powerful invading force. With hindsight, one could state that such a stance is foolish: had the Apache stood as a “united front” instead of the diverse bands that they had always been, they could have had a shot at victory, or so the reasoning goes. Instead, their inability to adapt their social organization to new conditions led directly to their downfall. In the face of a society of interchangeable citizens constituting a massive unified Leviathan, the Apache continued to be the untame, indomitable people of before. And they paid the ultimate price for it: defeat, humiliation, exile, and in many cases, premature death,

But perhaps, even then, the ends do not justify the means. Or rather, the “ends” are really the “means” projected and amplified into a monstrous and logical conclusion. Even if the Apache chiefs had conscripted every warrior and forced them to fight, even if some of the warriors hadn’t run off and become scouts hunting their own people for the white army, even if they could have held off the U.S. Army for a few more years, they would not have done so as Apaches, or as the people that they always were. Here it would be something akin to, “in order to save the city, we had to destroy it.” Or better, in order to prevent the city from being planted in the land of the Apache, they had to become the city in civilized reasoning. And they knew what that meant: slavery in one form or another. They accepted the consequences of their refusal, even if they had second thoughts about it.

We can apply the lessons here to our own situation. Many “green anarchist” or “green post-leftist” groups like Deep Green Resistance and the like very much have a “militaristic” or “militant” attitude toward “dismantling” or “destroying” civilization. There are even “pro-Unabomber” groups in existence that dream of a “revolution” against “techno-industrial society.” But what if, as Grandfather says above, in their efforts to fight slavery, they are just making more slaves? Is this not the essence of the leftist / revolutionary project: one last “slavery,” one last “martyrdom” that will end all slaveries and martyrdoms? Just one more great big push and we will establish the place where there is neither sorrow, nor sighing, nor anymore pain. Leviathan has dreamed this dream before, a myriad of times now, and people have thrown themselves against the wheels of Progress in order to make it a reality. They are still dead, and we are nowhere closer to freedom.

Still, there are others, such as John Zerzan, who think that to “give up” defending the world that civilization has wrought is akin to nihilism and despair. “Hope,” so the reasoning goes, would be finding a way to “let everyone off easy,” of avoiding all the negative consequences of the end of a way of life that has been nothing but negative consequences for those who have opposed it (such as our Apaches here). The Requiem sung for a world built on the massive graveyard of other dead worlds must be a pastoral and peaceful one, so we are told, lest we succumb to revenge and hatred, lest we sin against the “Enlightenment” values that somehow escaped being fully domesticated, even when everything else is (mirabile visu!)

But what if this urge to save the world, this urge to “overthrow tyranny” no matter what the cost, this itch to “fight for a better world” is just another hamster wheel, another yoke to be put on us, to solve problems that we didn’t create, and to sacrifice ourselves for a better world which we will never see (funny how that works)? What if the genius of domesticated civilization has been to harness our hostility into making it better, commodifying our radicalism, and perpetuating civilized values in self-proclaimed enemies like a virus in an unsuspecting host? Why not just keep our principles, like the defeated Apache did, and let the chips fall where they may? What if we just realize that, as animals, we don’t know what the future will bring, the only resistance that we have is resistance in the now, and the cares of tomorrow will take care of themselves? Indeed, we simply have no power over tomorrow, just as we have no power to resurrect the past. If we did, we wouldn’t be animals, and the revolutionist / leftist / technocrat would be right.

Mexican ecoextremists are embodying these ideas as in the following passage, which I have translated from a recent work of theirs:

“We fully realize that we are civilized human beings. We have found ourselves within this system and we use the means that it provides us to express a tendency opposed to it, with all of its contradictions, knowing full well that we have long been contaminated by civilization. But even as the domesticated animals that we are, we still remember our instincts. We have lived more time as a species in caves than in cities. We are not totally alienated, which is why we attack. The distinguishing feature of RS in this conversation is that we say that there is no better tomorrow. There is no changing the world into a more just one. That can never exist within the bounds of the technological system that has encompassed the entire planet. All that we can expect is a decadent tomorrow, gray and turbulent. All that exists is the now, the present. That’s why we are not betting on the “revolution” so hoped for in leftist circles. Even if that seems exaggerated, that’s just how it is. Resistance against the technological system must be extremist in the here and now, not waiting for any changes in objective conditions. It should have no “long term goals.” It should be carried out right now by individuals who take on the role of warriors under their own direction, accepting their own inconsistencies and contradictions. It should be suicidal. We don’t aim to overthrow the system. We don’t want followers. What we want is individualist war waged by various factions against the system that domesticates and subjugates us. Our cry to Wild Nature will always be the same until our own violent extermination: “And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come… and the time when thou shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.” (Revelation 11:18)

Perhaps the only truly free response, the only one that escapes the cycle of domestication, is one that states firmly that this world is not worth saving, that its days are numbered, and the sooner the evil falls, the better. Sometimes damnation in Christian eschatology is not merely a punishment, but is what is best for the soul saturated in iniquity. The world must fall, and nothing will likely replace it, nothing we can foresee anyway. The only real praxis, then, is one of rejection and not one of rebuilding: one of the heroic animal facing off against the civilized juggernaut of slavery and fear. By Chahta-Ima

Halputta

The alligator is a nocturnal hunter. Most of the day, it can be seen with its head barely above water, resting. But when the sun goes down, it begins to hunt. It hunts indiscriminately, almost like “a machine” as some would foolishly say. This is a mistake: its powerful jaws that can easily snap off a limb or two, a tail that moves it swiftly through the water towards its prey, its powerful claws that move it about on land, all of these are the power of Nature. If it sees something moving close to shore, it stalks it, attacks it, bites it, and takes it down into the water to drown it. Finally, it eats. This is done little realizing what its prey is, and maybe subsequently it realizes that it’s not that tasty, so it abandons it. But attack is a certainty. It bites first and then asks whether it wants to consume the prey. The alligator is merely being what it is, it cannot be otherwise. All of the reasoning in the world could not change that.

The ancient peoples who lived along the waters of the alligator knew them well. They revered them, they were the lords of the water. The hyper-civilized, in their pride and ignorance, pretend that Nature will always bend to their will. They are thus often careless, they feel safe, but Nature then attacks once again.

The most recent example of this occurred in the “Magic Kingdom,” in what is now known as the state of Florida in the United States. A family from Nebraska, a landlocked state, decided to let their child of two years play on the shore of a lagoon near the hotel at around 9 o’clock in the evening. Of course, the alligators were hunting at the time, and this time it was the toddler’s turn to be the prey. The father saw the alligator grab the child and fought the alligator, but in the end he could do nothing. The alligator took the boy and didn’t even eat him. He left him in the water, drowned and dead, a tragedy for the family from the Midwest that was on vacation at Disney World with their child. The civilized authorities, out of vengeance disguised as “security,” killed one alligator after another searching for the guilty party, the criminal, the lawless animal that dared to follow its own uncivilized nature, come what may. They still don’t know if they caught the culprit.

Every savage of that land knew that one should not be near the shore at that hour of the night. They respected the hour of the alligator, the puma, the bear, the snake, and the other animals that were the manifestation of the force and splendor of Nature, Life and Death, the Wild. This “innocent” family, however, didn’t. The “innocent” family thought that it was as if their son was in their bathtub at home, playing with his toys. It was a time of enjoyment and relaxation that turned into the hour of vengeance for Nature’s slavery. Thus, they paid the highest price a parent can pay:

“And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon…”

The eco-extremist is also a manifestation of Nature, but not as perfect as the alligator, for sure. He is a rejected being, a poorly made dud of techno-industrial society. That’s why he doesn’t respect the laws of society, its schedule, its order. He attacks like the alligator and afterwards hides in the dark corners of the disgusting cities like the alligator hides in the waters of the swamp, always stalking. Above all, he is indiscriminate. When it’s the prey’s turn, that’s it, nothing can be done. It’s not that he doesn’t have “free will,” which is frankly a joke. Civilization offers no choice: it’s something that you have to accept completely under penalty of being classified as a delinquent, a criminal, or a pervert. Well, eco-extremism rejects the false choice offered by the techo-industrial system. The only choice eco-extremism offers to civilization is attack, arson, and death, even of “innocents”.

May the hyper-civilized, even the most “progressive”, even the most “anti-authoritarian”, tremble; may they die of disgust when they think upon the indiscriminate acts of the eco-extremists. Like the alligator, ecoextremists can’t change. It is a question of hunt or be hunted: sometimes one ends up being one, sometimes the other.

Take heart, it’s always been this way.

Happy hunting.

by Bowlegs

What do we mean when we say, “nature”?

One of the red herrings that has come up of late among critics of eco-extremism is the idea that we worship a false idea of “Nature”. In their eyes, we are positing something vague, perhaps using wishful thinking, and trying to fit the round peg of reality into the square hole of our concepts. I am not here to give THE definition of what every eco-extremist means by “nature” or “Wild Nature”. I will only give my own idea of it. Again, anyone else is free to speak up, as I acknowledge that this is a difficult topic to address. At least if someone is stuck trying to define what they know to be the deepest being of themselves and the world, perhaps they can refer to this and find something useful. With that in mind:

A “natural” object in modern parlance usually indicates a thing that exists solely for itself. It is, simply put, and does not need any further purpose added onto it. If an archaeologist, for example, is hiking through a forest, he may see hundreds of trees and thousands of plants, but none of these interest him. If he sees a large stone with engravings on it, however, he will definitely pause and study it. While the forest may actually be the remnants of a forest garden or the product of thousands of years of cultivation or slash and burn horticulture, the archaeologist has no means of knowing this. But he like even the amateur knows what is “natural” and what isn’t, what is directly made by the hand of man and what is not.

Similarly, in our own lives, if we see a remote control in a room that we have never been in before, we ask what machine it might control: what is it for? If we see a potted plant, no such question arises. If we are in our backyard and we spot a deer or raccoon, we don’t ask, “But what is it for?” We can, but being undomesticated, it’s not as if they will reform their purpose according to the ideas that we have of them. Nature, the wild, wilderness, the animal etc. is for itself.

Thus, when we meet a person, we will usually ask the question, “So, what do you do?” Being domesticated, we are like cattle in that our own existence is predicated on what we do for others and not for ourselves. I am not an accountant for myself; it’s not inherently part of my nature. Crunching numbers or reading up on tax code does me no direct benefit, it’s not something I would naturally do with little prompting and meager effort. The same is the case of a building: many people (if not most) can perhaps get a sense of awe from looking at an impressive building, and they may even mistake it for a mysterium tremendum et fascinans. However, the reason why many like to stare at a forest or be surrounded by greenery is perhaps because they want to be reminded that there are things that exist for themselves and not for others. The same is true with children, as children, at least while very young, are not “useful”.

Then there is the idea of “play”. Children are defined by their love of play: activity that has no benefit other than the joy of doing it. Some say hunter-gatherers’ activity deeply resembles play, in that the division of labor is only a matter of degree. Grown men hunt, and small boys imitate hunting, then they catch smaller game. And of course girls imitate and participate in gathering and other activities of manufacture. All the same, the benefits of any activity are usually immediate and obvious.

Of course, there are those who are frustrated by both children and nature, but this is mainly because they will not abide by the designs that people have preconceived for things in their heads. I can only say that, for me, being in nature is transformative since I get to be with things that need no other purpose than themselves. They just are.

Some would say that all human experience is mediated through human cognition and agency, but in saying this in the context of modern people, they are missing a crucial distinction. “Wilderness” as an untouched and untouchable space of greenery is perhaps a recent concept. Even “primitive” hunter-gatherers manipulated and “harvested” from their environments in very complex ways. They would have walked through a forest or other landscape and would not have seen merely a scene of admiration or meditation, like a painting, but a lively “factory” that made the means by which they lived, with their “help”, though they may have not perceived it that way. On the other hand, it is not accurate to state that modern people do the exact same thing when they clear-cut a forest, blow up a mountain looking for coal, or dump industrial waste in a river.

Here I will diverge from the received ideas of “anti-civilization” or anarcho-primitivist discourse and state that this is not a matter of living “in harmony” with or being subject to wildness, whatever that means. It is not an innate software program that we either follow to the letter or don’t, to our own peril. The issue, as I have stated previously, is one of scale and capability. If “primitive” peoples could have created plastic or bulldozers or chainsaws, they may have done so, though the results may not have been the same as the ones we see today. Our modern world is not a teleological inevitability. It may cater to certain desires of that elusive thing called, “human nature”, but people lived tens of thousands of years, perhaps longer, without any of our gadgets or systems of governance. Comparatively speaking, domestication, agriculture, urban life, etc. are a sort of “black swan” that has been wildly successful (pun intended) at conquering all that is alien to them, but that doesn’t mean that it could not have been otherwise. In most places and circumstances with homo sapiens, it hasn’t. Civilization has the pretense of having mastered time in the abstract, but in the concrete, it has only existed for a minuscule amount of time, and that time may be running out.

Thus, nature. We think that because we manipulate nature, we “create” and “define” it. That presumes that we can wrap our head around it and do with it as we will. Those who oppose a hard line between nature and human cognition of matter often don’t oppose it when it comes to the line between the human mind and the objects that it contemplates and seeks to alter. In that, human cognition / consciousness is sovereign, masculine, special, and near godly. The human mind is thus “of another order”, and thus the strict line between nature and mind is maintained. Indeed, when the mind looks at nature, all it is really doing is looking at itself looking at… something. It knows not what, nor can it ever. All things are for it, even the things that it can’t control, even the things it cannot possibly perceive (?)

So in my own idea of nature, I have found that I am making a smaller leap of faith to posit that, yes indeed, there is something out there, beyond me, beyond my perception or cognition. I am not a closed system or a self-sustaining one: I am not the origin of existence. Otherwise, what would be the result of positing the potential omniscience of human thought; the absolute mediation of human cognition in everything; the idea that all things are for us, and we are ultimately all things? For me, that smacks too much of a God complex, as in the monotheistic sky god carried on by other means, whether we call it science, or philosophy, or solipsism, or the Future, or whatever. These all perform the same function.

Nature exists because the human mind is weak and limited. It is mortal, it is made of flesh, and ultimately this is its limit, even if we can’t see it. It’s playing a game with the rest of existence, and it will lose. The existence of nature is the limit of thought. It is the fact that all things are not for us, our thoughts do not make things: the things are there for the taking, and would be there without our intervention. In other words, we are not gods, we are not spirits, precisely because those things don’t exist as we have come to understand them. Our thought does not and cannot comprehend everything, which is why it is so miserably unreliable.

There are things that exist purely for themselves. A child knows this. A simpleton may even know it. It takes the “wise” of the “World” (a Biblical term) to deny it. There are things in this world that we will never dominate. We may be able to land our technological garbage on the moon, yet we cannot feed every child who is hungry, or prevent our shuddering before the shadow of death. This is why humanity will be supplanted, and nature will abide.

Eco-extremism is, in my opinion, the trust in the order that nature itself has wrought, along with the “weak” human societies that have been formed by it. To “trust” in nature is not a leap of faith, on the contrary. Civilization is a cult that demands faith, it demands one’s obedience to the idea that the “common good” is the highest good of all. It is an act of faith to believe that sacrificing yourself and the wild nature of today will somehow have benefits for all tomorrow. We prefer the good right in front of us, in the trees, the rivers, the oceans, the blue sky, the mountains, and our own undomesticated desires; and not a concocted “good” of civilization that seeks the slavery and destruction of all things for itself. We detest that, we attack it, and we give it no quarter. When we mention, “Wild Nature,” we are not being vague: we are referring to something right in front of your nose. That you do not see it is your problem, not ours.

by Chahta-Ima

Ishi and the War Against Civilization

Author: Chahta-Ima

Date: 2016

---

The emergence of eco-extremism and the tactics that it uses have caused much controversy in radical circles internationally. The criticisms that the Individualists Tending Toward the Wild (ITS in Spanish) and other aligned groups have received range from accusations of ultraradicalism to insanity. One major aspect of this polemic centers around the idea of indiscriminate attack. Inflamed rhetoric on the part of eco-extremists may exacerbate hostility towards these tactics among the already skeptical.

From how some talk, however, it would seem that ITS or other eco-extremists are engaged in the bombing of pre-schools and nursing homes, that is, random targets, rather than targets of specific importance to the techno-industrial system (laboratories, government ministries, etc.) It must be admitted right off the bat that many who engage in polemics against eco-extremism have an a priori negative bias against any argument no matter how well crafted, as they themselves admit that the maintenance of civilization and domestication is in their own self-interest. There is no point in arguing with them. On the other hand, eco-extremism still has much to say, so those who have ears to hear, let them hear.

The more sympathetic would ask why ITS and its allies feel that they must “double down” on the idea of indiscriminate attack. Why harm the people you are trying to help? In other words, civilization and the destruction that it unleashes upon the world are the fault of a small section of modern society, and we must focus on convincing the vast majority that is not at fault in order to have the balance of forces needed to overcome the evils that presently beset us. Aside from that, it’s just bad form. It’s understandable that “bad things” happen even in well-planned actions. The least that those who carry them out can do is say that they’re sorry. That’s just good manners. It’s better, as some Chilean anarchists did recently, to explode noise bombs at four in the morning when no one is around in order to express “solidarity” with whoever international anarchism has been asked to pray for… I mean, express solidarity with this week. But if you have to do something, the least that you can do is minimize harm and express regret if something goes amiss (but mostly you should do nothing…)

Of course eco-extremism rejects these objections as childish and hypocritical. Are these people expressing their moral superiority while playing with fire crackers in the middle of the night and then dedicating it to someone halfway around the world for no apparent reason? Do they want a cookie or a sticker for being such well-behaved children? Eco-extremism will readily admit that devout anarchism is more pious and holier than it is. It doesn’t want its help anyway. If left-leaning anarchists want to win the popularity contest in the insane asylum of civilization, by all means eco-extremism forfeits. Congratulations in advance.

There have been lectures to eco-extremists that this is not how a war against civilization is waged. Very well, let’s go ahead and take a closer look at an actual war against civilization. The editors of Revista Regresión have already written an extensive series of articles on the Mixton Rebellion and the Chichimeca War that swept much of Mexico in the 16^th century, and we heartily recommend their work here. In this essay, we are going to augment their arguments by having recourse to a well-loved example of a “cuddly” and tragic Indian, Ishi, the last of the Yahi tribe in the state of California in the United States. In this exercise, we don’t pretend to know everything about those members of a Stone Age tribe that was hunted to extinction by the whites. Insofar as any historical analogy is flawed ipso facto, here we will at least try to take the lessons from how the Yahi fought, their attitudes toward civilization down to the last man, and how the shape of their culture problematizes anarchist and leftist values held over from the Enlightenment. This essay hopes to show that the Yahi’s war against civilization was also indiscriminate, devoid of Western values of solidarity and humanism, and was a duel to the death with domesticated European life. In other words, it is a model for how many eco-extremists see their own war carried out from their individuality. Ishi, far from being a model “noble savage”, was the last man standing in a war against the whites waged with the utmost amount of brutality and “criminality” that the now extinct Yahi could muster.

The Yahi

On August 29^th, 1911, a naked and starving brown man of around fifty years of age was found outside of a slaughterhouse near Oroville, California. The man was soon taken into custody and locked in the town jail. At first, no one could communicate with him in any known language. Soon, anthropologists arrived from San Francisco and found that the man was Yahi, the southernmost band of the Yana tribe, known locally as “Digger Indians” or “Mill Creek / Deer Creek Indians”. It had long been suspected that a small group of “wild Indians” still lived up in the inhospitable hill country of northern California. The anthropologists made arrangements to take the last “wild Indian” with them to San Francisco to live with them in their museum and teach them about his culture. Having found an (imperfect) Yana translator, they could not get a name from the Indian other than “Ishi”, the Yana word for man. And that is the name he was known by from the time of his capture until his death four and a half years later.

The Yahi were the southernmost branch of the larger tribe called the Yana found in northern California north of the town of Chico and the Sacramento River. Before the Europeans came, there were perhaps no more than 3,000 Yana on their traditional lands bordered by the Maidu to the south, the Wintu to the west, and the Shastan tribe to the north. They spoke a Hokan language the roots of which they shared with tribes throughout North America. As a tribe, the Yana in particular were much smaller than their neighbors, but still had a reputation for savagery towards their neighbors. There is also speculation that the Yana may have lived in the more productive lowlands first before being driven into the less hospitable hill country by their much larger and wealthier neighbors to the south in particular. As Theodora Kroeber comments in her book, Ishi in Two Worlds:

“The Yana were fewer in numbers and poorer in material comforts than were their valley neighbors, whom they regarded as soft, lax, and indifferent fighters. Like hill tribes in other parts of the world the Yana, too, were proud, courageous, resourceful, and swift, and were feared by the Maidu and Wintu peoples who lived in the lowlands.” (25)

M. Steven Shackley, in his essay, “The Stone Tool Technology of Ishi and the Yana,” elaborates concerning the Yahi relationship with their immediate neighbors:

“Because of having to live in such a marginal environment, the Yahi were never on good terms with any surrounding groups for any length of time. Regional archeological evidence suggests that speakers of Hokan languages, probably what could be called proto-Yana, lived in a much larger territory that included the upper Sacramento River Valley as well as the southern Cascade foothills until the ‘Penutian intrusion’ at some point 1000 years ago. These groups speaking Penutian languages were the ancestors of the Maidu and Wintu / Nomlaki who lived in the river valley at the time of Spanish and Anglo contact. Considerable violence is suggested at this time in the archeological record and the proto-Yana evidently did not move into a smaller, more marginal habitat willingly. Violence at the hands of outsiders was not new with the coming of the Anglos after 1850; the Yala had maintained long-term enmity relationships with the groups speaking Penutian languages who had forcibly removed them from bottom land and surrounded them for some time.” (Kroeber and Kroeber, 190)

In general, however, the Yana lived as did most tribes, clinging to the cycle of the seasons and with little societal stratification. The one major difference among the Yana is that they had sex-duality in language, that is, a different form of the Yana language was used by each sex. As Theodora Kroeber explains, “Infants of both sexes were cared for by the mother with an older sister or grandmother helping. Their first speech was that of the womans dialect, always spoken by women, and by men and boys in the presence of girls and women. As a boy grew older and was independent of nursing care, he was taken by his father or older brother or uncle wherever they were going, for longer and longer times each day. By the age of nine or ten, well before puberty, he was spending most of his waking hours in male company and was already sleeping in the men’s house. Thus, he learned his second language, the men’s dialect.” (29–30)

Kroeber explains that female speech was often a “clipped” speech, with male words having more syllables. Though women only used one dialect of the language, they knew the male variant as well. Theodora Kroeber speculates that far from being a linguistic curiosity, the strict division of speech may have made Yana culture far more intransigent to interference from the outside world. She writes, “There remains a psychological aspect of this language peculiarity which is not subject to proof, but which should not be dismissed. The surviving Yahi seem never to have lost their morale in their long and hopeless struggle to survive. Could the language have played a role in this continuing tension of moral strength? It had equipped its speakers with the habit of politeness, formality, and exact usage freighted with strong feeling for the importance of speaking and behaving in such and such a way and no other, a way which did not permit slovenliness either of speech or of behavior.” (ibid, 31)

Theodora Kroeber examines this aspect of Yana life later in her book when describing Ishi’s relationship with his first half-breed Yana interpreter, Sam Batwi:

“Ishi was a conservative whose forebearers had been men and women of rectitude; whose father and grandfather and uncles had carried with dignity and restraint the responsibilities of being principal men of their villages. Ishi’s own manners were good; Batwi’s smacked of the crudity of the frontier town, which was what he knew best and which, by the custom of the time, he knew from its least enlightened citizens… It may well be that upon first meeting, Ishi and Batwi recognized that they were from different strata of Yana society, Batwi’s the less well regarded…” (153)

Most of Yahi culture was very similar to the indigenous cultures of California in general. The efforts of the men were centered on hunting game and fishing in the streams, particularly for salmon as seasonally available. The efforts of the women focused on gathering, storing, and preparation of acorns and other plants as a part of their staple diet. Anthropologist Orin Starn, in his book, Ishi’s Brain: In Search of America’s Last “Wild” Indian, states the following concerning the Yahi’s conservatism in particular (71):

“Yet the Yahi were also an ingrown community set in their ways. They may have intermarried with neighboring tribes (and sometimes kidnapped women in the mid-nineteenth century), but outsiders were absorbed into the Yahi way. Elsewhere in Native America before Columbus, there was volatility and change – disease, war, migration, cultural invention, and adaptation. In the Southwest, for example, the legendary Anasazi cliff dwellers suddenly vanished in the twelfth century, for reasons still debated. Over time, however, the Yahi showed more continuity and stability than these other groups. Relatively little modification occurred in fashioning spear points, laying out a camp, pounding acorns, or other routines of Yahi existence. By all appearances, Ishi’s ancestors followed more or less the same way of life of many centuries.”

As they were far north, snow and lack of food were often factors in the lean times of winter. Nevertheless, the Yana knew how to thrive on the land which they were given, as Kroeber summarizes in her picture of Yana life and its relationship with the seasons:

“Winter was also the time for retelling the old history of the beginning of the world and how the animals and men were made, the time to hear over again the adventures of Coyote and Fox and Pine Marten, and the tale of Bear and Deer. So, sitting or lying close to the fire in the earth-covered house, and wrapped in warm rabbitskin blankets, with the rain falling outside and the show moon bringing a light fall down Waganupa as far even as Deer Creek, the Yana cycle of changing seasons completed another full turn. As the food baskets emptied, one by one, and game remained hidden and scarce, the Yana dreams turned to a time, not far off, when the earth would be covered with new clover. They felt an urge to be up and about in an awakening world, while far away in the great ocean which they had never seen, the shining salmon were racing toward the mouth of the Sacramento River, their goal the Yana’s own home streams.” (39)

Starn also cites a chant sung by Ishi to the anthropologists summarizing Yahi fatalism. (42): Rattlesnake will bite. Grizzly bear will bite and they will kill people. Let it be this way. Man will get hurt falling off rock. Man will fall down when gathering pine nuts. He’ll swim in the water, drift away, die. They’ll fall down a precipice. They’ll be struck by arrow points. They’ll be lost. He’ll have wood splinters get in his eye. They’ll be poisoned by bad men, They’ll be blind.

The Yahi at War

As could be expected, the invasion by Europeans could make even once peaceful tribes openly hostile to outright savage. As Sherburne F. Cook stated in his book, The Conflict Between the California Indian and White Civilization:

“The general effect of these events was to bring about a shift in the entire social horizon of the natives, particularly that of the Yokuts, Miwok, and Wappo. The disruptive forces, previously discussed with reference to their influence on population decline, had also the effect of generating an entirely new kind of civilization. To put it in essence: a peaceful, sedentary, highly localized group underwent conversion into a semiwarlike, seminomadic group. Obviously this process was by no means complete by 1848, nor did it affect all component parts of native masses equally. But its beginnings had become veryapparent.” (228)

Nevertheless, not all Indians reacted energetically to the white Anglo invasion. The Maidu, the valley neighbors of the Yahi immediately to the south, seemed to have not put up much of a fight to the onslaught of whites coming onto their land, as one Maidu writer, Marie Potts, indicated:

“As more white men came, they drained the land. Ranches developed so fast that we, having had this country of mountains and meadows to ourselves, were left to become either laborers or homeless wanderers. Being peaceable and intelligent people, we adapted the best we could. Sixty years later, when we awoke to our situation and presented our case to the United States Land Commission, our claim was settled for seventy-five cents an acre.

There were no uprisings in Maidu country. The white settlers who came to our area were glad to have Indian labor, and the records show some fair dealing.” (Potts, 10)

As indicated above, the Yahi were hostile even to the Indian tribes around them, and brutally so. As Ms. Potts states concerning the Yahi’s relations with the Maidu:

“The Mill Creeks (Yahi) were what we called ‘mean’ people. They had killed a lot of our people, even little babies. They watched, and when our men were away hunting or working they attacked the helpless women and children and old people. One man returned once from hunting to find his wife dead and their baby lying on the ground, eaten by ants. After the Mill Creeks had killed a number of whites, they found out that the whites were gathering volunteers for a raid to punish them. Therefore, they set up an alarm system to warn themselves, living as they were in the canyons of their rough, unproductive country.” (ibid, 41)

When the white settlers arrived in connection with the finding of gold in California in the late 1840’s and early 1850’s, they brought with them the modus operandi of “the only good Indian is a dead Indian”. There was no love lost between them and the Yahi, and the Yahi were persuaded to hone their austere and intransigent ways in a guerilla war of terror against the whites. Stephen Powers, writing in 1884, describes the Yahi in the following passage:

“If the Nozi are a peculiar people, these [the Yahi] are extraordinary; if the Nozi appear foreign to California, these are doubly foreign. They seem likely to present a spectacle which is without a parallel in human history – that of a barbaric race resisting civilization with arms in their hands, to the last man, and the last squaw, and the last pappoose… [They] inflicted cruel and awful tortures on their captives, like the Algonkin races. Whatever abominations the indigenous races may have perpetrated on the dead, torture of the living was essentially foreign to California.” (Heizer and Kroeber, 74)

The California anthropologist Alfred Kroeber further speculated concerning the warlike tendencies of the Yahi:

“Their warlike reputation may be due partly to the resistance offered to the whites by one or two of their bands. But whether the cause of this was actually a superior energy and courage or an unusual exasperation aided by a rough, still thinly populated, and easily defensible habitat is more doubtful. That they were feared by their neighbors, such as the Maidu, argues them a hungering body of mountaineers rather than a superior stock. The hill dweller has less to lose by fighting than the wealthy lowlander. He is also less exposed, and in time of need has better and more numerous refuges available. All through California, the plains peoples were the more peaceably inclined, although the stronger in numbers: the difference is one of situation reflected in culture, not in inborn quality.” (ibid, 161)

Jeremiah Curtin, a linguist studying California Indian tribes in the late 19^th century, describes the “renegade” nature of Ishi’s tribe:

“Certain Indians lived, or rather lurked, around Mill Creek, in wild places somewhat east of the Tehama and north of Chico. These Mill Creek Indians were fugitives; outlaws from other tribes, among others from the Yanas. To injure the latter, they went to the Yana country about the middle of August, 1864, and killed two white women, Mrs. Allen and Mrs. Jones. Four children were also left for dead by them, but the children recovered. After the murders the Mills Creeks returned home unnoticed, carrying various plundered articles with them.” (ibid, 72)

One chronicler detailed a Yahi atrocity in the following passage:

“The killing of the Hickok children was in June, 1862. The Hickok children, two girls and a boy were gathering blackberries on Rock Creek about three-quarters of a mile from their home when they were surrounded by a number of Indians. They first shot the oldest girl, she was seventeen years old. When found she was entirely nude. They then shot the younger girl, but she ran to Rock Creek and fell with her face in the water. They did not take her clothing as she was in full dress when found. Just then Tom Allen came upon the scene. He was hauling lumber for a man by the name of Keefer. They immediately attacked Allen. He was found scalped with his throat cut. Seventeen arrows had been shot in him and seven had gone partly through so that they had to be pulled out the opposite side. (ibid, 60)

Mrs. A. Thankful Carson, once a captive of the Mill Creeks or Yahi Indians, also described other instances of Yahi brutality:

“A boy about twelve years old was killed in a most barbarous way: they cut off his fingers, cut out his tongue, and were supposed to have buried him alive, but when he was found he was dead. On another occasion a man by the name of Hayes was out herding sheep. Some time during the day he went to his cabin and found it surrounded by fifteen Indians. They saw him coming: he turned and ran, but the Indians followed shooting arrows at him as he went from tree to tree. Finally they shot him with a gun through the arm. He managed to escape capture by a narrow margin.” (ibid, 26)

Another local chronicler, H.H. Sauber, described the reasoning behind hunting the Yahi to extermination:

“Once they murdered three school children within ten miles of Oroville, and more than forty miles from Mill creek. Soon after, they killed a teamster and two cowboys in one afternoon, and were clear away and scudding through the hills loaded down with stolen beef, before anyone guessed that they had been out. Other victims, too numerous to mention, had fallen by their ruthless hands. In short they never robbed without murdering, even when the crime could aid them in no earthly way, in fact could only more inflame the whites against them.” (ibid, 20)

Alfred Kroeber echoed this sentiment in a 1911 essay on the Yahi, where he stated,

“The Southern Yana, or Mill Creeks, met with a much more romantic fate than their kinsmen. When the American came on the scene, took up their lands for farming or cattle raising, and at the point of the rifle drove them off if they interfered, as happened before ten years had elapsed after the first gold rush, the Mill Creeks, like so many of their brethren, resisted. They did not, however, after the first disastrous conflict taught them the overwhelming superiority of the white man’s firearms and his organization, tamely desist and accept the inevitable. Instead, they only hardened their undying spirit of tenacity and love of independence and began a series of vigorous reprisals. For nearly ten years they maintained unflagging warfare, destructive mainly to themselves, but nevertheless unparalleled in stubbornness, with the settlers of Tehama and Butte counties. Hardly recovered from one blow, the survivors would raid in another direction, and in such cases they spared neither age nor sex. Atrocities committed on white women and children roused the settlers’ resentment to the highest pitch, and every Indian outrage was more than requited, but still the diminishing band kept up the unequal struggle.” (ibid, 82)

Theodora Kroeber tries to temper these accounts with her own reflections on Yahi brutality and “criminality”:

“The Indians meanwhile took horses, mules, oxen, cows, and sheep when and where they could, wasting no part of these animals which were food and clothing to them. They made blankets and capes of the pelts, tanned the hides, and made “charqui’ or ‘jerky’ of such of the meat as was not eaten fresh. In other words, they treated the introduced animals as they did deer, bear, elk, or rabbit. They seem not to have realized that the animals were domesticated, the dog being the only domesticated animal they knew. They stole and killed to live, not to accumulate herds or wealth, nor did the Indians really understand that what they took was the private property of a single person. Many years later when Ishi was past middle age, he blushed in painful embarrassment whenever he recalled that by white standards he and his brother Yahi had been guilty of stealing.” (61)

Theodora Kroeber in her work does not seem to address the Yahi’s brutal style of warfare in depth, emphasizing the exigencies that they confronted during the massive white invasion into their lands.

Ishi

In spite of having “home field advantage” and an exceptionally energetic approach to attack on their enemies, the Yahi were gradually hunted down and destroyed until there were only a handful left. In 1867 or 1868, a massacre at Kingsley Cave killed 33 Yahi men, women, and children, which was the last major blow by the whites to the last wild Yana. As Theodora Kroeber States,

“Ishi was a little child of three or four years old at the time of the Three Knolls massacre, old enough to remember terror-fraught experiences. He was eight or nine when the Kingsley Cave massacre took place, old enough, possibly, to have taken some part in the cleaning up of the cave and in the ritual disposition of its victims. He entered the concealment in which he would grow up at not more than ten years of age.” (ibid, 91)

With the open military defeat of the Yahi, the savage began a time of concealment, which A.L. Kroeber would classify as, “the smallest free nation in the world, which by an unexampled fortitude and stubbornness of character succeeded in holding out against the tide of civilization twenty five years longer even than Geronimo’s famous band of Apaches, and for almost thirty five years after the Sioux and their allies defeated Custer.” (Heizer and Kroeber, 87)

The remaining Yahi hid, hunted, gathered, and stole all that they could under their difficult circumstances. They lit their fires in ways that could not be seen from far distances, they had their settlements distant from where whites would normally travel and frequent. Soon their presence became a rumor and then a mere legend. That is, until a few years before Ishi walked to civilization, their camp was found near Deer Creek in 1908. Ishi and some remaining Indians escaped, but within three years, Ishi was all alone, which made up his mind for him to walk to the enemy where he was sure that he would certainly be killed, as had the rest of his people.

By 1911, however, through the victors’ problematic benevolence, Ishi went from a sworn enemy to a minor celebrity, moving to San Francisco and having a constant stream of visitors coming to the museum where he stayed. People were fascinated by this man who was the last true Stone Age person in North America, someone who could knap and carve his own tools and weapons from stones and sticks. Ishi made “peace” with civilization, and even made friends. He developed his own preferences for foods and other goods, and meticulously kept his property as he had when he lived nearly forty years in hiding. Nevertheless, within less than five years of arriving in civilization, Ishi the last Yahi succumbed to perhaps one of the most civilized diseases of all: tuberculosis.

Nevertheless, there were some rather interesting details that are rather indicative of Ishi’s attitude towards life in civilization. Ishi refused to live on a reservation, and chose to live among the whites, in the city, far from the corrupt Indians who had long ago given into the vices of civilization. As T.T. Waterman stated in one indirect reference to Ishi in a journal article that he wrote,

“It has always been supposed that remnants of several tribes made up these Mill Creek renegades. From what we have recently learned, it seems unlikely that there was more than one tribe involved. In the first place, the only member of this hostile group who has ever been questioned [i.e. Ishi], expresses the liveliest dislike for all other tribes. He seems, and always has seemed, more ready to make friends with the whites themselves, than with the neighboring groups of Indians. In the second place, all the other Indian tribes of the region profess the liveliest horror for the Yahi. This awe extends to even to the country to-day which the Yahi frequented. Even the Yahi and the Nozi, though they spoke dialects of one language (the so-called Yana) express the most unrelenting hostility to each other. In other words, the Indians who lurked about in the Mill Creek hills for several decades after the settlement of the valley, were probably the remnant of a comparatively pure group, since there was little likelihood of intermixture.” (Heizer and Kroeber, 125)

[It should be noted here that Orin Starn rejects the idea of the ethnic purity of the Yahi in the historic period, but gives no real reasoning behind it (106). This theme will be discussed below.]

In his voluntary captivity in civilization, Ishi was noted for his sobriety and equanimity toward those around him, devoted to the duties assigned to him at the museum at which he lived, and also to showing the manufacture of artifacts he used for survival. Theodora Kroeber describes Ishi’s general attitude toward his civilized surroundings,

“Ishi was not given to volunteering criticism of the white man’s ways. But he was observant and analytic, and, when pressed, would pass a judgment somewhat as follows. He approved of the ‘conveniences’ and variety of the white man’s world – neither Ishi nor any people who have lived a life of hardship and deprivation underrate an amelioration of those severities, or scope for some comforts and even some luxuries. He considered the white man to be fortunate, inventive, and very, very clever; but childlike and lacking in a desirable reserve, and in a true understanding of Nature – her mystic face; her terrible and her benign power.

Asked how he would, today, characterize Ishi, [Alfred] Kroeber says, “He was the most patient man I ever knew. I mean he has mastered the philosophy of patience, without trace either of self-pity or of bitterness to dull the purity of his cheerful enduringness.’ His friends all testify to cheerfulness as a trait basic to Ishi’s temperament – a cheerfulness which passed, given half a chance, into a gentle hilarity. His was the way of contentment, the Middle Way, to be pursued quietly, working a little, playing a little, and surrounded by friends.” (239)

For the eco-extremist or anti-civilization perspective, Ishi’s latter years appear problematic, even contrary to the desired narrative. Even Theodora Kroeber uses Ishi’s seeming magnanimity as graciously accepting defeat and accepting the ways of the white man to be a supporting of the ideas of humanism and progress (140). However, this is a mere matter of interpretation. One cannot judge a person who lived forty years in hiding, seeing all of his loved ones die either violently, of age, or of illness, and pass judgment especially when he was at the point of starvation and death. Through it all, Ishi clung to the dignity and sobriety that is, ironically enough, the essence of Wildness as Ishi saw it. Most of all, however, Ishi bore witness to that Wildness, he communicated it, and shunned those who had turned their back on it and embraced the worst vices of their conquerors. As the editors of Revista Regresion stated in their own reply concerning the Chichimecas who “surrendered” to the whites in the 16^th century in the article, “On Ritual Magazine”, “San Luiz de la Paz in the state of Guanajuato is the last registered Chichimeca settlement, specifically in the Chichimeca Missionary Zone. Here can be found the last Chichimeca descendants, the Chichimeca Jocanes, who preserved from generation to generation the memory of the conflict that threatened the Viceroyalty during those years. A member of RS was able to engage in conversations with some of the people of this town. We will keep these sources anonymous so as not to have them associated with our ecoextremist group. Those involved in these conversations confirm the fierceness of the ChichimecaGuachiles and proudly emphasize their warlike past. They mentioned that, with the defeat of the last hunter-gatherer nomadic savage tribes, the surviving Chichimeca bands decided to concede and show the Spanish that they now followed the foreign religion; that they adhered to the new commandments and would adapt themselves to sedentary life. They only did this in order to preserve their language, their traditions, and beliefs. The elders as well as the shamans (madai coho), who came down from the mountains after many years of war with peaceful intentions, nevertheless decided to live apart so that their stories and customs would not be erased from memory. Thus they would be preserved as a legacy for coming generations.”

If it were not for Ishi’s walking into civilization instead of choosing to die in the wilderness, we would not know his story, or the story of the last free band of wild Indians in North America. Thus, even in defeat, Ishi’s “surrender” is truly a victory for Wild Nature, one that can inspire those who come after him to partake in similar struggles according to our own individuality and abilities.

It should be noted by way of a postscript that many “revisionist” historians see Ishi’s history as much more complicated than the initial story told by the anthropologists who found him. Some scholars think that because of his appearance and how he knapped his stone tools, Ishi may have been racially Maidu or half-blooded Maidu – Yahi. This would not be surprising as the Yahi often raided surrounding tribes for their women (Kroeber and Kroeber, 192). Linguists have found that Yahi had many Spanish loanwords, postulating that some in Ishi’s band had left the hills in the not-too-distant past and worked for Spanish ranchers in the valley, only to return to the hills once the hostile Anglos came. Though self-preening scholars think they are finding nuance in the Yahi story, in reality many of their insights were in the original reports, even if not emphasized.

Further, Starn himself, otherwise quite the revisionist, admits the possibility that Ishi and his band remained hiding in the hills due to a notable conservatism in their way of life and worldview:

“That Ishi was here so detailed and enthustastic [in re-telling Yana tales], Luthin and Hinton insist, evinced his ‘clear reverence and love’ for traditional Yahi ways, however difficult life was for the last survivors in the confines of the inaccessible parts of the foothills. Besides their fear of being hanged or shot, the decision made by Ishi and his little band not to surrender may also have measured attachment to their own way of life – a steaming bowl of acorn stew on a chilly morning, the gorgeous starry nights, and the reassuring rhythm of the seasons.” (116)

Lessons from the Yahi War

I have meandered from the original point of this essay but I have done so purposefully. The intention has been to let Ishi and the Yahi, the last wild tribe in North America, speak for themselves, instead of engaging in simple polemics where sloppy sloganeering replaces real in-depth attention to a subject. What is clear is that the Yahi did not wage war as Christians or liberal humanists. They slaughtered men, women, and children. They stole, they attacked in secret, and they fled into the shadows after their attacks. They were not well-liked even by their fellow Indians, those who should have been just as hostile to civilization as they were. And the prospect of certain defeat did not stop them from escalating their attacks until there were few of them left. Once that point was reached, they literally held out to the last man. In that, eco-extremism shares or at least aspires to many of these same qualities.

The Yahi were a perfect example of what the eco- extremist seeks as outlined in the editorial of Regresion 4:

“Austerity: This decadent society makes us want stuff that we don’t need, though some refuse to see this and are enslaved by the endless pursuit of more trinkets. The majority of people are trying to keep up with the Joneses, they dream of making it big, of having the latest gadgets and comforts, etc. For us, all of that is an abomination. Simplicity: making do with what you have and rejecting civilized vices regarding coveting unnecessary things. These are well-known traits of the ecoextremist individualist.”

The Yahi, like many of the Chichimeca tribes of what is now Mexico, lived in “inhospitable” hill country at odds with their more affluent and numerous neighbors in the lowlands; this was the case even prior to the arrival of the Europeans. These neighbors, notably the Maidu, did not fight back against civilization because their relatively affluent life made them more conducive to accepting the civilized way of life. Unlike the Mesoamerican kingdoms, the Maidu did not know agriculture, but they were nonetheless already “domesticated” on one level.

It was the harsh and Spartan culture of the Yahi that strengthened their opposition to the Europeans, even when the latter showed superior power, even when it was clear that it was a war of extermination that they would likely lose. They redoubled their efforts and fought their own war of extermination to the best of their ability, sparing neither women nor children. Through cunning, guile, and a superior knowledge of the landscape, they waged a campaign of terror on the whites, a campaign that confounded all who studied the indigenous tribes of the region. Even other Indians feared them (just as other people who say they oppose civilization excommunicate the eco-extremists) as they did not divide the world into neat dichotomies of Indians vs. whites. To them, those who were not with them were their enemies and were treated as such. The Yahi’swar was thus indiscriminate and “suicidal”, just as the eco-extremist struggle aims to be. “Indiscriminate” in the sense that it is not driven by humanistic or Christian considerations. It didn’t take into consideration who may have been “innocent” or “guilty”: it attacked all non-Yahi, all who had surrendered to the genocidal ways of the white man.

The Yahi weren’t aiming to make friends with other tribes: even when Ishi enters civilization, he refuses to associate with the Indians of his region who surrendered so easily to white civilization. To preserve his dignity, he prefered to stay with his conqueror rather than with the conquered. The Yahi war was “suicidal” in that it took no consideration of the future: it aimed to live free in the here and now, and to attack those who were attacking them, without weighing the cost. That is because their way of life was forged on the margins on hostile lands, and much of their dignity centered on attack on those who they considered soft and inauthentic. There was no future for the Yahi in civilization because there was no room for compromise with civilization.

Here I will speculate (purely based on my own opinion) as to why someone would adopt eco-extremist views in our context. Of course, there is much anger, perhaps even rage, involved. I imagine that there would need to be to carry out these actions. However, what does the eco-extremist love? Modern humans are so alienated from Wild Nature, so callous to a way of life where they don’t depend on civilization for their every need, that they lament someone being wounded by an exploding envelope, yet shrug off, or even endorse, the destruction of a forest or a lake or a river for the benefit of civilized mankind. They’re so numb to their own nature that they think that Nature itself is a product of their own ingenuity, that trees only fall in the forest so that they can hear them, and that the sine qua non of life on Earth is the continued existence of eight billion hungrier and ever greedier people. If anyone is blinded by hate, it is the humanist, the leftist, and the apologist for “law and order” who makes their own existence the non-negotiable condition for the continuity of life on Earth. If given the choice between the destruction of the planet and their own beloved abstraction called, “humanity”, they would rather destroy the world than see humanity fail.

What is even sorrier is that most civilized humans won’t even be thankful for the noble sentiments of the anarchist and the leftist. To them they will just be snot-nosed bomb throwing punks who should chill out, go to the football game, and stop bothering others with their politics or solidarity. The leftist / anarchist has Stockholm syndrome for masses who will never listen to them, let alone allow them to win them over. They want to be seen in a good light by society, even though society will never pay them any heed, let alone like them. They refuse to see society as the enemy, and that’s why they’ll perish along with it, not knowing why the dream of the Enlightenment failed, why all men will never be brothers, why the only thing in which civilized humans are equal is in their complicity in the destruction of Wild Nature. They aim to be the star pupils of civilization but will always remain the miscreants, the outsiders, the dirty anarchists who need to get a job.

Eco-extremism will grow because people know that this is the endgame. Indeed, from Muslims to Christians to all sorts of other ideologies, apocalypse is in the air, and nothing can stop it. That’s because civilization is a death wish, and always has been. It knows that man cannot be dominated, that the only way to make him submissive is to turn him into a machine, to mechanize his wants and needs, and to remove him further and further from the chaos within himself that is Wild Nature. In this sense, the spirit of Ishi and the Yahi remains, it will always resurface when you least expect it, as a tendency and not as a doctrine, as a cry that fights today without fear for tomorrow. Eco-extremism will have no end because it is the savage attack, the “natural disaster”, the desire to let the fire burn and to dance around it. The anarchist recoils and the leftist fears, because they know that they can’t defeat it. It will continue, and consume everything. It will burn up utopias and the dreams of civilized futures and leave only Nature in its place. For the eco-extremist, that is a cause of rejoicing and not of horror.

-Chahta-Ima

Nanih Waiya, Spring 2016

Works Cited

“The Physical and Demographic Reaction of the Nonmission Indians in Colonial and Provincial California” in Cook, Sherburne F. The Conflict Between the California Indian and White Civilization. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976.

Heizer, Robert and Kroeber, Theodora (Editors). Ishi the Last Yahi: A Documentary History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979.

Kroeber, Karl and Kroeber, Clifton (Editors). Ishi in Three Centuries. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2003.

Kroeber, Theodora. /shi in Two Worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976.

Potts, Marie. The Northern Maidu. Happy Camp, CA: Naturegraph Publishers Inc. 1977.

Starn, Orin. /shi’s Brain: In Search of America’s Last “Wild” Indian. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2004.

Collateral damage

An Eco-Extremist Defense of Indiscriminate Violence

Author: Anonymous

Source: https://waronsociety.noblogs.org/?p=9676

Merely being an eco-extremist propagandist, I am forced to pay attention to reactions of anarchist and leftist readers to the actions of ITS and other eco-extremist groups. The first reaction I encounter is usually one of disgust. How can eco-extremists carry out indiscriminate acts against property and people, such as burning buses and sending mail-bombs, where “innocent bystanders” may also get hurt? What if a child was near a bomb, or what if the secretary to the scientist, a mother and a wife, opens the package and gets killed instead? Why this obsession with nihilistic violence, where innocent people get killed? Isn’t this ineffective for helping to destroy civilization? Doesn’t this just show that the eco-extremists are mentally disturbed, probably angry at their parents, off their medications, outcasts, etc.?

Really, the opposition of leftists, anarchists, anarcho-primitivists, and any number of people who react negatively to eco-extremist violence is one of great hypocrisy: hypocrisy of the level that Nietzsche and any good manipulator of words could easily dissect. For civilization, and any ideology really, is based on indiscriminate violence, on hiding dirty laundry and sweeping dirt under the rhetorical rug so no one can see it.

Let’s start with the numbers game:

Opposition to eco-extremist violence can be approached from the view of the Christian “Golden Rule”: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” You wouldn’t want to be blown up on a bus. You would not want to have your fingers blown off, or have a bullet put in your head when you are just “doing your job”. Everyone has the right to work and support themselves, right? But your chances of being on the business end of an eco-extremist blast are minuscule: you probably have a better chance of winning the lottery. On the other hand, your chances of crashing your car, or being hit by one, are astronomically higher by comparison. Your chances of dying early of cancer or heart disease due to the consumption of processed foods are even higher. Yet those two last causes of death are “perfectly natural”, while being “collateral damage” in a war to defend nature itself is somehow a tragedy. Cry me a river.

Of course, what such condemnation means is a tacit approval of state or civilized violence. For the bourgeois liberal, “terrorist violence” is horrible because only the State can designate people who need to be killed (if you lived in Afghanistan or Yemen, for example, you would have more to fear than just cars; you would also have drones raining down death on you from the skies. But that’s okay, because U.S. democracy approved this.) The leftist and anarchist can criticize eco-extremist action with more integrity, so the reasoning goes, because they too reject the violence of capitalism and the State. Aside from that, however, they create a fantasy world where “the guilty”, rich parasites who they have tried and sentenced to death in their own minds from the comforts of their talk-shops, are killed indiscriminately and even with cruelty, not taking into account that the bourgeoisie too are also husbands, fathers, sons, daughters, etc. And of course, they expect that violence to be minimal, as Revolutions have historically been dainty tea parties where the innocent never, ever get hurt…

What we are confronting here is the Great Hologram of Civilization: one that compels us to care about people we never will meet, to have deep empathy for the abstract citizen, comrade, or child of God. We are supposed to get upset at the sight of the burning bus, or the destroyed office, or the leftovers of an incendiary device left outside of a government building. We are supposed to go over scenarios in our head: “What if my daughter was in front of that building? What if my wife was in that office? What if I was that scientist lying in a pool of my own blood in a parking lot?” Well, what if you were? And to be honest, you weren’t, so why are you playing that film in your head?

Isn’t that the great narrative of civilization: we are all in this together? That’s a lie, because we aren’t. Your life is merely a cog in a great Machine, and should the Machine decide to spit you out, you will be spit out. You have no agency, your morality is an illusion. It just covers up a lot of violence and death that went into making the clothes on your back and the food you eat. It’s alright for massive numbers of animals to die, to burn down forests and pave over meadows. It’s okay to enslave people in factories, to erect monuments to those who buried the worlds of wild savages, to sacrifice the dreams and sanity of those alive today for a better tomorrow. But for the love of God, don’t place a pipe bomb in front of a government ministry! That’s going too far.

Here’s the key to your liberation: you owe society nothing, and you don’t have to do what it says. Those people who get killed on the other side of the world don’t care about you, and they never will. You are just one digit too many in their Dunbar’s number: at most you will be a headline and then you will be forgotten. Your identifying with the death of the “citizen” or “child of God” hundreds and thousands of miles away is a way to manipulate you into doing what society wants: it’s a tool of domestication, and that’s it.

The poet Robinson Jeffers once stated that cruelty was the most natural thing, yet civilized man makes it out to be contrary to nature. Some tribes in what is now northern California were observed by the Europeans to be the most peaceful and the most violent at the same time: peaceful in that they had no organized warfare, violent because that’s how they settled inter-personal disputes. Those who cower in disgust at individualist acts of violence are really defending the right of the State and civilization to have exclusive power of life and death over civilized human animals.

They’re its property, so how dare those eco-terrorists impinge on that right, as well as the right of 10,000 years of civilized law and order to decide who lives or who dies!

I end my rant with two (apocryphal?) quotes from Joseph Stalin. The first is: “You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.” Of course, that is what the opponents of eco-extremists will always say: we are sacrificing the lives of innocent people to make our own version of Eden. Anyone with half a brain and a little reading comprehension will know that’s bullshit. Eco-extremism doesn’t seek to break eggs to make an omelette: it seeks to destroy the whole farm, and if eggs get damaged in the process, that’s just the nature of the beast. How many eggs get broken on a factory farm a day?

The second quote from Stalin is: “One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.” And is this not the logic of civilization, of the leftist and anarchist? They can shrug off a whole world being butchered by civilization, they can wave off the deaths of savage peoples who did nothing but defend their land, and they can play video games in their heads of strangling capitalists in their beds, but when they see a bus on fire, or a lab blown up, they scream, “Won’t somebody think of the children!?”

You may think these acts are ineffective; you may think them the obsessions of crazy sociopaths, or what have you. We’re not trying to change the world, we would rather see it all go up in flames. And if you don’t see that the destruction of the Earth, of the rivers and mountains, of the forests and oceans, is the real insanity, then we cannot help you, nor would we care to. Just duck when you see us coming.

— Interviews —

Interviews with ITS propagandists

John Jacobi’s Conversation with MictlanTepetli (Sep 2016)

1 Introduction

As was explained in the editorial for the sixth issue of Hunter/Gatherer, an interesting tendency is developing in Mexico that has had unsettling implications for me, other wildists, and those who have influenced us, like the indomitistas. Because this dialogue is utterly incomprehensible without background on this tendency and other related tendencies, I strongly recommend readers turn to the editorial first.

Also, one should note that the following discussion is not with an individual who has engaged in actions US citizens would usually regard as illegal. Rather, he is a propagandist who runs a website dedicated to publishing the communiques of the groups in question, as well as explaining the ideas and values that motivate them. Technically, because Mexico does not have free speech laws, this is illegal for him, which explains why he writes that eco-extremism is synonymous with criminality. However, because the US has free speech laws, among other reasons, the following is legally protected. My lawyer has confirmed that this is the case.

Finally, readers should note that after re-reading this dialogue, I did become convinced of one thing MictlanTepetli said: revolution should not be the aim of wildness-centered eco-radicals. You may read my thoughts on the matter in “Revisiting Revolution.”

2 Opening Statements

2.1 John Jacobi

For three reasons, I have decided to engage in this debate with a sympathizer of Individualidades Tendiendo a lo Salvaje and their positions, which they call “eco-extremism.”

First, I hope to gain a better understanding of ITS from someone who is more familiar than I am with the events as they unfold in Mexico. They also obviously have a better understanding because I cannot read ITS’ communiques and Spanish-language texts very easily.

Second, I hope to clarify my own positions in relation to ITS. This is especially important because they and their sympathizers have used much of the same language, ideas, and references as we at The Wildist Institute [now Wild Will]. In fact, one of our former collaborators, Ultimo Reducto, is now known as a major ideological influence on the group, as well as Ted Kaczynski. (Neither UR nor Kaczynski support ITS or The Wildist Institute.) It is important, then, to reveal diverging opinions, especially regarding strategy, through this discussion with MictlanTepetli. Of course, MictlanTepetli can only represent himself and what he thinks or knows ITS to believe, but given obvious legal problems that would come with communicating with an actual member of ITS, this is the best option available. Besides, MictlanTepetli’s opinions do not seem to differ very much from ITS’, according to some associates of mine who speak Spanish.

Third and finally, I hope to critique what I find to be dangerous, unhelpful, or nonsensical positions within the eco-extremist ideology. This is especially important because ITS’ groups continue to grow, and many other non-terrorists have begun advocating the tendency. This is not entirely a problem, since ITS and the eco-extremists’ beliefs are not far off the mark, at least when some of their more intelligent cells communicate them. However, I am skeptical or plainly cannot support five elements of their ideology: (1) their stance on revolution; (2) their stance on indiscriminate violence; (3) their stance on terrorism; (4) and their stance on scientific understanding and/or their “paganism.”

Regarding revolution, the term has been the source of much confusion and it would be better off for individuals to shed the ideas they have associated with the word completely. Very simply, the question is whether conditions are such that (1) an anti-industrial movement can be formed; (2) an anti-industrial movement can significantly aid the collapse of industry. I believe that this is possible and desirable if it is possible. Therefore, I advocate “revolution,” although I tend to characterize it as a “reaction” since it is anti-progressive. I will explain more of the specifics of this position later on.

Regarding their stance on indiscriminate violence, I think it is abhorrent and unstrategic. And regarding their stance on terrorism [which, follow START, I define broadly], I mostly think it unstrategic. There is one exception to each of these: In the case of terrorism, I think that it is wise to take out the power of the word “terrorist,” which the state tries to pin on any rebellious group nowadays. Therefore, when I say I do not advocate terrorism, I mean a very specific thing, which ITS is doing, and which I will explain more later. In principle I do not mind if eco-extremists accept the “terrorist” label as a way to remove its power. Second, it seems that ITS and eco-extremists may mean something particular by “indiscriminate violence.” At least so far as I can tell from my limited understanding, it seems like they are not advocating bombing non-technicians randomly. It seems instead that they are saying once they have decided on a target, they do not care about who gets in the way—they have to execute the attack with singlemindedness, and regard for casualties in that instance would hamper their ability to do that. While I remain ambivalent about such things, it is clear that this is not outright insane, just as it is not insane for military men to execute their attacks with singlemindedness while in a warzone. If this is what eco-extremists mean, then I am mostly concerned with their inadequate means of expressing this. Of course, that is their own problem, but I will clarify the meanings in this debate so that I am not associated with their reckless means of expression.

Regarding their stance on “paganism,” I can only say that I do not quite understand it. It seems like play-acting, and clearly is not the most effective way to go about achieving a political goal.

In contrast to ITS and eco-extremists, I and the wildists have three core elements of our ideology: (1) a scientific materialist worldview, including its nihilist consequences; (2) a critique of progress; (3) the imperative to rewild. The latter comes with some ideas about an anti-industrial reaction. In short, we believe that it is possible to engage in immediate rewilding that simultaneously builds a movement capable of disrupting industry beyond repair, if such a thing becomes possible. We also believe that this is worth engaging in even if industry only collapses in a specific locality, and we do not think that a movement is useless if it fails to disrupt industry globally. I will explain the reasons for this in my discussion with MictlanTepetli about revolution.

Thanks to MictlanTepetli for engaging in this debate; thanks to Chahta-Ima for translating and facilitating communication; and thanks to the readers who suggested that it was important to clarify the differences between wildists and the eco-extremists.

2.2 MictlanTepetli

I have decided to continue this conversation with John Jacobi in order to spread and clarify some points that are unsettling to some concerning Eco-extremism. Jacobi belongs to the self-described, “Wildist” project, which is not very well-known in Spanish-speaking countries (due to most of the texts being in English without Spanish translation.) This is one of the reasons that this conversation should take place.

My first reaction to the opening Wildist text that Jacobi has submitted is the following:

Eco-extremism is to be understood as violent tendency defended by individualists who have left behind the usual hang-ups coming out of “anti-civ,” “primitivist,” or “eco-anarchist” ideologies. This tendency goes against all moral codes of modern society and advocates extreme defense of Wild Nature. We understand “Wild Nature” here to be any environment (endangered or not), but it also encompasses the most primitive roots of being, which are resisting domestication.

It energetically opposes and rejects modernity, human progress, civilization in its totality, scientific advances, etc.

Eco-extremism is a practice more than a theory. It is way more than a ton of paralytic words trapped in a discourse, or the lack of movement that stews in itself due to the immobility of “eco-modernist currents.

Eco-extremists use terrorism to spread their ideas, sabotage to put into practice their critical thoughts against civilization, the technological system, its science, its values, and progress. It utilizes organized and/or coordinated attack to make clear its complete rejection of the civilized mode of life.

The eco-extremist attacks with actions because he has his feet firmly planted on the ground, and he has realized that he still has the warrior spirit of his ancestors running through his veins. His ancestors were savages with their bows and arrows and an ancient interrelationship with the Earth. They caused significant problems to the Mesoamerican and Western civilizations. Both were not welcome in their territories where they roamed as proud nomadic hunter-gatherers.

The individualist who advocates eco-extremism wants and wills to see this civilization burn as the ancient warriors saw in their fierce victories against the invader. That is why their attacks are a continuance of those attacks and are indiscriminate. In their attacks, they don’t distinguish between blacks and whites, men or women, etc. because for the eco-extremist they are all hyper-civilized beings who tend towards progress and in one form or another contribute to the devastation of Wild Nature; to the loss of those roots and characteristics that distinguished us when we developed as just another animal in the forests, deserts, coasts, and/or jungles.

Jacobi has proposed me a conversation where we will address themes such as individualism, “revolution”, indiscriminate violence, terrorism, and paganism. We begin by breaking down these topics:

Individualism: Eco-extremists and those of us who defend this tendency are individualists since we reject the collectivist humanism that mass society defends. We understand that from an objective perspective we are owners and responsible for our own lives and actions. For we do not want other people to manipulate us according to their own will, thus domesticating us.

As individualists we understand that we are social beings, and we don’t eschew unity with other individualists in order to advance our concrete objectives.

All of this is within the parameters of philosophical egoism, defended quite vigorously by the nihilists of the Russian region in the 19thcentury, and retrieved from the dustbin of history by Eco-extremism.

-Revolution: Eco-extremists reject the idea of revolution since this always tends to deform itself and it has always helped to maintain the idea of modern human progress.

The concept has been used for an unending series of causes or political doctrines as an end for its theoretical presuppositions. The “revolution” is a prostitute who sells herself to the highest bidder; it can be used by opposing sides of the same struggle. It is an abused ghost that enters the mouths and pens of intellectuals and militants of whichever struggle. It gives itself over to many misunderstandings and deviations. That’s why the eco-extremists don’t seek it, nor do they strive for it, nor does it hold their interest.

Eco-extremism has rejected the term “revolution” as an end or a means. In our view, we have stopped being utopians and dreaming of a “better tomorrow.”

What eco-extremists make use of are reactions. They attack and write on controversial themes, taking the unpopular and politically incorrect side. This is to get reactions out of people, either rejection on the part of the majority who read them, or sympathy among the few who understand them.

Eco-extremism, more than wanting a quantitative leap, devotes itself to quality. It doesn’t concern itself with pleasing the masses. It doesn’t care to draw the sympathy of revolutionaries. It doesn’t seek to bring about something that doesn’t exist.

The acts and words of eco-extremist groups tend to be direct with many shades of pessimist realism that is dominant in our day.

As for the “anti-industrial movement” I would like to ask Jacobi: What are the ends that are to be sought in the forming of this movement? Are you able to ensure that those ends will work? Why do you people in the United States always talk about a “movement against X” at every opportunity? Is that the strategy you are always going to follow?

-Indiscriminate Violence: When eco-extremist groups defend indiscriminate violence, they are speaking of what Regresión Magazine spoke of some months back in an essay entitled, “Indiscriminate Attacks? What the Fuck’s Wrong with You?!” in which the following is found:

Putting a bomb in a bum’s cardboard box or lighting a street vendor’s cart on fire is not what we are talking about when we mention indiscriminate attacks’. Indiscriminate attacks are when we place a bomb in a specific place, a factory, a university, a particular house, a car, or institution where our human or inanimate target can be found, without regard as to whether an explosive can harm bystanders. Indiscriminate Attack is setting fire to a place of symbolic significance without worrying about whether “innocent people” will get hurt, in order to strike out at Human Progress.

That is basically what we understand by those types of attacks, and it seems that this is a topic that causes quite a bit of controversy and anger in “radical” circles.

For example, many “insurrectionary”, “neo-nihilist,” “eco-,” etc. anarchists get angry when they find that eco-extremist groups don’t care if “innocent bystanders” get killed in an attack. They are disturbed and scared by such attitudes, since they know eco-extremists are willing to do whatever it takes to carry out their attacks.

The double morality of anarchists is very clear here, since they know that anyone with a basic knowledge of the history of anarchism is aware of the many anarchists who have used indiscriminate violence to achieve their objectives. At that time, they targeted kings, the bourgeoisie, and the clergy. We speak here of figures such as Felice Orsini, Ravachol, Émile Henry, Mateo Morral, Paulino Scarfó, Severino Di Giovanni, Mario Buda, etc. as well as nihilist-terrorist organizations such as Narodnaya Volya.

Eco-extremists are just honest in what they do and what they will do. They issue a warning since in some of their attacks some “innocent bystanders” have been hurt.

The rejection of indiscriminate discourse has left some stumped. It causes negative reactions, and draws a line in the sand between those who support eco-extremist groups and those who adamantly reject them.

There are a myriad of examples today of armed groups (anarchists, communists, etc.) carrying out attacks or bombings in banks without the intention of hurting anyone. But in some cases this hasn’t worked and some unintended people were killed or injured in their operations. Of course, they are on the side of “the people,” and they say that they are concerned about “collateral damage”. But when it happens, they either beg for forgiveness or they deny being the authors of the attack. Eco-extremists don’t do that. Eco-extremists are honest and warn that they won’t stop because of anyone or anything in attacking their target. Why carry out half-measures? Why should we appear to be “revolutionaries” with the best intentions if that’s not really what we are? Why should we abide by a double morality? Better to be direct, cut to the chase, and take responsibility for our actions regardless of what happens.

Now more than ever, we live in the era of humanism, “good intentions,” progress, and the rejection of violence. But Islamic terrorism has also taken an important role in our time, one characterized by violence. The public is terrified by the war waged by the “sons of Allah”, which is a response to the war against their lands and beliefs. And even though speaking on this topic would fill up pages, I’ll be brief and state that I think that radical Islamists have every “right” to terrorize decadent Europeans in their comfort zones. On the other hand, I can see that behind this “holy war” there are specific economic interests at play. That which we are experiencing now is a war as in other centuries with religious connotations.

Continuing on this topic, of course this society really rejects terrorism. Eco-extremists understand this situation as a historical condition. That’s why we’ve come to the defense of this term, for it is completely opposed to the humanist values that modern society currently defends.

This is because if we can think back to the ancient wars that our ancestors fought, before and after the invasion of the colonizers, we would realize that Terrorism has always been present, only under other names. The Spanish didn’t call those natives who fiercely opposed them terrorists, they called them “savages”. The Holy Inquisition didn’t call those who spit on their white idols terrorists, they called them “pagans.” The British didn’t call the natives who joined together to expel them from their lands terrorists, they called them, “hostile Indians.” In any case, in the modern era whenever there is violent resistance, armed confrontation, or defensive extremism, it’s called Terrorism. That’s why eco-extremists defend the use of that term.

Here it would be appropriate to say that, if our intention was to create a “movement against civilization,” or “against the technological-industrial system,” we would indeed be concerned that this term would “not be strategic.” But since we don’t aim to have hundreds of followers, to form a civil association, or to work within the legal framework, we don’t give a rat’s ass about being strategic when we defend the term Terrorism, that much is true.

-Paganism: The eco-extremist has solid pagan beliefs in respect to his life and interactions with Wild Nature. He firmly rejects Christianity or any other religion. He revives from the past the deities associated with the Earth, with the plants, animals, the Universe, etc.

The eco-extremist is convinced that living in the modern age where science aims to explain everything, that aspect of vital importance already lacks meaning. Because of this, certain aspects of native beliefs have been lost. Today the great religions or science have positioned themselves over this notable aspect within the human being.

Pagan beliefs do not aim to aspire to position themselves within the category of “political objectives”. This is not a subject that we want to use to attract more followers. It’s more a personal thing.

We want to recover the most important practices that our ancestors had such as the War against the Alien, which is closely associated with the practices of extremist defense, sabotage, terrorism, indiscriminate attacks, etc. Also, we include here the consumption of native plants, curing ourselves with traditional medicine, firmly rejecting allopathic medicine, getting closer to Nature, etc. And within all that we seek to create for ourselves our own cosmological beliefs, for even if we know that we are civilized humans, we cling to our most primitive and wildest roots which we aim to recover in the present.

3 Paganism

3.1 John Jacobi

I considered whether or not wildists could be religious, and I determined that this is possible, but it is possible only in the same way that scientists can be religious. That is, many scientists believe in God, and that does not matter so long as they do not try to justify their scientific work with some “Divine revelation” or something like that.

In fact, deeply religious people (either pagan or Christian or whatever) have good reasons for being against industrial society. Many see value in religion and disdain the secularists’ constant attempts to eradicate it, which is necessary in industrial society (as historical trends suggest). Furthermore, although there are secular reasons for opposing industrial technologies as well, religious opposition is often much more powerful because of its irrational and emotional appeal. For instance, religious opposition to biotechnology is a lot more difficult to counter than secular opposition to biotechnology.

That said, we should be realistic, so I’ll add a few caveats.

First, most religions are progressive and not in line with fundamental wildist values, so Christians, for example, are unlikely to be wildists. Still, clearly even Christianity is compatible with anti-progressivism to some extent, as is clear by the high number of Catholics in the traditionalist conservative movement.

Second, I still think that ITS and others (maybe you, Mictlan?) are just play-acting. Do you actually believe that there are sun deities and water deities, or that there are animal spirits, or whatever? I doubt it. I don’t mind this in a metaphorical sense. In fact, I write in “The Foundations of Wildist Ethics,” section III.B about some of my ideas about religious experience in the context of materialism (and it comes very close to some pagan and/or “pantheist” ideas). But I still can’t help but think that you and other eco-extremists are simply advocating “paganism” in order to fulfill a primitive aesthetic, much like anarchist punks wear patches and get goofy hairstyles in order fulfill an urban radical aesthetic. It’s fine, and in most cases it’s harmless, but it’s useless and in some cases can be harmful, so in general I discourage it.

That brings me to my third point. I personally would prefer that wildists were strict materialists and maintained views somewhere on the spectrum between atheistic and deistic, simply because that signals to me that when it comes to making decisions, we’ll probably be on a similar page. I can’t be sure of that with so-called “pagans.” What if a river spirit tells them to vote a certain way?

In conclusion, I guess “paganism” is not actually contradictory, but I’m skeptical of it, and wouldn’t encourage it. Nevertheless, I would probably work with and, through a vote, approve the membership of religious wildists into my cadre.

3.2 MictlanTepetli

I’ll begin this new point on the theme of paganism by stating the following: I, MictanTepelti, in defending paganism, am doing it from a personal perspective. The individualists who identify with eco-extremism can either worship nature apart from the sense of the great religions or not. When I talk about paganism I’m talking strictly about my personal beliefs. I’m not stating that it’s a mandatory belief among all eco-extremists. I would just like to make that clear.

I agree that religious persons may have good reasons to be against the techno-industrial system, but I think very few religious people really oppose this system and civilization in general. The vast majority of those who claim to follow a religion are hypocrites or idiots, and they are only looking for a higher power for when they have personal problems. Religion from time immemorial has been the impetus for many bloody wars and conflicts. One clear example of this was the Cristero War in Mexico (1926–1929).

I have always believed that human beings are religious by nature, and it’s necessary to believe in something. This inclination has been used by the great religions for exploitation and to brainwash people. Either way, there are a handful of groups that maintain their primordial beliefs intact. Examples of these are the uncontacted natives from different parts of the world, from the Amazon to Africa to Australia, etc.

I think it is odd that you denigrate those of us who defend paganism, saying that we do it to maintain a “primitive aesthetic”. I know it’s hard to accept that in this world of lies and falsehoods, there still exist people who are ready to cast off the most vehement vices of civilization and return to our indigenous roots, no matter what the cost. For example, I come from a family with indigenous roots: my great-grandfather when he was still alive venerated the deer before he went hunting in the mountains. My great-grandmother made great use of natural medicines that came from the Earth to cure various illnesses. She gave these wild medicines growing at various seasons of the year a touch of mysticism. The fact that you attribute my paganism simply to a desire to have a “primitive aesthetic,” like I was one of those punks with a bunch of patches, is something that I find rather insulting. You or no one else knows my personal journey, and you should know that the beliefs that I have rediscovered from history, my family history, deserve respect.

Sure, I’m a civilized person living in the modern, technological, and industrial world. It’s hard for me to separate myself from the teachings that the schools indoctrinated me with when I was young. It’s hard for me to reject the idea that rain (for example) comes from a process within the hydrological cycle. Or that a river is just water, or that fire is a mere grouping of incandescent molecules. Or that the explosives that ITS utilizes are the product of an exothermic reaction. For before I believed in the “Spirits of the Earth” (for lack of a better term) I was also an atheistic materialist who based my beliefs more in the scientific method than animism. But that all changed when I had a very personal experience with a fox, a deer, and a pair of vultures in the semi-desert hills of northern Mexico.

So to reiterate, I am a civilized human being, but I’m over that. I prefer to recover my past as a Teochichimeca and to fight for it with tooth and claw. And even though I am well aware that I am not capable of a complete return to that worldview, it’s in this manner that my opposition to the techno-industrial system and modern civilization are fostered.

In the end, I understand that Wildist materialists like you pay more attention to the physical realm and the spiritual realm doesn’t appeal to you. We’re after all in the Scientific Age where there is an explanation for everything, an age when reason is weighted more than the teachings of our ancestors. Today a book by a “good author” is more valid than the teachings of our elders. We live in an age of severe amnesia in which progressive evolution denigrates and condemns savage behaviors and the beliefs that at one time were essential to our species.

I understand that it’s hard for you to accept, that defending paganism is swimming against the current. But this is about recovering our past in opposition to all that we have been taught since we were children, no matter what the cost.

3.3 John Jacobi

I never said definitively that eco-extremists defend paganism in order to fulfill a “primitive aesthetic.” I said I suspected this, but nothing more. As your response has demonstrated, some of you actually do take it seriously, and I rescind my speculation.

It is irrelevant whether you find my analysis insulting or disrespectful. This is a war, and I do not know you personally. You have made a prescient and touching point about your own beliefs, and I accept that as valid. But I will not hide the fact that I find paganism to be nonsense, personally. At most, I will not be intentionally inflammatory toward you and your beliefs because I do respect your bravery in fighting this war against wild nature, and because I do not think it is wise to burn bridges between two individuals who clearly hold so many threatened values in common.

Once again, I do not understand how you can “reject” physics or other such things. Clearly these things are at least mostly accurate, or else they wouldn’t work as well as they do. And I suspect that if you truly “reject” them, meaning you do not accept them as true at all, you may turn out to be like the indigenous people who believed in “Ghost Shirts.” Consider an excerpt from a letter I responded to when I was editor of The Wildernist:

I’m always reminded of the story of the Ghost Dance, which was a religious movement that some Native Indians adopted in the late 1800s. It stemmed from a prophecy by the messianic spiritual leader Wovoka, who preached that if the “Ghost Dance” was done just right, the spirits of the dead would fight on behalf of the Natives and make the colonists leave. Part of this was a belief that the dancers had “ghost shirts” that would protect them from bullets. I’ve heard a radical environmentalist actually say—actually say—that this was an example of their spiritual superiority, their “oneness with the Earth.” Apparently she hadn’t heard the end of the story, because in 1890 soldiers opened fire on Natives at Wounded Knee, and the ghost shirts did not, in fact, protect the two hundred plus individuals who died that day. The only “oneness with the Earth” they ended up experiencing was the oneness of their corpses with ashes and dust.

The moral of the story isn’t, “Ha! Look at those ignorant Natives.” To the contrary, Wovoka-ish mysticism has played out plenty enough times throughout history for us to know that humans just seem to be prone to these sorts of things. The moral of the story is, however, that radical environmentalist talk of “the inarticulable,” “oneness with Nature” and other such gobbley-gook is very likely or at least prone to becoming yet another example. So far I’ve seen no other tools able to combat this better than science and reason.

I have nothing more substantial to say about this topic. Your beliefs are fine, provided you accept the exceptions I gave in my previous letter. I only bring this up because I want to see eco-radicals everywhere rewild in the most effective way possible. I don’t care if this means “revolution” or whatever, so long as they actually care enough for wild nature to be effective in defending it. This is only a logical outgrowth of valuing wildness anyway.

3.4 MictlanTepetli

I agree that it is not pertinent to this conversation to consider your thoughts as insulting to my pagan beliefs. However, I think that there should be a minimum of respect for what each of us believes and defends in order to have a good faith conversation. I think there should be more tact than what you demonstrated when you started speculating and assuming things, but I’ll count that as water under the bridge and continue…

Your example of Natives who died thinking that the “ghost shirts” would protect them from the bullets of the whites is interesting, though in truth my rejection of modern physics or science is not as absolute as I have let on here. It is rather a partial rejection, for as I wrote in my previous response, “even though I am conscious of not being able to commit to a TOTAL regression, it is in this manner that my opposition to the techno-industrial system and modern civilization is fostered.”

As I was saying, I cannot eliminate completely the scientism that has been taught to me from an early age. But I can reject it in fits and starts, preferring at the same time to recover my roots by being a modern human who cherishes the teachings of my ancestors.

Obviously if a shaman instructed me to risk my life by confronting a bunch of armed men confiding only in the protection of the spirit of my dead ancestors, I’m pretty sure that I wouldn’t do it. Or maybe I’d find a way to do it in a manner in which I wouldn’t be risking my life in the process.

3.5 John Jacobi

You say that if a shaman told you to do something obviously wrong, you probably wouldn’t follow it. But doesn’t this suggest that you are actually a materialist and that you regard materialism as a better way of resisting the attempts of others who use delusions to hold power over you? I am a spiritual person myself. As a materialist I regard the Cosmos with awe and through reason and unreason alike commune with it, studying the process of creation through evolutionary theory, hiking through stone skeletons of the earth, washing in the river blood of the earth, etc. But ultimately I do not posit the existence of anything other than what is material–that is beautiful enough!–and I do not regard shamans or any sort of master as an infallible source of knowledge. Instead I think empirical investigation, logic, and other scientific ways of knowing the world have shown themselves to be superior ways of knowing the world, whether they are present in primitive cultures or industrial ones. And they are present in primitive cultures.

See Jared Diamond’s “Zoological classification system of a primitive people“, in which Diamond shows a “nearly one-to-one correspondence between Fore [taxonomy] and species as recognized by European taxonomists.”

See also Louis Liebenberg’s “The Art of Tracking: The Origin of Science“, in which Liebenberg illustrates how scientific reasoning can be traced to the methods hunter/gatherers used to track and hunt animals.

This is, at least, my own belief. You need not reply if you do not want to. I simply wanted to make clear that by accepting scientific materialism I do not disregard spirituality or irrationality. These things are important to me because I love the WHOLE human, not just some parts. But I would much rather receive spiritual fulfillment from what I regard as true beliefs, cruel or not, traditional or not. Again, I write about these things in “The Foundations of Wildist Ethics,” section III.B.

I end with a quote from Edward Abbey:

Belief? What do I believe in? I believe in sun. In rock. In the dogma of the sun and the doctrine of the rock. I believe in blood, fire, woman, rivers, eagles, storm, drums, flutes, banjos, and broom-tailed horses…

3.6 MictlanTepetli

I am glad to know that you don’t place scientific reasoning above spirituality and irrationality. I know of few materialists who do this. Many seem to be programmed like a machine to spit out answers using an artificial rationality imposed on them by modern thought.

You know, today it is very difficult to find real shamans. In Mexico the indigenous peoples who are true “knowledgeable men,” don’t reveal themselves. They zealously hide their teachings, and if they share them, it’s only with a certain people. These are relatively few in number. The majority of “shamans” in Mexico are charlatans, dishonest people who use pseudo-spiritualism to get money, fame, or other material goods. You have to be smart, know your way around things, and observant to sniff out the frauds. Unfortunately, many who are drawn to animist beliefs are easily fooled by these con-artists. That’s how things are on this side, anyway.

I think that the spiritualist and the materialist will always be at odds since both look to reason: one to divine reason, the other to scientific reason. Some materialists ask: How can you believe in a god who you don’t see? The spiritualists respond in similar fashion: How do you believe in the Higgs boson, which you don’t see either?

I think that here it would be better to strike a balance and not disregard one side or the other totally, as I have written previously. I am a modern human being and I can’t think like my ancestors. I can’t believe anymore that water falls from the sky as a “gift from the gods”. I know that the water falls from the sky as a result of the hydrological process, even if I would prefer not to know that and remain with the beliefs of my ancestors. Unfortunately I cannot do that.

Thus trying to strike a balance is the only path left for me…

4 Indiscriminate Attack

4.1 John Jacobi

I would like to give the reasons that wildists are concerned with proper terminology. Oftentimes people dismiss these discussions as mere semantic debates, and sometimes they are, but proper terminology is important in some cases, and I think that it will be a recurring issue in our discussion about eco-extremism. We wildists have three reasons we emphasize proper terminology:

1. Without proper terminology, we cannot accurately communicate our views to the public. Obviously you are concerned with this too, or else you wouldn’t be having this discussion with me; and ITS and the other terrorist cells are also clearly concerned with this, since they frequently release texts and communiques.

2. If we don’t use proper and consistent terminology, we do not only confuse the public; we confuse our own members too. This degrades unity of action, since individuals who think that they can work with other wildists actually believe and want very different things. Clarification, critique, and honesty is an important way to mitigate that problem.

3. When we have proper terminology, we can spend less time clarifying agitating semantic issues and more time on issues that are more important. For instance, I used to use the term “leftist,” but this just confused the public and members, because they thought I was referring to the political left in conventional politics, when I was really referring to two separate tendencies: progressivism (especially humanism) and opportunism. Now that I simply say “progressivism,” “humanism,” or “opportunism,” people understand what I am saying more easily, and members are able to avoid useless debates that plagued us for a long time.

That in mind, I have two main things to say about indiscriminate violence, but I want to address only the quote by Regresion magazine right now. Ignoring the part about innocence, I understand this quote to mean this: when a group of eco-terrorists decide on a target, they will carry out their goal even if some people get in the way. In other words, terrorist cells of eco-extremists are not going to attack schools or random crowds, but once they decide that they are going to attack a certain infrastructural target or a technocrat, they must singlemindedly pursue the target regardless of the consequences at that point.

If that is what eco-extremists understand Regresion to be saying, then I can at least understand the position. In the military, a group of men engaged in active warfare cannot waver. They must make a decision and during an operation carry out the decision. They will of course not shoot civilians just to do so; but if a civilian attempts to stop them, they have to do something or else risk failure. Furthermore, military structure and training is designed specifically so that their men do not feel too badly about engaging in these actions. If they did feel too badly, they would not be able to achieve the goals. You wrote that this is simply the reality of armed conflict, and that is true, and you are right that people ought to be honest about that (which is a separate question of whether they should engage in it).

But the problem here is, again, terminology. If eco-extremists argue that terrorist cells should not be concerned with occasional collateral damage when pursuing a “specific place” or target, then they are not being indiscriminate—they are pursuing a specific target. Furthermore, if ITS is not going to bomb a school or random crowd, and instead focuses on technocrats and industrial infrastructure, then they are discriminating. It seems that ITS and other cells are actually saying that attacks must be executed singlemindedly, and that they should not have to feel intense remorse over casualties that are to be expected. This is at least a respectable position, and does not engage in the “politicking” that some underground cells in previous revolutionaries engage in. They say, for instance, that they care intensely for the harmed. This is rarely true, and they only say it to save face. Do you think that the military man is intensely remorseful for the drone strike he ordered? This is the character of armed conflict. But when you and other eco-extremists say you advocate “Indiscriminate Attack,” it sounds like you are prescribing indiscriminateness, which does little to nothing to defend wild nature.

4.2 MictlanTepetli

I understand quite well what you are talking about concerning terminology. And yes, up to a certain point some eco-extremists have wanted to try to clarify things when we issue a communiqué or analysis so that our position isn’t misunderstood. On the other hand, we have witnessed that, many times, even when we are very clear about our terminology, there are always stupid people who will never understand it. That’s why our texts and communiqués are addressed to a certain sector of the public in particular, mainly, those intelligent readers who are familiar with the themes that we discuss. Sure, the words of eco-extremists have been widely published in conventional venues, but that doesn’t mean that the discussion is meant for the majority of people. Eco-extremism doesn’t aim to change minds. It doesn’t pretend to influence the consciousness of the masses. The communiqués and texts are a shot in the dark; they are for those few who are willing to take them up.

On the other hand, some eco-extremists have found it necessary to clarify certain terms since it was an essential part of our new identity as a tendency. We have never denied that the essay, “Industrial Society and Its Future” has been an important part of our formation into what we are now. For that reason, in the past we used such terms as “leftists,” “power process,” “feelings of inferiority,” “liberty and autonomy,” etc. that in the present we have omitted or changed for other words so that we distinguish ourselves from the “indomitistas” of Kaczynski.

Leaving behind the theme of terminology, I will clarify some questions that have to do with indiscriminate attacks by bringing up some examples:

Some centuries ago, specifically between 1550 and 1600, in the region now known as Mexico, one of the greatest conflicts of natives against European invaders was fought. This was carried out by the warlike hunter-gatherer nomads who dwelled in the region now known as the “Gran Chichimeca.” They put up a ferocious resistance to any effort at domestication and subjugation. These ethnic groups fought neighboring tribes just as much as they fought against the great Mesoamerican civilizations such as those of the Mexica and Tarascos. The recently arrived Western civilization was not an exception in that sense.

Many of the attacks that were carried out by the wild Teochichimecas were against the caravans that were going to or returning from Zacatecas, the place where the Europeans had found silver that they obtained out of the great mines there.

The Teochichimecas ambushed the caravans and killed everyone with extreme violence. So much was this the case that even the mention of these nomadic warriors made the invaders shake with fright. No one was spared in the attack; they killed women, men, slaves, mulattoes, young women, soldiers, even the horses were not spared. This is a good model of what indiscriminate attack means within the eco-extremist tendency.

In this example, the objective that the Teochichimecas had was, without a doubt, to return the blows that the Europeans had inflicted with more force, revenging themselves for the offenses committed against them. The other objective was to expel the Europeans from their lands and return the silver to the Earth. The latter cannot be merely read about in books that discuss the “Chichimeca War” but also a few of the old people on the roads of Zacatecas tell of how, “naked men attacked the wagons that carried the silver and buried it in the hostile surroundings so that the whites would never find it.”

The objective was then to strike out against the invaders, and whoever was near the whites was also attacked with the same fury. In this day and age it is the eco-extremist groups who do likewise. For example, on August 28^th, 2011, ITS members entered the National Genome and Biotechnology Laboratory in the municipality of Irapuato, Guanajuato, the security of the world renowned lab of the Center of Advanced Investigations (Cinvestav) having been violated by that group. According to the press, an explosive device made of dynamite was left there which the Mexican army was able to deactivate before it exploded. In its January 28^th, 2012 communiqué, ITS wrote that the attack was directed against any investigator or employee who worked in the laboratory. This was an indiscriminate attack without question, since even though the explosive was left in a place that was widely associated with biotechnology, the blast could have harmed not only scientists, but also any janitor, security guard, or any other person not associated with research there. ITS acted like the Teochichimecas; it sought to strike without regard for bystanders.

Another example of indiscriminate attack was when a package-bomb exploded in the hands of the Vice President of the Pro-GMO Alliance (an organization headed by Monsanto Mexico), the cattleman Mari Valdés, who was gravely injured along with his secretary, on November 19^th, 2015. The Eco-Extremist Circle of Attack and Sabotage claimed responsibility for this attack. In it, not only did the target Valdés come out wounded, but his defenseless secretary as well, who more than likely has little to do with the large corporations that carry out the genetic modification of plants. This is also considered by eco-extremists to be an example of indiscriminate attack, for, as is evident, one attacks a specific target without regard for collateral damage, which is different from the idea of a “random attack”.

On October 26^th, 2015, the “Indiscriminate Group” (GI) abandoned an explosive in the station of the Metro Chilpancingo in Mexico City at rush hour. In their communiqué the eco-extremist group indicated that their target was the transportation system and all that it represented (environmental destruction, the urban commute of the masses, progress, etc.) The bomb was located by the police who removed it from the station and deactivated it, thus frustrating the attack. This is another example of indiscriminate attack, which caused disgust among many people, including those who claim to be against the values of the system. But GI acted without reservation, justifying the attack that sought to strike out against the public mass transit system without consideration of if they killed or wounded “innocents”. Everyone there were members of a society complicit with the destruction of Wild Nature, including human nature.

It is thus the case that, striking out in this manner, the acts of eco-extremist groups subvert the values of the techno-industrial system which teaches humanism, progress, solidarity, philanthropy, etc. Eco-extremists act out in a manner that is totally contrary to the moral rules that allow contemporary civilization to stay afloat. We defend the total rejection of humanism, for we lean towards terrorism against hyper-civilized people (modern misanthropy). We strike out against progress with Regression. We don’t express solidarity with anyone unless they form part of our circle of accomplices. And we don’t preach pious sentiment, as we encourage individualists to satisfy their darkest instincts, with criminality, indiscriminate attack, and chaos; all of this aimed against the Alien and all that seeks to domesticate us.

“What eco-extremists do is to be sincere in what they do or will do. They issue a warning since in their attacks some bystanders have been affected.”

What I wish to say here is that ITS and eco-extremist groups do not preoccupy themselves with giving warnings when they are preparing an attack. I am saying ITS and the other groups warn that, in the event of indiscriminate attack, the common person should not try to play the hero because they’ll come out hurt. They should ignore the person placing the explosive somewhere or they’ll come out hurt. Modern Mexican society is immersed in an atmosphere of fear or indifference; we wish this to be the case as well when eco-extremists are carrying out their business…

4.3 John Jacobi

You say, “habrá siempre gente necia que nunca las comprenderán.” Amen. Wildists also write as accurately as possible but still do not expect more than an elite to understand, and an even smaller elite to sympathize.

I also agree with nearly everything else you say about eco-extremist attitudes toward terminology.

Regarding “Indiscriminate Attack.” One example was particularly clarifying to me, namely, the example of the Teochichimecas attacking caravans. You are right that this is not the “singleminded attack” that I had described earlier, although it also cannot be called “indiscriminate attack” since even the teochichimecas did not just attack anyone—they attacked specific people, specific caravans, etc. It is somewhere on the spectrum between “singleminded attack” and “indiscriminate attack.” I still do not support and will never support actions that actually are indiscriminate, and I do not and will never support the term “indiscriminate,” because it means, according to dictionaries, “done at random or without careful judgment,” and in reality I only support activism that is calculated to be effective for making the world a wilder place. Nevertheless, that is all I will say about terminology, since I now understand what you mean because of your example.

I have several responses to this, but before I outline my counter-arguments, let me outline what I understand to be the eco-extremists’ justifications:

1. ITS and other terror cells attack in this manner because the teochichimecas did it.

2. ITS and other terror cells attack in this manner because they are not humanists or even progressivists.

3. ITS and other terror cells attack in this manner because of their overall strategy, which is similar to the teochichimecas. You wrote that the strategy was basically to scare Europeans away by being more violent.

4. Finally, eco-extremists apparently believe that “innocence” is a relevant concept and do not believe anyone (or any industrial human?) to be “innocent,” which they say justifies “indiscriminate attack.” Out of all of the arguments, this one contains the most logical fallacies, so I need special confirmation that this is what you and other eco-extremists are arguing, at least as far as you know.

After you confirm that these are the four core arguments for “indiscriminate attack” I will begin responding why wildists believe differently, if you do believe these arguments.

4.4 MictlanTepetli

Continuing with the theme of indiscriminate attack: if we’re going to stick to the dictionary definition in particular, as in the word, “indiscriminate,” you’ll encounter this definition: “That which does not distinguish between particular persons or things, nor establish differences between them,” So I’m sticking with what the dictionary says. But as eco-extremism is a tendency that subverts all, it’s not surprising that you’re confusing “indiscriminate attack” with “random attack.”

I affirm, negate, and clarify the following:

1. ITS and other eco-extremist groups attack not only because of the spirit of the Teochichimecas. The reasons behind their attacks are many, ranging from what we have indicated here, to those that seek to defend Wild Nature in an egoist manner, mere revenge, or seeking to destabilize certain institutions in the present.

2. ITS and other eco-extremists groups attack in this manner because they are neither reformists nor progessivists nor humanists nor politically correct. That is quite certain.

3. ITS and other cells utilize Teochichimeca tactics, but also urban guerilla strategies, experimentation with armed struggle, practice of criminal activities such as armed robbery, psychological terrorism, etc. in order to reach their ends. One of the primary of these is the extreme defense of wild nature through terrorism against scientists, humanists, engineers, clergy, miners, businessmen, etc.

4. Though some may be more culpable than others, ITS and eco-extremist groups assert that all who conform to this society and who contribute to it in one way or another (us included) are guilty for what it does, and no one then is INNOCENT. If you contribute to this society or conform to it, you are not innocent.

4.5 John Jacobi

Regarding the point on “indiscriminate attack,” I remain solidly convinced that “indiscriminate” is not a proper term and does not properly communicate what you are trying to say. I will never condone the terminology, and I stand firm with that position. You write, ” it’s not surprising that you’re confusing ‘indiscriminate attack’ with ‘random attack.’” The problem is that most individuals understand “indiscriminate attack” to mean “random attack,” and because of this it produces all manner of confusion and many distracting debates that could have otherwise been avoided. This is obvious from the backlash that ITS and other terror cells have received (although that is partly due to the filthy humanist philosophy many “radicals” hold); but it is also clear in many of my discussions with people who agree completely with my values and what I suspect to be your own, or at least what you claim as your own.

The problem they and I have is that if people understand “indiscriminate” to mean “random,” then they will not think that you actually care about wild nature, nor do you care about rewilding in the most effective way possible. Instead, they will think that people who advocate “random attack” merely want to kill, or have something wrong with them. Furthermore, even your definition of “indiscriminate” leaves this impression, because eco-terror cells DO discriminate between who they attack and don’t, for surely they would not intentionally harm another eco-radical, surely they would not bomb a place “just because,” surely you would not attack primitive peoples. This problem is exacerbated by the language in communiques by ITS, which sometimes speak as though everyone is a target, when at the very least I think they restrict their attacks to the civilized.

This misunderstanding is a problem precisely because it applies to the indomitable spirits who are also seeking to defend wild nature and perhaps link up with others to make their resistance more powerful. I want to work with those individuals, so I do not want to scare them away by giving them the impression that I really care about violence and attacking rather than wild nature and rewilding. All this applies regardless of what eco-extremists actually mean by “indiscriminate attack.” It is enough that the majority of people understand eco-extremists to mean “random attack,” and this is largely the fault of eco-extremists themselves. I’ll say nothing more about terminology on this point.

4.6 MictlanTepetli

I appreciate your concern that causes you to dwell on how eco-extremists should revise the term so that it is “more understandable to the public.” Nevertheless I will continue to defend this term, as I feel most of the other eco-extremists do and probably will.

In that regard, I would like to make it very clear that:

• Eco-extremism as a tendency breaks with the stereotypes of other radical armed or direct action groups in that eco-extremism is itself a provocation and a subversion of civilized humanist values that govern our present society.

• Eco-extremism gets many reactions, most of them negative. If then we continue to use the term “indiscriminate attack” it is to continue to highlight the provocative tone of our rhetoric, which is our signature.

• The intelligent reader of the texts, communiques, publications, and messages taking responsibility for an attack will note that indiscriminate attack as executed by ITS and other groups is absolutely not a random attack.

• Eco-extremism explains its actions, and even though it is backed up by words, it is a tendency that emphasizes acts over any given terminology.

• Eco-extremism does not aim to be a movement. I am informed by third parties that, even though we’re not interested, many times things that ITS and the other groups do generate lively polemic within the “primitivist”, anarchist, and wildist milieus. But in reality we’re not overly concerned with how others see us. We lose little sleep over whether people understand our reasoning or not. Only the indiscriminate terrorist of eco-extremist inclination will understand the acts and words of another indiscriminate terrorist of eco-extremist inclination. And I’m fine with that. Eco-extremism is showing signs of expansion into other countries by what we’ve seen recently. This is real evidence that we are growing larger.

4.7 John Jacobi

You write that I am concerned with how the public understands the concept of indiscriminate attack. This is true to a limited degree, but my main concern is with how other eco-extremists and eco-radicals understand the concept of indiscriminate attack. You write, for instance, that intelligent readers will understand the meaning of the phrase, but intelligent readers may not be the only ones inspired to act. This is especially true when the language of the communiques is so messy, reckless, and open to misinterpretation.

You point out that it is permitted by our non-humanist moral foundations. As an example you point out the savage character of the Teochichimeca attacks on Christian civilizers and you note the way the Amazonian tribes who have recently been threatened attack all who threaten their way of life. Indeed, your example of the Teochichimecas attacking caravans was such a good one because it illustrated that THAT is how people sometimes behave when they are allowed to live as natural humans and are not bound by humanist philosophies. It is true that if industrial society collapsed, even in only a small region, the humans who live there would slowly regain their wild spirits and would likely regard neighboring bands or tribes instrumentally. They may not attack just to attack, and they may even have a working coalition, but if need be they will enter into war and be brutal. One of the most striking examples of this is the Yanomami people.

I recognize this point as valid.

However, I have some remaining qualms with the concept of indiscriminate attack as the eco-extremists mean it.

4.7.1 Suicidal Conflict

We live in the present, and in the present the primary concern for those who love the wild is (presumably) rewilding in the most effective manner. Even if our values do not allow explicit condemnation of the eco-extremist principle, it also does not explicitly condone it nor does it make it an imperative (as you know). As such, whether to engage in such action is entirely a question of (a) individual character and decisions and (b) strategy. Since (a) is so varied between individuals, I will not speak on it except to say that I am repulsed by some of what you implicitly or explicitly condone by indiscriminate attack. But I can only determine my own behavior, of course. Regarding, (b), I can’t give any specific suggestions because it may create some legal problems for me. It is enough to say that I do not think indiscriminate attack is a very good idea. If your enemy is much stronger than you, than it makes sense to prod him with a stick to wear him out, but if you prod too hard too quickly then the enemy will stamp you out completely. This is always a risk, but “live wild or die” does not mean that I DESIRE to die; death is not my GOAL, and I will not ask for it. Death is just the price I am willing to pay.

4.7.2 A Major Discrimination

There is at least one discrimination that is important: those who fight against civilization and those who do not. Forget what I think about those who do not fight against civilization; I think I have explained enough my general stance on the issue. However, obviously I and other wildists do not support hurting those who have joined us in our war against industry. Reading some communiques, it seems that ITS and other eco-extremists make this distinction as well. For example,

In communique 5 (2016), “We consider as enemies all those who contribute to the systematic process of domestication and alienation: the scientists, the engineers, the investigators, the physicists, the executives, the humanists, and (why not?), affirming the principle of indiscriminate attack, society itself and all that it entails. Why society? Because it tends toward progress, technological and industrial. It contributes to the consolidation and advance of civilization. We can think of all who form part of society as being mere sheep who do what they are told and that’s it, but for us it’s not that simple. People obey because they want to. If they had a choice and, if it were up to them, they would love to live like those accursed millionaires, but they rot in their poverty as the perennially faithful servants of the system that enslaves us as domestic animals.”

In communique 4 (2016), “ITS does not yield before the accepted morality, and knows that you are either with Technology, or you are at war against it. The former will die as well as those on the fence.”

This in mind, indiscriminate attack poses at least two problems. First, how can anyone possibly tell who is and is not fighting, passive, or on the fence in the context of “indiscriminate attack”? If an eco-terrorist sets off a bomb in a graduate computer science class, how do they know that members of that class are not translating communiques or essays, hacking industrial companies’ computers, etc.? Now, I have made no comment about the terrorist tactics themselves, and will not. But assuming that they will be practiced regardless, I recognize the limitations inherent in the tactics. I recognize that there would always be some kind of trade-off. But “indiscriminate attack” drastically increases the chances that eco-radicals would kill one of their own.

I obviously speak from personal context. I am an information science major, and I believe that hackers and cyberpunks can do a lot to aid the current destabilization of industrial society. For instance, jihadists, anarchist terrorists, eco-terrorists, African insurgents, and many others are currently forcing governments to conduct mass surveillance, and this upsets citizens—but only if they know. The cyberpunks, who actually often have eco-radical and anarchist sympathies, are letting the citizens know through leaks, hacks, and journalism, which creates a riotous climate more favorable to eco-radicals. This is why I am myself a cyberpunk and why I am strongly supportive of the movement. This is also why I and others are confused by eco-extremist rhetoric: do eco-extremists mean that anyone who does not fight civilization with bombs, arson, and terrorism risk death? Are there not other ways to rewild?

To be clear, I do not say the above because I am afraid of death. By attending university, a research university no less, and by majoring in information science, I openly acknowledge that I am in THE warzone. Universities are, of course, one of the primary sites of struggle for eco-radicals–I’ve said this over and over, and I know that I am at risk.

However, forget terrorism for a moment, whatever the status of those tactics. Consider the possibility that there are four or five student wildists at each of a few universities. That is more than enough to conduct sophisticated, non-terroristic action that is nonetheless highly effective. For instance, students know the university much better than any outside radical ever could; they are better connected; they have more access; etc. Furthermore, when students revolt, the media is usually favorable to them and the police can’t be as harsh for fear of backlash. In these circumstances, eco-radicals can take advantage of chaos because the strategic advantages are almost entirely given to them, the students. Furthermore, even if this does not result in material demands, it trains the eco-radicals so they can better take advantage of future situations. Through action NOW we prepare for the future later, and we are better equipped to take advantage of any opportunity that may arise. There is actually no other way to properly prepare. And of course material demands will NEVER be achieved without a “tactical spectrum.”

With this tactic some groups could be (1) possibly WAY more effective than isolated terrorists; (2) better guarded against repression so they can continue to act; (3) trained for the future without relying on the future; (4) better able to avoid the risk of hurting or maiming one of their own.

I am not trying to convince you to embark on certain tactics. I am only explaining the wildist approach and some of the reasons indiscriminate attack makes no sense to me as a strategic policy.

Consider also the repercussions of indiscriminateness as practiced by salafi jihadists:

While the downplaying of its elitist, Salafi rhetoric has softened the blow of these recantations to some extent, Al-Qaeda has been put in an untenable position with respect to one issue. Al-Qaeda has been forced to defend itself against charges that its actions lead to the death of countless innocent Muslims. Whether Al-Qaeda uses allegations of apostasy to justify these deaths ideologically; whether it argues pragmatically that the ends justify the means; or whether Al-Qaeda genuinely tries to minimize Muslim fatalities is irrelevant. Declining opinion polls in the Muslim world reflect the indisputable fact that Al-Qaeda has failed to redeem Islam, but has succeeded in killing innocent Muslims in large numbers. Despite its many adaptations, this is Al-Qaeda’s major weakness, and it remains an enduring weakness of the global jihad that the West should continue to expose.

Now, I recognize that you say that you are not trying to recruit people, and for the most part I strongly agree with you. We should not make our values and goals more palatable just for larger numbers. But remember again that I am interested in the most effective attack against industry that we are capable of, assuming that at a minimum this means effective rewilding by individuals and small groups. This means, for instance, that attacking people “on the fence” does not really make any sense. At worst that sort of rhetoric could even weaken the attack against industry by unnecessarily alienating individuals who were once you and I.

Furthermore, lest you forget how provocative the eco-extremist rhetoric has been, note these quotes from the most recent ITS communiques:

From communique 5 (2016), “Nothing, absolutely nothing guarantees that bystanders will not get hurt. In fact, our attacks are designed to cause the greatest amount of harm possible. And if more lives are taken in these attacks than we anticipated beforehand, so much the better. We can say this without hesitation or guilt because we are totally convinced of what we think and the life we have chosen, and we have shown this with concrete actions. Before any obstacle we know how to act. All possible “collateral damage” is not a “calculation error” and it is not “the price of the struggle”. It is a choice: a conscious and desired CHOICE.”

From communique 1 (2016), “It fills us with joy when tornadoes destroy urban areas, as well as when storms flood and endanger defenseless citizens.”

This does nothing to communicate a love for the wild; it does nothing to communicate the importance of radical defense; all it does is make people (including me, a fellow eco-radical!) suspect that some of the eco-extremists in ITS are sociopaths and that they are just opportunistically using eco-defense as a way to justify their violence. By now I realize that this is not the case with many eco-extremists, but the point remains.

4.7.3 Our Capacity for Empathy

Even if we aren’t humanists, we are still capable of feeling empathy. Obviously, this can be rebutted by saying that we are in war, and that is true, and I recognize the necessity of a purist defense of wild nature and all that that entails. But as a person who loves the WHOLE human, I do hope to discourage the distortion of human nature that occurs within all radical movements, a distortion that makes man forget the side of his spirit that is not a warrior, but that is simple and wants simple things. To do this, in my discussions with young wildists I frequently quote a video game I used to play called “Knights of the Old Republic II.” In it, one character says, “The jedi… the Sith… you don’t get it, do you? To the galaxy they’re the same thing: just men and women with too much power, squabbling over religion, while the rest of us burn.” Ultimately I believe in my cause; I believe in Reaction. But this quote makes me look at my commitments critically. I hope it helps you do this too.

In sum: overwhelmingly my biggest issue with indiscriminate attack and much eco-extremist rhetoric is the way it divides fellow eco-radicals who share nearly all of your values and by the way that it fails to remind that there is a difference between a civilized bystander and an eco-radical bystander.

Finally, question: In “Ataques Indiscriminados? Pero que chingados les pasa!” Regresion writes, “As we stated above, anyone can disagree with the indiscriminate eco-extremism that we advocate. For example, the so-called “Paulino Scarfó Revolutionary Cell” has done so in February of this year when it indirectly mentioned the ITS attack in Chile.” Does this mean that some eco-extremists do not necessarily support indiscriminate attack? I don’t know who the Paulino Scarfo Revolutionary Cell is. Either way, I think you can regard me as an eco-radical who questions the validity of “indiscriminate attack” and definitely dislikes the terminology.

4.8 MictlanTepetli

On the second point I would like to state the following:

I would like to reiterate and emphasize here that the contexts in which various struggles in defense of Wild Nature develop are different for each case. That’s the case in Mexico from state to state within the country, and just as much the case in the United States.

When you place special emphasis on the danger of placing bombs knowing that maybe the eco-extremists themselves would come out dead or injured, or other eco-radicals or people who share the same goal of the destabilization of civilization or the techno-industrial system, you are being too much of a catastrophist, as it’s hard for us to take such scenarios seriously. Indeed, I’ll go so far as to say that they are near impossible.

In ITS’s history (taking the oldest eco-extremist group as an example), there has never been the case of an eco-extremist, eco-radical, or similar person who has been wounded or killed in an attack. Even though this would be on the minds of eco-extremist groups who have carried out an attack at some point, I’m sure that if one day this were to happen, they would be upset by it but that wouldn’t stop them. It would be unfortunate, they’d probably be saddened by it as much as if a comrade were imprisoned for his extremist activities. But that’s the price that they are willing to pay.

You propose the example of if a bomb were left in a computer science class, perhaps there would be people present there who would be willing to translate communiqués or essays; or who are hackers. I’ll tell you that this would never be the case in Mexico. That is, the vast majority of people who study that particular course in engineering don’t have a clue about this stuff. Perhaps the people who could get hurt are leftist activists who don’t have a compelling critique of technology and civilization. Mexican leftist activists generally are progressivists and rebellious in their youth, but when they grow up and get jobs they forget about their rebellion. So it wouldn’t be a problem for eco-extremists if an explosion maims or kills these people.

Maybe in the United States computer science classrooms have a good number of eco-radicals or hackers who are working for the destabilization of civilization. If there were any eco-extremists in the United States you would have something to worry about in that regard as universities are a frequent eco-extremist target. But to date I don’t know of any eco-extremists operating in the United States. It’s all a matter of context. If somehow eco-extremists emerged in the United States, either as an individual or in various groups, I would imagine that they would be careful in targeting the universities to not injure people who are likeminded. They would have to be more selective in their attacks and less out in the open.

In the United States lately I’ve seen that “rewilding” has gone viral. There are now many television programs about survivalism or “primitivism”. I understand that more people are radicalized by the day in your country, that many people are drawn to this profound critique of the techno-industrial system and this is becoming a movement. And from that I believe comes your concern that eco-extremists be more careful in their attacks. But in Mexico this isn’t the case, and it doesn’t seem to be the case in South America either.

The times in Mexico when universities have been attacked, eco-extremists groups have chosen their target well, focused on something specific, did their homework, and attacked with calculation. Those who come out hurt are either the intended targets or some university worker, and that’s it. Thus there is no reason here to think that some eco-extremist was either killed or wounded here, let alone anyone who desired the destabilization of civilization.

ITS from 2011 to 2014 attacked nine university campuses, some even were attacked twice. The casualties from those bombings were four persons, with only one fatality. In none of these occasions were activists or anarchists or communists hurt, not to mention any eco-radicals or “passive” eco-extremists. Here I must emphasize that eco-extremism is synonymous with illegality. ALL eco-extremists end up breaking the law or thumbing their nose at authority. Some do this by detonating explosives, others by aligning with common criminality, some by transporting explosives or illegal materials, some by publishing blogs on these events, other by editing the magazines reporting them, still others by translating communiques taking responsibility for them. That is all to say, ALL eco-extremists are part of the same Mafia, all contribute to the criminal enterprise that strikes out against the normal functioning of civilization. That’s why a “passive” eco-extremist can’t exist, since once an individualist calls himself an “eco-extremist,” he becomes an illegalist individualist.

Next I would like to clarify that when I mention that I am working and striving for rewilding I am only speaking of MY OWN rewilding and the rewilding of my group. I would give anything to see the system collapse and for the planet to be free again from all civilized bondage. But I can’t since I am an eco-extremist and for this reason I believe that the future doesn’t exist and all that is left for me is this piece of shit in which I am stranded and I’m well aware that I am not the Earth’s savior. The only thing that I can save is my own life and the way I associate with my affinity group. I am Wild Nature, as well as my group that holds on to idea of not letting our wild instincts die. They took everything away from us, even a place where we can freely dwell. They took away our wild places, our ancestral lands, and buried them under cement. Thus I and my group are the only Wild Nature, and re-wilding is what we aspire towards. Sure, there are eco-extremists who have their own place of Wild Nature that they defend and that is their work. And the truth of the matter is that it would be an error to give one absolute meaning to eco-extremism. As you may know, within eco-extremism there are many current of thought, some more radical than others, although we all unite under the same principles that I mentioned in my first interactions with you.

On this theme we have to keep in mind context. For example, eco-extremists who live a nomadic life generally have places where they can go when the climate changes, that is, they have a place to defend. In that case they are interested in the re-wilding of those places and distancing themselves from civilization. However, they do this through violent and illegal methods, and not through negotiation. Eco-extremists like myself live in disgusting cities: we don’t have such places where we can live freely, one that needs to be defended or re-wilded. We get by how we can and we act according to our abilities but always in illegality. Of course, if the opportunity presents itself and we find a sector of the city destroyed by civil war or similar catastrophe, we would be committed to re-wilding that place, that goes without saying.

Here the same cause unites us: the nomadic eco-extremist groups who defend their territory (without publicly claiming responsibility for it) and those who concern themselves with the rewilding of those places, like us. We eco-extremists of the city carry out criminal activities and we claim responsibility for them, which is our manner of fostering our own rewilding, having always before us Wild Nature.

Continuing on the second point, you mention the indiscriminate attacks of Al Qaeda in which many jihadists have fallen in combat. Let’s keep in mind that, for them, to die in an attack that they carry out or one carried out by those of the same tendency is a blessing in their religion. For if their strategy of indiscriminate attack were weak, the group would have ceased to exist a long time ago. Instead it has positioned itself to be one of the biggest terrorist threats in history. I’m sure that if the Islamic State is defeated, Al Qaeda will still be around, for it has stronger support than the Islamic State, and it is still carrying out indiscriminate attacks.

Eco-extremist rhetoric is clear and, in fact, it is part of a strategy much more profound than that of some “mere sociopaths who use the the radical ecological banner as a cover for their violence,” so some might see it.

The strategy of eco-extremist groups is classified under the so-called “war on nerves” or “psychological terrorism,” where eco-extremists demonstrate that they don’t care about anyone in the attacks that they carry out.

This is a message to the authorities, large corporations, and the other targets of these groups, since the majority of people who read these communiques are the intelligentsia of Mexico, Chile, or Argentina (countries where eco-extremism has an active presence). In this they want to put these corporations on alert in order to create an atmosphere of fear and destabilization in these circles. An example of this was in the first communique of Reacción Salvaje where they included photos of two masked men holding pistols and a machine gun [see “Some Context for Issue Six”]. The content of the communique was clear, and the message of many groups joining together into one was ominous, but the photos were the “cherry on top” so to speak. What would those two people be up to showing off their guns like that? The communique was published in August 2014, and in it the group, Reacción Salvaje, warned of possible terrorist attacks. Due to this, intelligence experts augmented police patrols on two specific dates: September 16^th and October 2^nd.

For September 16^th of that year, during the military parade in the center of the Mexican capital, there was a large security operation in place, and even the baby carriages were searched (which made all the whiny human rights activists complain). All of this was due to the threat of RS and other groups involved in organized criminal activity. Even though there wasn’t an attack on the parade, people were very nervous. Psychological terrorism worked in that case.

In October, during the turbulent demonstration that is held every year to commemorate the massacre of students in Tlatelolco in 1968, a rather large police operation was carried out to neutralize any threat that might emerge, though there were a few attempts at violent confrontations with the police. Nothing out of the ordinary took place, however. Nevertheless, the concern among authorities was obvious, as counterinsurgency experts thought that RS and its factions would take advantage of the upheaval to carry out their attacks. They were noticeably very nervous and paranoid in that regard.

Apparently the authorities came to believe that the threats from RS were false, until November 20^th came along and a demonstration took place in the Mexican capital condemning the massacre of the students at Ayotzinapa. The tumult began, violence flared up, the police held their fire while rocks were thrown by various groups of protesters: anarchists, communists, and among them, two RS factions that infiltrated the demonstration. The infiltration did not have the aim to demand justice or express solidarity with the people or anything like that. RS wanted to provoke a mortal confrontation with the political order, using the rage of the people for the purpose of destabilization. The emblematic door of the National Palace was the objective. If the demonstrators stormed the National Palace, the police would have fired on them, and the conflict would have resulted in a massacre or civil war. Two RS factions claimed responsibility for this attempt a couple of days afterward. Unfortunately they were not successful in their objective, but destabilization resulted nonetheless.

In the communique signed by “By Blood and Fire Faction” and the “War Dance Faction” of RS, it stated the following:

The disturbances in front of the emblematic National Palace were not an isolated incident. They were the result of the political, economic, and social crisis which the country is in. These actions made the federal government tremble, which has since yesterday whined through the mass media its prostituted message of a “state of tolerance.” It wants to plant in the heads of curious populace the evil of the situation, and by that, exhort it to reject these types of acts.

For us these confrontations in these conditions are useful for heightening the tensions that are derived from the weakening of the political sphere. One of our objectives is to incite violent tensions so that the police open fire on the citizenry, with the citizenry deciding to defend themselves against them, making the conflict more acute. The aim of all this is destabilization. The nefarious members of the security cabinet and the yapping press spread the rumor in September that we were going to attempt an attack on Independence Day (September 16^th) or during the October 2^nd march. Their mistaken prediction was only a glimpse of the paranoia caused by the publishing of our August 14^th communique. This even though everyone knows that in the demonstrations around the disappearance of those aforementioned students, guerilla and anarchist organizations are always present, and they always end in riots and property damage. We state here that RS terrorists also participated, because when the crisis gets bad, it’s always better to try to make it worse…

As we have written previously, RS is not a group that ‘understands’ or ‘respects’ the masses . We don’t participate in their demonstrations to express “solidarity”, nor to demand ‘peace’ or ‘justice’. The RS factions want to work to see this civilization in flames and collapsing due to the problems of its individual members. And it that means we have to infiltrate demonstrations with sticks, explosives, fire, and even guns, let it be clear that we’ll do just that. For the destabilization of the rotten techno-industrial system!

The threat was carried out, the war on the nerves as a strategy worked and psychological terrorism was the result. This is a perhaps a good example of the strategy of eco-extremist rhetoric.

This is also the case with ITS communiques. This group is based on war on the nerves. When they issue these communiques, they want to destabilize and cause worry among those in charge of maintaining the status quo. This in spite of the fact that many reject ITS or understand the meaning of these messages differently.

For many, ITS postures like a group of psychopaths or insane people, though I am sure that this isn’t the case. On very few occasions they have spoken on their reasoning behind the communiques, and few have understood them.

With regard to point 3 we recognize that some eco-extremist groups do not mention the term “indiscriminate attack”, perhaps because they don’t agree with it or simply because they would prefer not to use that term.

5 Teochichimecas and the Past

5.1 John Jacobi

I gather that not every eco-extremist finds the Teochichimecas to be relevant, since I assume at least some of them have nothing to do with those primitive peoples, having other ancestors. So this mostly applies only to the eco-extremist cells who do speak often of the Teochichimecas.

It often sounds as though these eco-extremists are trying to one or more of these things, all of which have problems: (i) MIMIC the past, (ii) RESTORE the past, (iii) JUSTIFY the present with the past. I make the following critique because I think that the eco-extremist argument is strong even without referring to the past in those three ways, and all those three things do is weaken their arguments. Furthermore, of a group that speaks so much about the importance of the present, it does not make a whole lot of sense to try to restore or mimic the past.

Regarding (i), I provide a quote from Gordon McCormick’s “Terrorist Decision Making” in the Annual Review of Political Science:

It is also evident that terrorist organizations often inherit or adopt a preexisting “script” or theory of victory rather than design a program that is tailored to their specific requirements or operational and strategic objectives. Many terrorists, in this respect, belong to “a tradition of historical action”. The (interpreted) experiences of their predecessors not only demonstrate that action is possible but can also provide terrorists with a set of procedures, tactics, and rules of thumb for carrying out their own campaigns. Historical precedents can be attractive guides. For those who wish to replace an incumbent regime but have no prior experience overthrowing governments, which is typically the case, an historical model can provide an immediate (if prepackaged) recipe for action. The problem this poses for rational decision making is not that such precedents are used as strategic aids, per se, but that they are often adopted uncritically. To the degree this is true, a group’s concept of operations is less a product of a strategic calculus than of a historical legacy, which may or may not be appropriate to the circumstances at hand.

This essay is also useful in explaining the differences between many of the ideas eco-extremists have espoused and some of my own positions. It also explains a phenomenon I suspect some ITS cells are experiencing, where terror cells become progressively more extreme, even unreasonably so, simply because they are so isolated and forced to live in unnatural, paranoid conditions (because if they didn’t the prevailing power would smash them).

Regarding (ii), I offer several quotes supporting my impression:

• You write, “I prefer to recover my past as a Teochichimeca”

• You write, “this is about recovering our past”

• The fifth communique of ITS (2015) writes, “With pagan pride we recover this spirit in the present, as well as all of the wisdom, tenacity, and commitment of those primitive and anonymous lives. We revive them in the present attack against civilization.”

And several others. But I am not seeking to restore the past in any way. I wish to restore _wildness_, and for that the past is only an indicator, because it is often only in the past that the level of wildness I want existed. For instance, we can know a little about natural human behavior by looking at natural humans, but this often requires some knowledge of the past. To give a scientific example, consider the practices of evolutionary psychology and its attempts to discern the ancestral, adapted environment.

Note that I do not invalidate an alternative reading of the above quotes: I understand the personal attempt to restore aspects of your own lineage. But that is personal and has little to do with most others. I’d much rather speak simply of the value of wildness and my quest to rewild.

The final point (iii) is a deduction from some of what eco-extremists have written about the past and my readings on terrorist groups. It seems as though “because the Teochichimecas” did it functions as a logical justification. But it is obviously a non sequitur. I do not discount its profound power as an emotional motivator, an important irrational element to resistance, which cannot be neglected. But, in this case at least, the two do not overlap, and it is not valid to say that what eco-extremists do is okay because the Teochichimecas did it. Because those people lived in a different time, they were less concerned about rewilding and more concerned about protecting their own people from outside attack. The latter may be an element of wildist groups’ resistance, but the purpose, the reason behind our Reaction is because we value wildness and seek to restore it.

5.2 MictlanTepetli

On the Teochichimecas, the majority of Mexican eco-extremist groups base themselves in their ancestors (Guachichiles, Tepehuanes, Irristilas, Raramuris, Zacatecos, etc.), for they are historical references that inspire war and bravery as well as fill us with pride. Similarly, the eco-extremists of South America don’t have Teochichimecas as their cultural reference, but rather the Selknam, Haush, Yamana, and Alakalufs, ancestors who were just as worthy of admiration and just as warlike.

Though I think it is erroneous on your part to say that we want to be just like them by imitating the past (i).

I, MictlanTepelti, am very supportive of an idea of individual and group rewilding that can be carried out in the present, and not just as something to aspire to, or dream about, or desire in a future that we may or may not see. But for this I think we have to have some idea of who our ancestors were, and from this knowledge, begin to have experiences that back up those references. If we wanted to imitate the past, eco-extremism would have never been made public, and I wouldn’t be responding to you from a computer. Instead I would be living naked and defiant in the northern regions of what was formerly known as Mesoamerica.

The eco-extremists and I don’t want to “restore the past” (ii). We merely want to learn all that can be learned from it and take up the things that we can and employ them in the present. It’s clear that we don’t live in those times, and in many cases things of the past are no longer recoverable. But we will try to recover them little by little.

Some weeks ago on the blog, Maldicion Ecoextremista, a news article was published concerning the Ka’apor [Daily Mail link] tribe in the Brazilian Amazon. The tribe was being threatened by legal and illegal loggers who come into their territory and destroy their ecosystems. The war that this tribe has carried out for some time now has been extremist, which means that it escalates by the day. Humanist organizations such as Greenpeace have offered to “help” the Ka’apor by installing video surveillance and motion detectors in the trees around the tribe’s territory to intervene in the conflict and pacify the natives. What happened was precisely the opposite: the Ka’apor being a warlike tribe and monitoring their territory found the loggers and escalated the conflict. Just as in this example, eco-extremist groups use the technologies that they have at hand to detonate bombs, commit arson, and assassinate various targets as a means to carry out their war. If they insisted, as you imply, at “restoring the past” perhaps their weapons would be the bow and arrow, atlatl, and lance instead.

“To justify the present with the past” (iii), doesn’t sound so farfetched, even though I don’t share this view entirely since the main reason for what we do is not “because the Teochichimecas did it.” I reiterate what I have stated previously:

ITS and other eco-extremist groups attack not only because of the spirit of the Teochichimecas. The reasons behind their attacks are many, ranging from what we have indicated here, to those that seek to defend Wild Nature in an egoist manner, mere revenge, or seeking to destabilize certain institutions in the present.

6 Rewilding and Reaction

6.1 John Jacobi

Here is a basic wildist position [which I have changed my mind about]:

I advocate rewilding because I am anti-progressivist and value wild nature. We agree on these points. I think we would also agree that rewilding is a religious act. Rewilding is the wildist jihad: we seek to burn the idols of civilization, the great edifices of Progress and technocratic arrogance.

I also seek to defend and restore wild nature in the most effective way possible. I recognize that many indomitable spirits who would be attracted to wildism would have to remain working as individuals or in very small groups simply because of their anti-social character. But then, if they really care for wild nature, they should seek to rewild in the most effective way possible as individuals or in small groups. In other words, I do not think that every wildist is going to be suited to group work.

However, where possible, group work is helpful because it is a more effective way for individuals to act. For instance, some primitive peoples formed coalitions in order to more effectively combat the civilized. Thus, the big question for wildists is how they can organize themselves in a way that does not betray their values and also enacts the maximum amount of damage.

The maximum amount of damage possible can take many forms. I do believe that wholesale industrial collapse is possible, and I think that it is possible to build a movement capable of doing this if the opportunity arises. Furthermore, I think that “building” a movement with this goal REQUIRES action in the present, rewilding in the present, and does not equate to mere “waiting.” Finally, even if we act with this goal in mind, our present actions can AND SHOULD achieve things themselves. I seek to rewild in the most effective way possible now with an eye toward greater damage should that become possible.

In one critique of the editor of Ediciones Isumatag, a former associate of mine, some eco-extremists argued that the only successful global revolution was the industrial one, and that other revolutions have been confined to restricted regions. However, this critique is not very strong. It is precisely because industrial infrastructure spans the entire globe that a collapse of industrial infrastructure could be global. Furthermore, even if collapse did only happen in a restricted region, that would be good enough! Think about the nature that will have been made wild, the places freed for wild animals everywhere! And if you actually read the history of, for example, the French Revolution, even though it occurred in only one country, it effected many nations, including those across the ocean, and it probably changed the trajectory of world history. For instance, the revolutionary and insurgent Simon Bolivar was inspired by the ideals of the French Revolution and brought them to many places in South America. I can imagine wildist ideals spreading in a similar internationalist fashion.

Finally, you ask about a “party.” I do mean a political party, but this is a party unlike others; it is a “combat party.” It is not a bureaucracy, and it will be very small. I wish not to speak too much about it just yet, however, because it would be better for me to speak about that particular thing after I have written my essay on it. For now it should be sufficient to say that the party we wildists are forming has a very specific role and I recognize the role of other kinds of organization within the movement. The wildists who work with the party are doing very particular things in order to make our overall Reaction more effective.

Probably “party” is not a very good word, and I’ll admit I do not like it very much. However, it communicates the general character and purpose of the coalition to people who are not very familiar with our politics, and that is useful for various reasons.

6.2 MictlanTepetli

In terms of rewilding, I am in agreement that those who truly respect and love Wild Nature are those who work individually or in small groups on their own initiative. Although one of the problems that Wildists will have to confront perhaps is that of organization, or rather, getting together people who are truly concerned for the Earth and coordinate their acts (whatever they may be). If memory serves, in the United States there is an impressive number of ecologically-inclined groups that simply can’t work together on the whole.

Years ago I had a conversation with a person who was advocating the creation of an “anti-industrial movement” the aim of which was the “collapse of civilization”. My criticism of his views indicated a number of problems that have occurred in historic examples of political movements in general, the primary ones being:

1. Organization (as discussed above).

2. Splits within groups that certainly will occur in the process of organizing, which no doubt hinders the efforts of founders of movements. Indeed, the Wildists were working hand in hand at one point with the Spanish “indomistas” (Último Reducto, etc.) if I remember correctly, but that collaboration broke apart. Perhaps you can tell me what happened. Was that the first split of the future movement? Don’t you think that’s a little soon to start having divisions of this type, even before the movement even gets off the ground?

3. The threat that an above-ground movement that has the aim of driving the “collapse” of civilization (even if only in one small region, granted) could be a serious one. This isn’t a game played by idealistic kids. This can set off alarms among those who are pledged to defend the structures of civilization at all costs. The great world powers and large industries will not sit idly by knowing that such a movement has come into existence, one which aims to topple everything that they have worked so hard to establish. In that situation, is it a good idea to have an active movement that is above-ground? Or would it be better to go underground? If it’s above-ground, the members of that movement risk being arrested, and that their plans to inflict the greatest amount of destruction possible against the techno-industrial system will have all been for naught. If it’s an underground movement, perhaps there would be opportunities to dodge various consequences that characterize open warfare, such as arrests, torture, disappearances, having to go into hiding, etc. Though work in such a movement might go more slowly in the underground branch? What are your thoughts on that, Jacobi?

I still agree with the idea developed by Reacción Salvaje in their criticism of “Ediciones Isumatag” that the only revolution that has really been worthy of the name has been the Industrial Revolution, the one that has triumphed until the present day. All of the other revolutions have been regime changes that have either gone either in a “liberal” or “totalitarian” direction. At the end of the day, it’s the same difference.

Though I am also in agreement that a “drastic change” in one region of the planet could have global consequences, I would like to know how this would be brought about. The “indomitista” followers of Kaczynski advocate the same thing, though they have never got into details as to how they would bring it about. Is there a difference between what the Wildists advocate and what the “indomitistas” advocate?

6.3 John Jacobi

First, let me clarify the meanings of rewilding and reaction, which I botched in my earlier email. I believe that we can view conservation as a large circle, rewilding within that, and reaction within that. These terms note the progression of the struggle of indomitable spirits, men and women who cannot live without wild things. At first they sought to conserve what was left, but did not go far enough and were not able to achieve enough. Now we have begun to rewild, but this signals that we must move from a mere conservative attitude to a totally reactionary one. Thus, reaction is the most extreme, purist defense of wild nature possible; it is total, uncompromising rewilding. As I write in the upcoming document for our organization:

…But when any movement hoping to conserve some precious and sacred thing must by necessity turn its eyes toward restoration, it must also note that the time for more radical action may be near. This is the state of our world: we’ve moved beyond simple conservation and, seeing our efforts destroyed by industry and its effects, have begun to engage in the restorationist act of rewilding. But simple defense is not enough, and it is clear that what is needed is a full and wild reaction to the Industrial Revolution.

At the very least, wildists advocate that individuals and cadres rewild in the most effective way possible. If this is all our resistance ever amounts to, so be it. But we at The Wildist Institute believe that more effective action is possible, and I will be outlining and justifying our ideas in the next few issues of Hunter/Gatherer. This means addressing the three questions you outlined, especially the question of organization.

6.3.1 Organization

I will have more to say about this soon, after I have finished my essay, “Organization.” For now I will remind you that we start with the assumption of individuals and small groups. Everything else is built on top of that and I will spend time thoroughly justifying it. But for now, absolutely the most important thing for coordination between groups is a unified ideology. For wildists, this consists of the three elements I spoke of earlier: (1) belief in the material world and the use of Reason to understand it; (2) criticism of all forms of progressivism; (3) belief in the value of wildness and the associated imperative to rewild. Nearly everything else is extra, perhaps to add local flavor or to communicate idiosyncracies of wildist individuals (like your paganism or my materialist spirituality).

Also important is communications and propaganda. But these present some practical problems because we do not want to be too heavily dependent on the internet. As I said, I will write more on this soon.

6.3.2 Factionalism

In a soon-to-be-published interview with The Fifth Column, a journalist asked me how I think we can prevent factionalism and promote unity. I said this:

Factionalism between who? Environmentalists, anti-civvers, conservationists? I think we can agree that if differences are stark, factionalism can actually be quite helpful. The “big tent” approach might help for temporary goals or reformist movements, but for radical political movements a unified small population is arguably better than a broad but disunified one. So I don’t exactly work against factionalism. I’m fine with breaking off from a larger movement if a handful of us disagree on a few fundamental, unresolvable points.

I do not think factionalism is inherently bad. In fact, the Bolsheviks were highly factionalistic but took down a whole nation. And salafi jihadists are EXTREMELY factionalistic, yet are the dominant terroristic force today.

This is possible because I am not trying to build a movement that consists entirely of wildists. All that is required is a small group of wildists who are able to utilize mass revolt for their ends, trained in mob psychology, trained in networking, trained in infiltration and espionage. There need not be unity between the whole environmentalist movement–that will never happen.

As for my relationship with the indomitistas, I will not get into the specifics. Suffice it to say that I broke apart mostly so that I could act autonomously, because I had some disagreements with UR in particular. Nevertheless, I consider them to be in the same category of eco-radicalism as me, because they espouse the three central tenets of wildism. Unless they exacerbate disunity between us by issuing out a critique or so forth, I have nothing bad to say about them, other than the fact that I disagree with some aspects of their strategy. See below for differences between us.

6.3.3 Illegalism

I am aboveground because what I think is most helpful and necessary to advance wildism can be done aboveground. I am not interested in bombs and terrorism, and I can do what I need to do publicly. However, if at any point the government decides to no longer follow its free speech laws or something like that, I am prepared to continue my work underground; or I am prepared to go to prison; or I am prepared to die. I am serious about the slogan, “live wild or die.” In fact, it is necessary for membership in the aforementioned party that members are prepared to go underground at any moment, if the government decides to make our work illegal (as will happen if we become strong).

I am aware that if ITS ever comes to the US, if the ELF is ever revived, if FC ever returns, if Earth First! is ever restored, if eco-radicals begin to incite the revival preached by John Muir, I will be a target. I am prepared to accept the consequences. This is war, MictlanTepetli. We do what we need to, and you can be sure that I will not easily be caged. Remember:

I am the indomitable spirit who with nature
destroys the idols of man’s hubris…

I am wild nature, which resists domination
and which will prevail in the end
But in the present I am prepared to
live wild or die [from Chiaroscuro’s “All who fashion idols”]

That said, there are at least some historical examples of split aboveground and belowground factions. PETA funded the ALF for many years. Earth First! functioned as a face for eco-radicalism while both FC and ELF were carrying out their acts of eco-terrorism. Sinn Feinn is an aboveground face for the IRA. The list goes on and on. Consider how you are a semi-aboveground propagandist for eco-extremists who are completely underground.

Moving on to your comments, you say that every revolution has just resulted in a totalitarian or liberal regime change. But even apart from the fact that you are forgetting wholesale collapses, the point is this: even if rewilding across a whole region leaves room for a few totalitarian leaders, they will not have the technical ability to control as much as the previous regime. Look at current examples: Egypt, Syria, Somalia, and so forth all suffered extreme disruption so that now it is (1) very difficult for autocrats to control the region; (2) very difficult to industrialize those regions; (3) very difficult for industrial mega-powers to surveil the region. (I’ll also note that some of these countries now have some of the lowest carbon emissions in the world because of the turmoil war and revolution has wrought to industrial production.) And on top of all that, the instability is enough for salafi jihadists to use the areas as base for even stronger, even more effective attacks to further their jihad. And I’ll note that even with jihadist factionalism, even with all the things going against the jihadists in general, they are a global movement.

Finally, you ask about differences between wildists and indomitistas. I think the differences are these:

1. Wildists are more likely to tolerate the messiness that comes with radical politics. The indomitistas are too pedantic. They do not realize that radical resistance is multifaceted and involves seedy characters, less than ideal circumstances, etc.

2. Wildists are more willing and better equipped at doing what needs to be done. Indomitistas are smothered by their culture of critique and counter-critique. This is not to say anything against critique, but it is not sufficient. We have to actively train wildists to be effective rewilders.

3. Wildists advocate a “ladder method,” where each action builds up to a greater action. As I’ve said before, if our resistance amounts to individual and small group action, then so be it. But I think it can be more than that. I think it can be coordinated to at least a marginally greater degree, and I’m willing to do this. Indomitistas tend to think that we can make a giant step all at once, and it sometimes appears as though they’ll accept nothing less than that great step. But that is simply not how effective revolt works. We start weak and we become strong in the process of rewilding; we do not silently build strength in the background and THEN rewild. Rewilding itself TEACHES and TRAINS and individual.

6.4 MictlanTepetli

In reference to the point on organization, I don’t have much to say. Only that I hope to read your essay soon on this subject in order to clear up some doubts that I still have.

On factionalism, it seems interesting for me to know your position when confronted with this situation. Many people consider splits within groups to be bad, as some once large groups grow smaller and weaker due to splits, while others come out of them having advanced and found better courses of action. Something like the latter happened with ITS: the group joined forces with others to create Reacción Salvaje in 2014. After a year of activity, however, they separated and split into various eco-extremist groups, although ITS went on to become international. RS was thus a learning experience for the new groups that went through the dissolution and split.

On illegality it’s good to know that you are prepared to go into hiding should the conditions require it. Few people would state that they would be obligated to do such a thing, and thus your project gives me great encouragement after clearing some initial doubts. I now consider it a sincere and serious effort for the defense of Wild Nature and rewilding.

Returning to the theme of revolution, if we take the regions of conflict that you mention as examples (Egypt, Syria, Somalia, etc.) I would agree that those regions are very difficult for their respective governments to control. They are places where industrial development has stalled and where the Big Powers really can’t have control over everything. But these regions can only be considered very specific examples, as none of them are inside the United States. I state this because the contexts are quite different, and the main question then becomes for me: Are the Wildists only looking to contribute to the collapse of civilization in one small region of United States? Or are they perhaps looking to focus on another place where there are more possibilities to experiment with rewilding and reversing industrialization?

On this subject as well I also think that it’s clear, for example, that the uprising against the Gaddafi dictatorship (within the Arab Spring) in Libya was considered a revolution, though it changed nothing other than one government for another. Since 2011 that country has been in a crisis, and as you indicate, there are cities that still haven’t been rebuilt. Industry has also stalled completely, but all of this isn’t due solely to the failed revolutions and uprisings, but also to the civil war that has wrecked that country. Other factors at play include the destabilization of the economy, the taking of cities and strategic roads by the Islamic State and the Libyan army, the rampant corruption, capital flight, etc. These are factors that one can’t dismiss as inconsequential as they provide context to the whole situation. This should all be kept in mind when proposing examples for what destabilizing civilization looks like, especially when discussing the collapse of a certain region and its subsequent rewilding.

Also, I am satisfied with your description of the differences between Wildists and “indomitistas”, and thus have nothing more to say on that topic.

6.5 John Jacobi

“Of course, if the opportunity presents itself and we find a sector of the city destroyed by civil war or similar catastrophe, we would be committed to re-wilding that place, that goes without saying.”

Exactly, and as you point out later on in your letter, those opportunities are given by circumstances far outside of the control of eco-radicals. The point is to be prepared for them, and I said before, you prepare through PRESENT action, through acting in accordance with your values now. Who is more prepared to take advantage of a crowd forming: the person who has merely spoken about doing it or the person who has done it before and learned some lessons?

“Are the Wildists only looking to contribute to the collapse of civilization in one small region of United States? Or are they perhaps looking to focus on another place where there are more possibilities to experiment with rewilding and reversing industrialization?”

Wildists at the moment are in various places in the US, Germany, and the UK. There was a person in China, but we lost contact. There are a handful of students who have adopted the label and many more who are paying attention. In all, we are very small and much too weak to contribute to collapse in small regions of the US. As I write in my essay, “Organization,” if we can ever do that, it is an undefinable time in the future.

For now, our goals are these:

1. globalize the wildist ideology (1. materialist worldview, including its egoistic, nihilistic, and spiritual consequences; 2. the critique of progress, including social progressivism; 3. the imperative to rewild)

2. link various groups together so that their actions benefit one another

3. contribute to destabilization and tension in the course of globalizing the ideology

To achieve 1 and 3, we are and will be focusing on places that are “sites of convergence” for many industries. Universities are an example of this. At universities there is much research and there are many important people relating to genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, computing, and other such things. They are, as one writer put it, “the core of the science and technology system” in the US.

Also to achieve 1 and 3, we will be working more directly for wilderness designation.

And while doing the above, we will also be achieving 2, because we are going to be pushing The Rewilding Program. If many groups, moderate and radical and extremist, are citing The Rewilding Program as a demand, then we can at least give the moderates “some bite” and achieve some good things regarding defense of wild nature.

Also, I think that the current Rewilding Program extends into Canada and Mexico, so the whole continent is covered by it. For wildists outside of this continent, they could decide to formulate their own program, which would provide them with a means of uniting themselves, achieving things, and benefiting their eco-radical brethren.

The hope is that by globalizing the ideology, even if governments succeed in weakening us, the ideas will be waiting in many places for other indomitable spirits to take it up. And if we can succeed in foiling the government’s attempts in some places, we can look to doing even more. This is all covered in my essay, so I will wait to hear your thoughts on it before saying anything else.

6.6 MictlanTepetli

The present is all that exists. The future is uncertain and full of unknowns. Eco-extremists grasp that we are epically fucked. There’s nothing left to build, hope is dead, the only thing left to do is confront the decadent present with acts and words that subvert it, and destroy the values and morality that uphold civilization, that’s all.

When we began this conversation, I asked:

Why is it that everyone in the U.S. tries to advocate at every opportunity a movement against [X]? Is that always the plan: “Let’s build a movement”?

I asked this because, at every opportunity, you people up north, that is to say, those who have the Anglo-American mentality, whether reformist or not, always want to build “movements”. It’s as if the drive to “fix everything” runs through your veins and was in your DNA. Even Wild Nature doesn’t seem to escape it.

Since Kaczynski proposed that wrong-headed idea of a future “revolution against the techno-industrial system,” many have followed that idea, with many nuances of course, to the point that many have already drawn out the final stages of that movement of the masses in their heads, one that is sure of itself and unwavering. Both Wildists and “indomitistas” bet on success in an uncertain future, in a movement that has been established firmly in theory but has yet to be proven by the trial by fire of practice. It’s satisfying to put a touch of complexity into the conspiracy that will lead to the collapse of civilization. Sure, I can admit that, but it still seems that it has too much in common with the same old tired and worn strategies.

We eco-extremists have come to understand that we’re not the “saviors of the Earth”. That’s there’s nothing more to understand here: the War is in the here and now, and to follow a strategy only positions us as one group among many in the history of guerilla groups, subversives, rebels, etc. I assure you that we aren’t just another group.

I am certain that I and my people fight for a very unique cause, a War that only a few understand. In this we don’t aspire to “something greater,” nor to anything that can save us from the danger that our hostile attitude to this shitty system brings.

FC said in this essay, “Industrial Society and Its Future”: “A new kind of society cannot be designed on paper. That is, you cannot plan out a new form of society in advance, then set it up and expect it to function as it was designed to do.”

These words also address the idea of a future “anti-industrial movement”. You can’t theoretically plan the collapse of civilization, and then implement it and expect it to go according to plan. In this I am not implying that you in particular would like the plan to go off without a hitch. But I would like to reiterate that the time one devotes to making such a movement could be totally wasted or not, and that the new account is an uncertain question.

As I wrote in my past correspondence, I am pleased to know that there are people out there who are willing to die for Wild Nature. And as I have read these exchanges as a dialogue of equals, I believe you to be sincere about your beliefs. But leaving behind such praises, the eco-extremist doesn’t bet on future movements, nor does he play at being “the Savior of the Earth,” for reasons already given.

And I never said that not having faith in a future is a strategy…

6.7 John Jacobi

First, I suspect that a conversation about the future and the present is needed, given that this seems to be an important, though perhaps minor, point of difference between the two eco-radical tendencies. Like the other topics covered in this exchange, it seems that we begin on a similar philosophical basis: I am a pessimist and a nihilist, for instance. However, what we interpret to be the implications of those ideas seems to differ. Perhaps in the next few months I will issue out an essay on my thoughts regarding this aspect of eco-extremism.

Second, you say that you see a tendency among North Americans to always want to build a “movement” out of a grievance. This may certainly be true, but it is not distinctly North American. As you know, the indomitistas in Spain say the same thing; as do many cypherpunks in Germany, politicals in France, politicals in Russia, and so forth. Instead of being a distinctly North American thing, I suspect that it is a product of humanist collectivism, the tendency for those indoctrinated into its ideology to think that “we are all in this together.”

I think we agree on this point. What I don’t think you realize, reading my last letter, is that I am not a fan of “movements.” I sometimes use the word simply because I know of nothing else to describe what I have in mind, but I do not wish to encourage indiscriminate solidarity like some vile technician. An individual is bound to nothing other than himself and his material condition — from there we can form coalitions, but always these things are secondary and subordinate to the individual’s will. The point of my essay in “Organization” is to express a possible way forward on this basis. The problem is that nothing like that has ever done before, except perhaps the natives who formed coalitions against colonists, but that was a much different time, with very different conditions. So what I have proposed may not work, but as an individual I pursue it as something effective I can do now, especially since the present work that entails, and every probable step of the way, benefits defense of wild nature by protecting wildlands and, if individuals choose to do so, monkeywrenching.

So I do not only measure effectiveness by the immediate material harm I cause to industrial infrastructure, through fire or bombs. I do not dismiss these things in all instances, but in my own heart I find it also acceptable to do what is necessary to preserve the few wildlands we have left, to use those wildlands, and to look at the tens of hundreds of wild creatures who would not still be here without that work. This is my starting point. This is why I speak less of fire or attack and more about wilderness and the other creatures on whom I materially depend in the wild world I love.

And I am perhaps more willing than you and other eco-extremists to look toward the future. I do not find your philosophy to be coherent, actually, and doubt you follow it in the way you have expressed it; we need to consider the future, or else we would have died, evolutionarily weeded out. But what the eco-extremists are doing — and I appreciate it because it is needed — is that they are pointing out that there is a limit to what we can trade off in the present for the future. We cannot just keep saying “maybe one day.” There is a time for more immediate defense and attack, more drastic action, a more purist approach. This is, indeed, the meaning of Reaction. Of course, there is still a trade-off. But I am unwilling to embark on any “ten-year plan” that is not okay with what it is doing every moment it is doing it. There will be no three-year sacrifice of drudgery for some greater future goal — promising that has been a primary tool of the technical system in order to placate conservationists for just long enough until they disappear, burn out, or die.

Instead, wildists propose a course of action that we can be proud of every moment, that we can say, even if it doesn’t go anywhere, we know we have done good. We keep future potentials in mind, sure, but there is no expectation that they will arrive. We only acknowledge the future because if we have to choose between a present course of action that definitely won’t go anywhere and another PRESENT course of action that could go somewhere, we will choose the latter. But we will not sacrifice the present for that potential future. That is my whole point: look at what we can do now, I say, like wildlands conservation, monkeywrenching, and simply enjoying the wild ourselves and pursue these things if your nature wills it. Do not wait for some messiah. There may be no messiah — perhaps even if we achieve what we want!

You can build arcadia,
fortify it with stones and good intentions
but even there, I will be. [from Chiaroscuro’s “Even in Arcadia”]

Finally, we will not save nature. That is stupid and hubristic. If anything is saved, it will be because of nature itself. I could of course say this in a more eloquent and philosophical way, but I suspect you will understand and agree.

I am wild nature, powerful and cruel;
your work will never compare to mine. [ibid.]

And with that, I will give my final statement.

7 Final Statements

7.1 John Jacobi

While I cannot condone eco-extremism, neither can I condemn it, and my final thoughts on the tendency are these:

• I strongly disagree with some of the terminology eco-extremists use to communicate their ideas, and, related, I am also ambivalent about some aspects of its character as expressed in the terrorist communiques.

• I respect the fact that MictlanTepelti, at least, helped me understand a few aspects of eco-extremism that I was sure I would find idiotic and dismiss immediately.

• I recognize that eco-extremism is obviously relevant, touching a chord among those already sympathetic to anti-civilization politics, and posing a real challenge to techno-industrial society, as is evidenced by the way its tendency has grown from the first release of the ITS communique.

• I now understand that many moves ITS and other terrorist cells within the eco-extremist tendency have made are not the blunders or unjustified acts I perceived them to be as a native English speaker, a foreigner, and an observer with pre-conceived ideas. Instead, nearly all of these acts have been carefully thought out, which is compelling, even if I continue to disagree with the reasoning underpinning their justification.

• I must admit that eco-extremism is achieving precisely the thing that I have said should be the main concern of the currently weak anti-civilization movement. Namely, eco-extremism is globalizing an anti-civilization ideology, which is again evidenced by the tendency’s growth. I am still unsure as to how aligned with wildist ideas the tendency is, and as such I cannot yet say whether I would mind being associated with it. However, a great aspect of both the eco-extremist and wildist approach is its individualism: each individual and cadre is to rewild in the most effective way they see fit, and they–and they alone–are responsible for their own actions. I cannot control what the eco-extremists do, but so long as they are acting according to the values implicit in rewilding, namely, the veneration of wildness and a disdain for the idols of civilization, rather than perverted motivations like self-aggrandizement and a fetishization of criminality, I can say that I am confident that the wild reaction against industrial society will continue in the right direction — backwards, of course.

• I do not think that the methods the eco-extremists use are applicable to all anti-civilizationists, and I think MictlanTepelti agrees. The conditions of those near the equator are in the coming years going to necessarily call for more violence and, because of instability wrought primarily by climate change, allow for more superficially combative behavior. This is not to say that the eco-extremists are doing the correct thing (and I suspect, personally, that at least some of what they are doing is misguided), but it DOES mean that regardless of what the equatorial struggle looks like, those further north and south MUST engage in tactics suited to their own conditions. As stated already, this is up to the individuals and the cadres to decide and the combat party to coordinate.

Finally, I very much thank MictlanTepelti for both his willingness to speak to me on these matters and his continued fight against industrial society.

7.2 MictlanTepetli

I am going to conclude my part in this conversation, but first I wanted to thank Jacobi for his time and efforts in these ideological and personal exchanges. I also would like to thank Chahta-Ima for his translation efforts, as at the beginning of these conversations there were many misunderstandings due to the absence of an adept translator.

Eco-extremism has taken an important place within the ideological currents that are opposed to and critical of civilization and the techno-industrial system, although not intentionally, sure.

From the beginning, we’ve noted that within these schools of thought there are certain positions that are predominant. From what we can see on this side of the border anyway, important theorists such as John Zerzan, Kevin Tucker, etc. have dismissed eco-extremism or outright ignored it. They and their acolytes cast aspersions on ITS and eco-extremist groups in their publications and on their radio programs whenever their names or actions come up. They can’t take the chance of anything putting into question the “hope for a future primitive” lest their donations go down and they no longer get invited to chic conferences and speaking engagements. Their primitivism is eminently marketable, it appeals to the hipsters, the business start-up mentality, the people who want to re-wild any given product because nature sells. It thus remains progressive, a greening of leftism, but it’s just another fraud, another TV commercial peddling “rebellion against the system,” this time as homesteading and a prolonged camping trip.

Sure, they still mouth platitudes about lighting stuff on fire and destroying things, but they never do anything about it. We know very well the circumstances of the Green Scare from last decade. Regresión wrote about it in its most current issue. But they turn around and condemn eco-extremist action and pretend to tell them how to do things from the safety from their side of the border… And then they have to gall to talk shit and censor or ignore eco-extremist articles and communiques. But never mind that, we suppose. The extreme defense of Wild Nature doesn’t need them to get the message out, least of all to deaf and dumb self-proclaimed anarchists who get frazzled when someone speaks too harshly and not according to their leftist script.

All that smacks of violence, terrorism, etc. is verboten for them. They don’t come right out and just say it, of course, but their actions speak louder than words. I can imagine them stating to the FBI something along the lines of: “We’re not the violent ones, we have hope for a beautiful future. The terrorists are those horrible eco-extremists, don’t look at us.” But eco-extremism is here to stay, regardless of what people think,

Within the predominant positions that one finds in the United States, it seems like you also find some followers of “Industrial Society and Its Future,” the essay by Ted Kaczynski (also known as “Freedom Club”). There seem to be more Spaniards than people in the U.S. who follow this tendency, and they are known as “indomitistas”. We’ve written enough about them, and Reacción Salvaje has polemicized against them in particular in their work, “Some answers concerning the present and NOT the future.”

Earth First is another predominant tendency but at this point I’ll withhold my criticism…

So within the context of these tendencies, here emerges “Wildism” that claims not to be progressivist but also has the same strategy: “building a movement.” Jacobi, here I would like to point out that we are talking about U.S and not European critics. When I wrote that you North Americans always want to try to fix things by constructing a movement, I include you in that statement. You stated that the Spanish “indomitistas” have the same idea, and to that I respond, Yes, that’s true, but they copied their main ideas from someone in the U.S: Kaczynski.

So if you don’t want to be lumped into the same category as the indomitistas, the followers of Zerzan and the rest of that gang, you should probably reconsider using the term “movement”, just as you have started using “reaction” instead of “revolution,” to use one example.

In regards to the subject of the future, I continue to assert the same thing, and indeed eco-extremism is based on the loss of faith in the future. So I repeat, everything is fucked, and the present leads us to believe that the future is gray and filled with horrors. Eco-extremism doesn’t seek to build a movement, nor does it await a total societal collapse, nor the arrival of a Messiah. It doesn’t propose plans or methods nor do we have a favorite book on which we base all of our actions, and we aren’t checking the statistics contained therein. The eco-extremist strikes according to wherever he finds himself, in the here and now, since he understands that the future doesn’t exist, hope is dead, and the only thing left to do is resist according to our most primitive roots. Our ancestors did likewise, and even though they knew that they would die defending themselves from the foreigner who brought civilization and modernity, they didn’t surrender. Thus, like them, eco-extremists have understood all of this loud and clear and that is how we act.

Our war is politically incorrect, extremist, and at the same time suicidal because it doesn’t pretend to be a war that can be won. We’re not an army, nor do we want to be one. We know that we don’t stand a chance in the face of the Monster of Progress. We know that we will die, but we’ll either go down fighting or in the best case scenario use guile to prolong the war as long as possible.

Eco-extremism expands, few understand it, even fewer carry it out, others plug their ears when we come around, even try ignore us, but they know that we’re there.

I end with two quotes, the first taken from Chahta-Ima’s essay, “Ishi and the War Against Civilization,” which I recommend, and the second taken from Nechayevshchina Editorial House in its text, “La mutilazione della parola ‘inocente’”:

Eco-extremism will have no end because it is the savage attack, the “natural disaster”, the desire to let the fire burn and to dance around it.

and

…the era of good feelings has ended, and of shit being exchanged for gold, and what has begun is the era of individuals who confront the whole of society.

Aragorn!’s Conversation with Abe Cabrera (June 2017)

This an informal conversation between Aragorn! and Abe Cabrera the primary editor of the Atassa journal. It is not intended to be a defense of ITS or a serious attempt to engage in the criticisms towards us (Atassa, LBC, and me personally). It’s intended to sound like a conversation between people who share some similar perspectives. Obviously those who don’t share those perspectives are going to feel less comfortable and perhaps feel misrepresented.

Aragorn!: This going to be. Episode 49 of The Brain podcast. We just put up episode 46 I think. So it’s going to. Be up week or two before this posted up live, but obviously what we’re talking about was very so very important to week. And now a week later feels a little less important, but clearly I think a lot of people. Care about this? Topic or just care about the conversation? Obviously both of us were sort of called out, but I wasn’t called out by me and just my projects were called out. You were called out about 10 days ago from IGDB and this person named. Scott Campbell, I think the name is Scott, something and more or less what the purpose of the article was to was to disassociate social anarchism. From its and from even considering its to be something worth talking about or thinking about. And I guess my first question. Well, actually you. Know what I think? I’d rather not talk about that article to start out with, I’d rather. Talk a little bit about. Your pedigree, because you actually came to the eco extremist position, not really from anarchism, but from a sort of ultra-left Marxist position is that.

Abe: Well, this what this where all the legal distinctions come involved. I don’t feel I. Would could call myself any books similar.

Aragorn!: Sure, sure.

Abe: Obviously people would be like who don’t like these who they’re quite a female. Would go ha ha. Ha, you’re just making. For for injuries legally, but I think just the nature of what equal extremism equal extremism is. Very much a practice oriented sort of thing, and obviously I’m not doing that because like I said, the FBI would have opened up my door already. So, so that’s sort of the caveat you always have to put up with these things and all the same people will come up and say, well, they’re going to do it. One of these. Days you’ll see and it’s like, well, . Everything, everything has its limits right? So we try to minimize those, but OK. So after that’s sitting here, how did I come to sympathize with them? Yeah I. I mean, how far do you want to go back? Because I. Could go back. I mean I could go, I mean my formation was basically when I was. Young when I I could write for the Confessions of a young trusting this sort of thing because I had to trust kids when I was 16, and I’ve been to basically and then I had a spiritual crisis. So I was in the desert for a bit, almost literally, actually I was. I studied for the priesthood, I grew up Stafford, but that’s a whole other story. And then I was in a monastery for a couple of years. And then I got married and returned to normal life and then after that occurred, after my kids started being born then I started to return. Or the political thinking, but not, not in the practical sense, because I, in the practical sense, I could barely tie my shoes at that point, cause, young children in the job and so on and so forth. So I started. But yeah, that’s the point that I encountered. Anarcho primitivism or like radical anti civilization thought I was a Marxist because I sort of because when I returned to political thinking for religious thinking, if you are philosophical thinking, I actually took. Up where I? Left off and I was like OK, well I need to return to all these things. That as the young man I visited and tried to slander, sort of in the desert, perfusing the marches. And then, I encountered. You know when people were religious thought like their chances and Gary Schneider and on realism. So after a few years of that I started, this the. John Bolton show. Ironically, since he takes me now, but I heard of the people in Mexico who were and like being Mexican extraction, . You know my fear first up, so I obviously I googled it and I read the communicate. I read the communicate your first communicate that the first is to communicate in 2011. Yes, and I was very like oh OK, because it went off on. I mean, there’s sort of really tinfoil hat stuff and people will laugh at that now because we’re like, Oh well, you’re basically, apologize for being so fast. But I mean the 2011 and I, I have to just talk. They are doing recordings of those again, even though on these extremist website. Now these to the new site. It’s so funny because after a couple of days after they started doing those they did the recording one and two. They did this. It must have been like a seven or eight paragraph like a preamble, like we’re going to be post this. Link, but since so. You know, this how we’ve evolved. We’re we’re seeing like fine print sort of thing, but I was reading that they sort of for me. They sort of be very temporal hat on, and the technology is going to create robots. Follow the world, blah blah blah. And so I’m like, oh, that’s nice. So I sort. Of just kept. Going, with my physical, they’re sort of reading and writing at that point. And then it was only at the point that they became. While the action with people as well the action which is August 2014. That really perked my ears, because then we started to look off in another direction with the sort of historical historical allusions to what happened in ancient Muslim Americand the concepts and the war against civilization that occurred there over the period of about. Half a century, so that was interesting, and that’s what led to my, and that’s what led to my article towards savagery with the ritual magazine, which really started the ball rolling on that and. Like told. And it was just sort of a. There’s a website at that time that was part of. It was pretty well. A lot of interesting primary sources and a lot of it was. It was clear that something was going on, like there was something from from just being like, . Green anarchist, very eclectic, . I think sure her everyone concerned that I land. That was certainly starting to settle into something that hadn’t been. Really been before, if you will. That I mean, that’s sort of that. I mean where marks the 5^th and that. I mean, yeah, I’ve. I’ve actually never considered myself anarchist. I sort. Of I mean, when I when I was interested in that article, primitivism, when I still have, have called myself, and I’m not. I’m not sure about this article part if I just. Well, that was at Berkeley you. Know when I was. A Trotskyist and I just remember that the anarchists were, and I just didn’t associate that.

Aragorn!: You know when?

Abe: I was very much. Tell tell me more about that one paper.

Aragorn!: Tell me more about that. What period was? That in what anarchist were you? Did you?

Abe: I didn’t even. I mean, I didn’t really interact with anybody. I mean I have. I have some feedback from for sale, bagels or some demonstrations. When I was 16, . You know, I didn’t really. I guess I was in there after the scene I was in. You know, in that sort of thing. This was this was realizing that wasn’t banned. You know that?

Aragorn!: Ohh really.

Abe: And I was in the I was like the very early stage of that. Like I. Like caucuses at its foundation. I was there and so, but I mean I don’t. I don’t know I feel bad about playing this, but let’s just say that there that a lot of them are trustless if you will. So I live in that and so that was my real. You know it was. It was sort of that was my only real fault if you will, so I didn’t really have anybody any other. You know, interactions with the only people I would only ever sort of. Trends . Cross Street activity I would have is basically in real life trolling of the sparks and the ISO which is a fighter that’s means of International Socialist organization. For those who aren’t for. So, just like fellow Trotsky is foods and then. The RC working and going viral. But things like that it was just it was just what it. Was ? And I do remember it was funny because I always think that when I was at that stage, I mean ethological. Radical thought was like the furthest thing from my mind because this what like late 90s, right? So you’re older than you were you were you were in Berkeley at that stage, right? I I still in here in the Bay Area for a number of years, yeah so I mean, I remember once there was that as the captain really in the middle of campus I was. Spanish class and. Some guy hung a banner that’s been in 1998 from the capital and he just suspended like. I don’t know how many hundred hundred couple 100 feet above ground or however tall that is and it’s she had a benefit and animal vivisection, you just trained there for like two or three days and I rolled my eyes at it. And I always thought that it was, . Referring me, I was a good I. Was a good Bolshevik. So that was that was my. And that will further my political theory. But I mean that lasted only a few years. I mean, I was when I would drop out of Berkeley that. Word 2021 and when I started my spiritual journey or whatever.

Aragorn!: And so and so then.

Abe: I don’t know.

Aragorn!: You had a gap. Between that time and when you became interested in eco extremism and so, I guess, continue to talk about the evolution of the ITS phenomenon through from, from the time it became wild, react.

Abe: Right well, I mean they what the big thing was is they started out doing that. They were they were either just something that was another thing that Scott Campbell article that was sort of like. 1/2 truth like they had anarchists in them and the group shout outs. You know the typical shout outs. To the anarchist person. And so on and so forth, as in about the six communicator. Right now, we’re not doing that anymore. And and they, they’re sort of saying we’re not going to the. Political correct language? We’re just gonna we basically we just felt that the left is worth dealing with, which is really sort of cause. In which in? Anyway, yes, so I. I guess it’s just sort of what became more consistent consistency right at that point. But the but the one thing that they’ve never done with liberty and accuracy is the article. Something that never actually, the one thing they’ve never advocated this revolution, so that’s the big thing about, . Industrial society and its future in the whole tech revolution. They were like no. It’s not gonna, that’s not gonna fly. We don’t believe in that and it was funny. Because initially. The case they were like no no. We know this. Physiciand he’s been in jail for another year. So she will out right now. He would see that revolution as impossible. You know you can’t, create a mass movement in this way. Technology like that’s just not possible, so that and the whole life industry minded attack that’s in there since they want that’s been, more or less. I mean not in the sense, not in the sense. Maybe that they’ve been doing it now, but in the sense of like if we send the. And it’s it just throws up your who’s the secretary and says off or something like that instead of the person. Well, that’s just, that’s just how we’re going to do it. That’s just how it is. So we’re sort of like. That, and it’s just very much. Fighting its way. You know from there and also very very fast. It’s very rational. Like I said, when you’re looking to go on and on about mental technology about battery and so on and so forth. So that’s a very that’s another sort of thing that’s between then and now. I mean, they really are. Are very different ideologies within the same field 2011 but within six years where they’ve gone much more than idealistic, much more virtual. If you will, because although that’s interesting because there are there are certain. People who get those folks more than others because. If you wanted to go into that or you wanted to keep on a large scale so one of the things about the 29^th stimulatory, if you, if you think of people just, Oh my God, they kill people, but which of course is, is significant, however.

Aragorn!: Oh no, that’s great no no.

Abe: If people saw it. If people know the curve.

Aragorn!: Actually, can we pause for a second? The first thing is the first thing is, you’re a little close to the microphone, so you’re. Breaking up quite a bit, I’m not. Sure, if the if you’re if.

Abe: OK.

Aragorn!: You’re holding the microphone if you’re or if. You can if you can. Move it just.

Abe: A little while because I’m sort of standing let.

Aragorn!: OK, OK and yeah.

Abe: Me just sit down.

Aragorn!: OK so then continue continue. You’re talking about the 20^th. Communique and what it said. Other than that they were taking credit for killing. Some quote UN quote innocents.

Abe: So is this better, yes. Better OK, let me just. I’ll sort of what we’ve been doing all. This stuff, yeah. Yeah, I’m just talking to myself in the in the way so the kid was signed by two groups, which was one with the ITF and then there’s a which is the individual. In the in the group. These are two groups, the. The latter which is the GPS which which I don’t know how you would, how how they. Would say it. I think it’s a particular individual and he I guess you could just. Indiscriminate if you will, and she before it was. She had a something called an industrial attraction. She’s interested. She writes in a very cold. Mexican, Spanish and he has his own sort of theme going either them or I should just clarify right now. I don’t know who ITF is. I don’t know how many there are. You know theoretically or it could be just, if it’s just a prank bro, it’s. I mean it’s. Possible, I mean I don’t. I don’t know. I think at this point there’s something. Going on so I don’t know. Is who’s who and who’s what. I have no idea. I just figured it out from when they issued the communication. The faster than the Spanish and the fact that I’ve read a lot of the same things they have. So with that out of the way, well, actually actually actually, let’s let’s.

Aragorn!: Expand on that one. One more level, which is to your. To your understanding, how much of what they take credit for. Is there any sort of like external source validated that they actually did? What is they did? In other words, how much of this could be a joke if they were just joking around?

Abe: 50% well let me put it to you. This way there hasn’t been anything that has come out like that. Has what people have said. Well this wasn’t done this with somebody else and I know I’m actually told that’s difficult and that’s also different with Scott Campbell’s article. He was like 99% of the crimes in Mexico goal. That’s all which is funny, since a lot of people come that are in jail for the only people who get caught in Mexico are. Assassins it’s a drug cartels. Give up anarchist, but anyway that’s an interesting thing so nobody’s been. Caught nobody has ever come out and said or somebody else did this, not them. There’s a caveat about that because I know that the, the Enron worker, they work at the. The national economy. University of Mexico. The chemistry they had thead of chemistry. The Chemistry Department services people were the police report. One initial report from the Tourney General’s Office said that it was. Coworkers left with it. However, both coworkers were never caught. So I mean, I mean, I’m assuming that they were his coworkers. Why didn’t ? Why didn’t the police just go to their house and the rest of them? So you go to the Mexican media now right now. And that’s gonna be the September board at all. But they’re saying yes, it hasn’t been solved yet. So who knows who I mean? Somebody could have said something, so unless this built in the fact that. You know we, we just don’t know. I mean, it’s it. It’s but. However, the only thing that the only people who seem to be saying anything about it is like yes well, I mean they killed the Restor vice rector of a prominent Mexican technical. Literacy in the. North they shot him when he was going at a map map out of out of math. Going to church and they shot him coming out of church. Having they have they caught anybody in regards to that and you could just say ohh the Mexican police are incompetent. OK they’re in. Like that unless you can say at this point they’ve been in the national news about that. If they got caught or they said oh this was done, they would just, somebody would just come out and say it and nobody said it. But I think a lot of this stuff is really strange, like when they killed the two hikers. Also the 29^th. Backpack, backpack and they weren’t robbing them. You know that should be very interesting and the other big significant thing that is underplayed in the United States is when they sent the tax package done to Oscar landed Richard, who is thead of the which is the Chilean mining company, which is one of the largest mining companies. In the world they sent the ITF group and one of the ITF groups in Chile sent a package from China’s house. And and it, it blew up it really. And the only reason that she was a little bit more is because there was there was some sort of way that just by sheer chance of. Having opened there, most of the shot will flew away from the state, but it was on that within the child. For weeks, the President of Chile Commons, the person the Supreme Court. When the I think is the President of the Chilean Supreme Court that may change your prudence. You know which reflects sometimes bond. That ICF is used, other places, nobody solves it. You know it’s just like Oh well, you’re just you’re just out and about. But I’ll I’ll, I’ll give you, I’ll give you a reason why we probably don’t get caught. And this just this actually if you do the password, there’s a. An article called surviving Civilization is the reference to the Devil rights of these extremists, which, if you do a little bit of digging, actually based on a similar work that I actually like. Avoid the seeing just like a normal person. Talk with normal person. Don’t tell anybody that’s you. Know what you’re doing and just various things and might be aware of how you dress and what you do and just . Just be normal, just like the normal life when it comes time to do it, to do it and then. And so, and one of the things they say about that is like, yeah, they put that anarchist anarchist thing because they’re calling the cops.

Aragorn!: Orders and so you.

Abe: See how that works. You know supposedly want to influence the people and they wanted, influence and they have all the infighting and they have all those rules and those pictures, and the people that them out. And that’s why they end up in prison. It’s just doesn’t do that, it’s is. Disease is basically like a physical. Well, they don’t. Nobody goes through the honor.

Aragorn!: Isn’t similar to ISIS? Both of them are similar to Netziv.

Abe: Yeah, well that’s where all my history is deficient. Yeah, very extensively though that particular article is based on that.

Aragorn!: Any words onward?

Abe: Like I’ve actually read.

Aragorn!: That argumentation is almost verbatim from Natchez’s catechism of the Revolution.

Abe: OK, well I have reading reduces and I guess OK we might have something about that and we have to pass that. You know, if we do get it and then she or something like that if we do get to that point, right? Actually, why don’t? Why don’t we when we talk about yeah when we talk?

Aragorn!: About how did the Rs fall apart in your understanding and sort of return to ITS and so talk a little bit about that journey from there to communicate 29.

Abe: I don’t know actually what happened, So what would happen then? What happened in August 2014? They put people back there so while we actually put out the first two minutes and then they were like a group of criminals and politically and for like people. And then they did things like like. Higher on various. You know, various construction sites and then those incidents. Bombing at the Towers, Mexican telephone. And then there’s things like that and then. Then we after year if they that they disbanded. And I don’t. It’s kind of well. I have no idea. I like, I just have no idea what happened. OK, so I’ll give my guts to learn about this and then I could be wrong. And then I think there’s a lot of. When you were trying to say to me. There there are more groups than possible group groups of rules and possible members. I think people move around the. Law, I think some groups are only just one person I think. I do think that there’s a lot of so because of that since. A lot had. A lot of supposedly had all these groups. You know all over central Mexico and stuff like that. I’m just lazy. I mean maybe that’s what it is. I just I just the number of groups that they. That they claim to. Have the logistics of keeping that under wraps. It’s kind of hard. It’s kind of hard to swallow, sometimes up little bit that you are you following each other that I think. I’m sorry if I could back up. I think I think they’re there. The books are just like the book names just represent that level, shifting number of individual.

Aragorn!: Oh so you so you so.

Abe: You know, really sort of moving around.

Aragorn!: You don’t think? Because it, I do think that year where Rs was sort of the way in which these were. Being talked about. ITS did not issue any communications during that year and then after that year they started issuing their. Own communications again.

Abe: So, so you want to know about that? No, that’s just really at all. So what happened was OK, so no, that I change. This doesn’t became wild reaction. So that’s what happened before either of your two before and then after a year they just discovered and became nothing. Between August 20, 2015 and January 2016, there were various groups like 16 with proof Terror and something else in the middle of the page. Taking stuff from the mountains and stuff that they were still around. But they were sort of trying to inform my idea of why IP has reformed was because it runs international. That’s what happened, and there’s evidence that before during the stage of Rs they were in, they were in talks with people with in China. For example, in Argentina, so that’s why I think ITF. Very much a Mexican had a very much a Mexican feel to it because I mean they were all they were all they have like indigenous names like which is the. Language, it’s real, like there’s a physical they really love. And things like that. So we all have. So I mean, if I were to guess, maybe maybe, maybe they were like legitimate. Differences between each other? I mean, I really like that the guy is returning to the gift side that then discriminate guy like he’s always been sort of resenting. And I know I mean, for example, last year he claimed, or he or she claimed to have assassinated. A computer engineering student, actually a computer science student. He was also like in. The middle of. The street and in the communication issue. He said that some of these people issued like oh, don’t worry. At least she. Put up a fight.

Aragorn!: That communicate was I was pretty interested in it because yeah, it was like tell his family tell his family he put up a fight.

Abe: Yeah, so it’s. Yeah, it’s only that person in that particular group has always been like that, and like you and she, and actually in the and the communicate with the 29^th communicate. I’m sorry I’m jumping around. All over the place. Or spirits or everything. We’re just here to like. You know, kill people because we don’t want to see their what they’re doing to the environment, and that’s it. So he all the spiritual style about cheaper North Star and the and the spirits and the gods or whatever he said. Yeah I don’t believe in that, I’m just I’m sorry . So she you could sort of have a gallows humor about it, but yeah, so that’s a very particular person. So yeah, with that since the last of their probably their tensions, but I have no idea why they just standard, but I think a lot of us have to do. Yes, the ITS is going to be assigned the initials under which they would go international basically.

Aragorn!: OK, so let let’s shift gears because so far what we’ve mostly allowed you to do is sort of rant and rave about. The Who’s where’s and how’s of ITS directly from. And from a North American audience, the thing that I think has been very notable the past two weeks has been that a lot of people a lot of our friends, a lot of anarchists all of a sudden are extremely nervous about ITS because the consequence of ITS being a bunch of murdering Mexicans. Has dawned on them, especially because of this critical. What do you think of this sort of moralistic hand wringing? Do you, do you think that there is some solid points there? What I guess? And what did you think of Scott Campbell’s points that it’s racist? To pay attention to ITS or to or to give them any ink.

Abe: Well I’m Mexican. I mean I do. I mean my mom she in Mexico. I mean I visited Mexico when I was growing up. I grew up speaking Spanish.

Aragorn!: But you can.

Abe: I’m a know.

Aragorn!: Be you can be a racist you can. Be a racist.

Abe: Mexican whatever, anyway? So let me back up so well. So the question was exactly what? What do I think? I just don’t think. People have been paying. Attention, I think what I mean. I have a Facebook. Age for a consumer unfortunately, I’m I. I try to troll too much for my own good, but I think it’s like ITF is one of the only groups that sells what it’s gonna do and then does it. Right, so I will recite the country info and 3:25 no state and all these other people who are so excited to release their. The first ITF Communication 2016 of last year obviously did not read them. Because people are going to be horrified by that or whatever, but it’s like when have they said they’re not going to do exactly what they’re doing. No, I mean you could go back to 2011. Maybe they were. Basically this wouldn’t be far from that word. You know where it is, but I know there’s 2 they’re caught up. There’s always some social anarchists. And then it’s you actually anarchist who have been very critical of the opportunism. But I mean, I guess people put, put it out at first because it was. You know, and for the edgy people or whatever. Everybody for being edgy. But whatever I mean, you can do you visit that place later, but I don’t think people have been paying attention. I mean where were they when in 2011 they just rolled up this guy. You know, since that for scientists. You know who is riding on the, on the motorcycle and shot him in thead and the role they released stabbed the guy last year, and they were. They were they when they when they stabbed that computer science and where they were landed at. You know, almost when your daughter you have a 3 year old daughter left to the. Bomb that he could have potentially been like blinded by it or something, but what it really is. Like they got triggered by the fact that there was a woman first of all, and second of all, before ITS released to communicate they were always marching up your lawn. So the at the University of Mexico of Women. You know we’re currently, . Discuss if it was, within the continuity of the terminal side of other places, that she’s gonna plotted and places like that, and and they and they just they. Basically they hit too close to home for them.

Aragorn!: I think.

Abe: And was before just ago, because they they got. So the left in Mexico got so upset over it. And then the. Yeah we did that. You know that. That’s what it. Is and it’s not like they don’t have president. I mean they have attacked me wrong several times. That’s just the staffing from last year. I think that I heard the rumor. I don’t know if it was in the community or something. I think they’ve insinuated. Even that one of them the gift driving which in that guy who put like a bomb outside of like the other gifts or whatever the auditory and the wherever the left is gather there’s like should give that out or something like that. Auditorium is going outside of it, but they’re just like it’s not like. And this comes out of the blue, . Should they see somebody wandering in front? You know, walking in front of the engine room building and they, and they do. What they really done? You know, so I don’t. I’m sorry you lost the train of thought, but we’re were getting that OK so why was that reaction? I guess that’s it. I mean it. It. You know how? It’s just not, . It’s not a. Rational, though I mean, people aren’t paying attention, it’s not on their radar, so how.

Aragorn!: The other way to go about this that the ITS doesn’t have a rational revolutionary program, and so it’s taking a while for people to reconcile the that the fact that they’re not rational. Has is actually a program of, ? Again, not spontaneous violence, but it’s sort of a violence first program, and that is not anarchist.

Abe: Yeah, I mean, but that we could get into a whole discussion of, why are you so obsessed with this label? Saying like why are you? Why are you so obsessed with being the Presbyterian? I mean that there’s something more to presbyterianism than just having a label. I’m not gonna. I’m like I’m not gonna discuss who’s that? As this not on the system and that’s not. That’s not to be that’s interesting to me, so I’m not gonna. I’m not going to get into that, but it’s. It’s just one of those things that you had admitted this stuff into. Your into, your, your, your and then you pulled after right? I don’t, I don’t. I don’t faster than you. Why you have this? It’s sort of not clear to me, with them. You know well, I mean, the whole thing about Scott Campbell, I don’t. I don’t know if you wanted to talk about the explicitly, but the whole thing about calling. It equal fashion. You know, for me, that’s just sort of like that’s the flavor of the month because of the whole Trump game of the Black bloc and soft frozen just gonna sort of, spin off of it. It’s a spin off because it has no, do you even know what fascism means? I mean, I don’t think it’s. They black book, they mask up against their fascists. I mean not really, I mean.

Aragorn!: Have you? Have you studied Scott CV? Because he I think he has pretty deep ties in some of those social anarchism of Mexico City. So for instance he might have some connections to the wherever the bombing was that happen.

Abe: Yeah, I mean I listened to his it’s going down podcast what he did with the Mexican business, which is sort of sighted in my. Trailer EP. You know the GPS, a public service announcement that I had, . Yeah, I know, I know. I know his type. I want to go see, I know what he’s like I. Know what I? Know his type you.

Aragorn!: Know, yeah, I believe I’ve actually run into him in person couple of different times and he’s almost like a walking billboard of the sensitive North American gringo who. Who speaks who speaks Spanish at any opportunity and says Chile and like literally has a kafia on alongside a poncho. If he isn’t, I think if he if he is who I think he is, we actually saw him get dropped off at the book at the book Fair in Orange. Tony by his mom and a Prius who’s. Urban music

Abe: Well, I mean, I was reminded of when I was the 1^st through my first time around when I was a first year long time ago. Everything I was that the merican classes studies program and she had a she had a like a. With the shoulder bag with a prominent USW. Sutton it. And Richard United Pharmacies, which is really ironic since I actually come from the family farm workers and when I was a kid I actually worked with perfect strangers that it’s just I don’t know. Just the whole racism thing. Yeah, yeah, when?

Aragorn!: Sure, give give it, give it.

Abe: When I when I see stuff like.

Aragorn!: Real give it give a real response to that.

Abe: When I see stuff like that, it just reminds me. Of that. Of virtue singling, I mean, first of all from this side of the border, finding things can be more, we can feel we can be more it just, it isn’t destroyed radicalism to it that that and it’s really, really really really. Where this flower? Really, yeah, because they’re because they’re poor and oppressed.

Aragorn!: What does that mean?

Abe: They have some sort of. They’re sort of. They think of people and all of their and all of their causes their things and causes. These are the people like IPS along with IPS. Just everybody in general. They’re just like I mean, that’s the reality. They don’t. Care ? Actually know what about Mexico City, the. Senior pilot **** That’s what they don’t. They’re it’s like if you think that if we develop, if you’re fighting terrorism, that’s in a sort of majesty. Save us from from whatever. Either there are no. I mean, all of these things are, fighting things that colonialism imperialism. That’s just. I mean that’s just 1960s knowledge propaganda. I mean, that’s not even how the world works now. You know, really, looking Mexico so far from. God supposed to the United States, I mean. The ice caps. Are melting the emotions are dying and we want that politics? Like really I mean every single leftist movement like every single one has falling apart like it just doesn’t. I mean, It’s. It’s a non issue it’s a non starter. And we’re still on this politics, where have you been the past?

Aragorn!: Well, but I think that there is a there. There is a large segment of people.

Abe: Where have you been the past 40 years?

Aragorn!: There’s a large segment of people in North America who still respond to. To this type. Of name calling to this kind of terminology, I mean, it’s not out of the blue that they that he used it. I mean, I mean he’s clearly using it to draw a line in the sand say you’re on that side and he’s on this side and I guess to what extent do you think he’s going? To be successful with that. And the real question is, to what extent are these ideas attractive to people? What kind of people are they attractive to? What’s being referred to when? When sort of these leftist talk about edgy? People, yeah, I mean I guess for me I try to take these arguments seriously on the level of they work for somebody.

Abe: I mean, they’re not. I mean, I’m, I’m sorry that. I mean, we could. We can. We can sort of call the whole possible thing tomorrow because they’re not. They’re basically equal extremism calls for the extension. Extension of the. Human race, I mean they’re not. I mean, they’re not popular, I mean, and they’re not going to fashion themselves to be popular. You know It’s not. It’s just not gonna happen. And the actual the paradigm you’re working with is what you’re lism is like a totally different paradigm. You’re you have a totally different basis. Why you do something? Why you think something? Why you say something? Just totally different. It changes out of other. You know other races in Americanism and Primitivism antisymmetrization that, and just in the sentence apology and political thought. But It’s not, there, there. There really isn’t. You know there really isn’t anything. Else to say. Which is sort of why my approach? Just at this point it’s OK if somebody criticizes the copy of the. I’ve actually already been written because in reality we don’t really have anything to say to these people. Kind of thing. And two weeks from. I’m a nice person so I and I try to like relate to people so I will try to do what I can to be like Oh yeah, like this. OK, well how’s that life or you have left this and how’s that life? But in reality my core values and the core values and a lot of people involved in this.

Aragorn!: OK.

Abe: No, I mean they’re, they’re completely waiting. Shall let we’re not doing. We’re not doing politics. We’re straight doing theology, and it might be a little bit bloody, but it’s that’s what we’re sort of doing. We’re we’re just like we’re we’re in that in that, 10 years, 20 years movements. My lifetime, well, how can I get my liberation now? No, we don’t we’re not interested in.

Aragorn!: Well, that’s actually a different direction to take this conversation, which is to say. Because you don’t have like it, it appears that you do have a social. Life. That’s sort of. Around these topics and I see the same people sort of talking to you about this stuff, most of the. Time, does it hurt your? Feelings or does it? Help you out to sort of. Be hated by strangers. For your interest in a in a set of ideas and. A set of people. That other. People don’t like or whatever.

Abe: In the truck? No, because they don’t. Better, I mean they they’re what I mean. I know they’re gonna love you and you haven’t basically and I know you love it, not the rest. Of the world. Neither is even even, buy water in New Orleans, which also has a. Who I’ve never met cause I’ve never thought or whatever I mean I’ve never no it doesn’t matter Eric isn’t failed left is in the failed the rest of it in the failed why, why, why fight people who have been defeated they just don’t we don’t we don’t matter. Anymore, so why so why bother? I mean, humanity doesn’t sort of matter either, but I mean the least humanity. You know what I’m reading right now? You want to know what I’m reading right now?

Aragorn!: Go ahead.

Abe: Theology, because the Catholic Church has a billion people. On it. You know, I, I could have known Catholic theology. You could. Have more conversations with more interesting people that I read reading for production or performing or whatever. Or one of those or any of the other. No, I mean you’re you sugar sugar, so I mean why? Why so? I mean, you’re probably going to be like, OK, we’re we’re done. You know bye and at the same time, OK, you’ve given me this opportunity to do the journal. Something very interesting. So I’m gonna do it. And I don’t know if what you think is the conference in the. Past and how much you actually addressed. It, but it doesn’t have. I mean, I guess I started out my. Article that my one of my major articles with marks, even with Carl Marks and you can reach you from there or whatever politics.

Aragorn!: Those little head breaks.

Abe: One anomaly theology about the spirits telling tearing down the cosmos with the machete. So back that people don’t have time to scream. And even even equal extremist action, there will be like you’re any political. You’re not political. This not a political thing. And that’s why sort of individual people who are.

Aragorn!: But I get.

Abe: Who are they?

Aragorn!: I guess I. Guess you’re answering a question, but you’re also making huge assumptions and it’s one of the reasons why I asked you about your anarchist pet. Because the kind of anarchism that I represent for lack of another language has always not been the same type of anarchism that pays attention to Trotskyists or to what you would call politics. In other words, that kind of anarchism that I’m involved with would broadly be called anti political. Clericalism so a lot of the sort of. Attitude that you have. Is about something different or like in other words, I’m playing a type of devil’s advocate because I, because I wanna I wanna take as much like when people have energy about something. That to me is a. That’s a. That’s a little blinker of light and I crave light and. So when someone? Hates a project that we’re working on. Whether it’s a Tosa or another little black card project. For me the goal of that. Is to be like. OK, like in my life like I’m I. I play around with ideas. I use ideas, I try to grow and change and learn from ideas and I’m totally a *****. Like I’m. Happy for those ideas to be ones I disagree with, or ones that perhaps thing where the burn and so for me the conversation are under tonsa. Like why I’ve been so excited about Itts has been because I call them a post anarchist challenge to anarchy. And part of that challenge is a challenge. That’s a that’s a political challenge, but there’s other challenges in there too. Like one of the other challenges is most anarchists don’t, but they can just portray their politics in these very safe ways and AT and ITS points to. This what it looks like to do your politics. And a less safe way. Now, of course, the social anarchists. Like if they. Are if they were right, and that and that if we could get a large enough crowd. And if we if we could rally large enough, then we could change the world. That’s an even more exciting and dangerous transformation. But I, firmly believe, and I think that it’s agrees with me. Is that what they’re doing is impossible, right? In other words, that there. Is no like they could make. It the biggest rally. In the world and. It’s not going. To be enough. To change ********. Right, because change doesn’t happen that way and we don’t live in France. And 1798 or whatever and the **** and so and so. For me ITS is interesting because it feels like it’s it grasps something very 21^st century, which is that violence is almost a universal solvent. And it’s playing out with. What the consequences of that of that sort of theory is? But that said, of course I. I mean, it makes perfect sense. Cause a social anarchist position is going to say well that’s unacceptable because social anarchism says that you have to do anarchism all the way down. And of course that’s not how society has changed. That’s how revolution happens, . Et cetera. Et cetera, et cetera. So that’s more sort of the questions I’m getting at is like to. What extent like? Unless and a quote UN quote apocalypse happens in the foreseeable. We’re probably going to have to live with politics as we see it on television for the rest of our natural lives, and so in that context, what does ITS versus social anarchism look like? Because I think that in that context, it’s kind of interesting. There’s something interesting happening.

Abe: Well, what it is that if I were. Which is called floor gate card title and what it really is that if you’re going to. Do the type that. Things that they used to do. Now, I mean, if you’re going to do that stuff, the bomb throwing and stuff like that, you’re going to have to do use ITS as yourself.

Aragorn!: Yeah, right?

Abe: At this point. It’s not gonna be like we’re gonna shooting this slot. We’re gonna have to struggle session. We’re gonna talk and talk and talk about it. No, It’s gonna be like it’s gonna come out of the blue it’s gonna come out of nowhere and then let’s say that people are going to be on the move like quiet and . We are far away from Islam. We didn’t know he would have been that, .

Aragorn!: No, that actually yeah.

Abe: And that’s and that’s purifies the social anarchist. It’s purified, it horrifies them. They, they and that’s where they feel. They’re just a bunch of serious relationships, don’t they? This, but I mean the intentions are if they have a political ish intention behind that, and that’s only that’s how we’re. Going to have. To do it. It’s not, it’s not an issue of. I mean, it’s just as capitalism develops as the machinery. It’s just some industrial society as well. You know the meaningful resistance of having been with. They all have improved the meaningful oppression, the needs for control. What what rating right against that? I recommend you use the chambers of any sort of opposition through that. It’s going to look like it’s going to be extremely much more chaotic. It’s going to look much more individualistic. It’s going to look much more. Yeah, antisocial, it’s going to. It’s going to be severely, disproportionate to what people think should be the action and so on and so forth. It’s just not going to be controlled anymore. And that’s like around the side of kiosk. You know, and that. Horrifies people people still think it’s so like you. Could be sick in Spain. You know still think and that’s sort of when they, when they when they when people have got called they or I equal fascist or fascist. Thisn’t this, 2017. This not this time. Even how ISIS does it in Europe. I mean, come and do the car and drive it. The people no don’t go on the subway.

Aragorn!: Well, and for me this actually like we’re kind of talking about the pieces. For me this a little bit more about the board, which is to say that if there were a CNT that were in point of fact large and healthy, and doing things of consequence, then I would. Say Scott Campbell. You know, I wish that you would spend your time building and working. You know, in your zone rather than spending time focusing on a zone that’s not yours at all, because it. It really feels like. To me that the social anarchist perspective has very little to point to say, we’re doing great good news, and so instead this sort of where the energy is spent and it feels very strongly to me. Like of course nobody believes. Including ITS and ITS is sort of the way forward for a movement for social change. And so you’re basically criticizing them for. Something that they. That they don’t say that they are. Or that they’re not. Even trying to. Achieve and so the real question and then. And I asked this question a lot is yeah, are we just talking past each other? Why are we actually ? Why are we engaging with each other? Because in this case we’re really talking very different zones. And the only real reason that we’re talking to each other is basically you called a virtual signaling, but it’s sort of like It’s like a mob rule, just a sort of a motivation. And obviously you’re not that impacted by that, because your. In the in the social milieu of anarchism. But of course I am quite impacted by it because I am.

Abe: But no, I guess what I would say I don’t know if this touches on the point or not. Going back to the point where I said, well, why, why, why, why? Are you? Why are you so obsessed with labels like anarchist like Presbyterian? Whatever I’ll back up and say when I see things like other cable. Even though I maybe maybe I don’t know enough to comment, ? On every single detail or marks or witness that I don’t see it as and this just my own particular philosophical and ideological information. I don’t see this as sort of physical, it’s full of that. That’s well in case and have these very definitive lines separating them. And previous ideology or from the history of thought, human thought itself. I mean, if you want to go into anarchism, I mean there’s a. There’s a really interesting book called Watching the Bible. Has superficial Mirandand she said that Saint Paul, the person who wrote, wrote the New Testament. Was actually the first down artist. I mean, he said that there are passages in Saint Paul about the law that would put protecting. The community change. And that might be. Exaggerating, but that’s right. And then you could. Get a lot. Fuller and then you could get dialogues and stuff like that. So the questions between anarchism and Marxism and all these things were going back to thousands of years. Thisn’t just like. You know you’re not, you’re not part of my tree house, so I’m kicking you out. It’s like your tree house is part of a larger legacy of Western thought and global thought that even if you don’t know it, you’re basically dealing with it. If you don’t know, It’s. The outlook of all philosophy, the footnotes. To Plato. You know, even though you think that you’re coming up with this whole very special position, you’re basically being haunted by goals or these factions of ideological ancestry. You know, and if you don’t deal with those, you’re just sort of returning. You’re just sort of repeating yourself over and over, maybe slight with slight variations, but it’s just, you just sort of the things didn’t go over and over again. You don’t know why so I don’t know when people say Oh well, you don’t you? ‘cause you don’t know anything about others . Like yeah, I’m not. I’m not interested in the. Fact that you’re in church. Thank you, but at the same time it’s like, but that whole thing about child Child would series of predestination. And the yeah, I mean that’s. Something that’s interesting. You know, that those those points of doctrine, yes, because those come from somewhere. Theological, theoretical foundations. And that’s what I could comment on explicitly. You know whether or not that conforms to your club house rules. That’s up to you. If you don’t want to. You know the diagnosis and the other. Outlets for you to come and give your attention.

Aragorn!: Yeah, I mean I don’t know how, how much you pay attention to some of the projects I’m involved with, but this basically exactly the conflict that happened between Johnsos and Kevin Tucker and black seed, which is 1 projects I’m involved in. Have you seen any of the issues with Black Sea?

Abe: No, I actually haven’t recording. Sorry, I don’t.

Aragorn!: All right?

Abe: I think you may have sent one to me and I put it somewhere, no? The whole the whole model is something that’s one of the day. It was so funny because I have read back anything with you.

Aragorn!: Don’t hurt.

Abe: Me, but I have read all of them. And there was a very cute essay about nihilism about negative theology in there, and it was so it was just so like freshman in English. Like people style excited Wikipedia like try the site with negative theology of the level. Oh my God that they choose because when theology is one of the things that I actually know about, that the whole idea of negation and you can only know who God is by what he’s not and that sort of thing that. When what does what does it mean? What does that mean for? After that, so I don’t know I don’t know if that if that’s one of theories of the whole, because I know. I mean, I do listen to John Person show because the on board and whatever and I do listen to it and I know he’s just like everything everything. Every episode is just the excommunication of the violence. Over and over and over again that to the board, right? I’m just wondering please.

Aragorn!: Trying to think in.

Abe: I just think It’s like. You know, I, I don’t, I. I would hold short venture about how the whole talk or something about how I don’t really feel like something wireless that sort. Of the knowledge that. I am. It’s only it’s because it’s a it’s. A tool, but I’m. Rambling letter know what you wanted to make.

Aragorn!: Yeah, well It’s. It’s fun actually. Why don’t we wrap this up for now? I think maybe we could do another episode where we just talk about denialism.

Abe: OK yeah I have to see where where I’m at, yeah?

Aragorn!: Yeah indeed, thank you very much.

Abe: OK, you have a goodbye.

— Interviews with claimed ITS members —

1^st Interview (January 2014)

Chicomóztoc, México.

1.- When did Individualists Tending towards the Wild emerge, what ideas motivated you as an affinity group and what strategies have you decided to pursue to give continuity to this antagonistic project?

Before we begin to respond to this interview, ITS would like to clarify that while we do not share many of the ideas presented in this book, we see a chance to be able to explain our ideas in a more real way, and this is what we are doing. We do not want to emphasize membership with anyone, our ideas are our own, but now that they are out in the public light, it is necessary that they (or the important parts) are completely understood, as there seems to be much confusion in regards to various themes (including criticisms previously given in our communiques), which were not understandable to the reader or which were not accepted or assumed.

While we are not anarchists, we appreciate this space given by the Editorial Ácrata.

Now that we have clarified this, we will begin the interview:

Individualists tending towards the wild formed at the beginning of 2011, and was motivated by the reasoning acquired during a slow process of getting to know, questioning, and the rejection of all that encompasses leftism and the civilized, and accordingly, employing all the above, we deemed it necessary to carry out the direct attack against the Technoindustrial System. We think that the struggle against this is not only a stance of wanting to abandon Civilization, regressing to Nature, or in refuting the system’s values, without also, attacking it.

Our immediate objectives are very clear: injure or kill scientists and researchers (by the means of whatever violent act) who ensure the Technoindustrial System continues its course. As we have declared on various occasions, our concrete objective is not the destruction of the Technoindustrial system, it is the attack with all the necessary resources, lashing out at this system which threatens to close off all paths to the reaching of our Individual Freedom, putting into practice our defensive instinct.

Our position does not stop at putting into question that which many do not question (like the risk of the utilization and expansion of the Technological complex), but what’s more, we use violence (as we are human, we distinguish ourselves from our more distant, primitive, and wild ancestors) to attack that which intimidates the development of wild human Freedom and tends towards the artificiality of all that is potentially free. In short, we are the contrary part to the Technological System, we are the reaction before the action, resulting from coincidence; while some dedicate themselves to manipulate, destroy, and artificialize the natural, we respond to their aggression.

2.- On the 8^th of August 2011, ITS made headlines on the front pages of Mexican newspapers with the news of the explosive attack against the area of nanotech research at Monterrey Tech, State of Mexico campus, in which two of its scientists were injured: Armando Herrera Corral–who the “parcel-bomb” was addressed to–and his colleague, Alejandro Aceves López. The act provoked skepticism in sectors of the left which did not see the fight against new technologies as valid and therefore, do not include it in their accustomed catalog of “fronts.” We heard more than one accusatory discourse including this, classifying them as “terrorist” in the typical acceptance of Power’s lexicon. We would like to know what your opinion of these acts is, as well as your comments around the different positionings that have motivated your anti-technological action.

The attack on Monterey Tech and its claim caused a big commotion nationally and internationally, we as ITS know that the aforementioned act struck hard in the police, political, social, and of course scientific spheres. The act was such, and as we had hoped, with a great magnitude of consequences. With this we knew that we wouldn’t only have months of making these acts a reality, but it would also lift the curtain, proving the existence of a radical tendency which speaks to the root of the problems we are faced with in this epoch, which is the most refined expression of domination: the entirety of Technology.

Continuing with the question, we also knew that our acts would not be well received by society nor the leftist sectors (left, center, and right politics). But all of these campaigns and designations don’t bother us, we don’t waste our energy in trying to make ourselves look like “good activists” to these people, as they are accustomed to seeing, because we are not.

They label us as a terrorists, because in fact, this treatment is always given to those individuals or groups, who hurt people for some incentive (whatever it is). This is also why, before we mentioned our motivations, we took the word and ITS was named as a terrorist group.

We are focused on attacking the scientists who perfect nanotechnology (this is a fact), since now science has advanced significantly in Mexico (apart from biotechnology and transgenetic genetic engineering) and this is perhaps why many have not put thought into what nanotechnology entails for the future (or more concretely, the Technological complex as well), in any case ITS has already addressed this previously and don’t have reason to revisit it: if you want to read more about this theme, we suggest reading the 1^st-4^th communiques (in which the theme of nanotechnology, notably, is focused on).

3.- What is the objective of ITS? Is it the destruction of the technoindustrial system?

We would like to emphasize that ITS has never proposed the destruction of the technoindustrial system as a concrete objective, although we would want to and would declare that our objective is to completely destroy this rotten system, we would be lying to ourselves, and would be moving towards something that can not happen quickly, this is why we DO NOT claim this adventurous objective. ITS wants to see this entire system destroyed and collapsed, wants this to be the “slogan” that we defend, but it is not like that.

As we have said, ITS has from the beginning proposed the attack against the system as the objective, striving to make these kinds of ideas spread around the globe through extreme acts, in defense of Wild Nature, as we have done.

What we have done with these acts is put the proposal against Technology and Civilization on the table, creating tension, and we think that, with time, these attacks will be refined. We act through trial and error, learning from our mistakes, since we do not (as we have previously written) have the “secret formula.”

4.-Is it not very reductionist then, that your objective is only the attack and nothing more than that?

It can sound very simple to focus on the Technoindustrial System as your only attack, but that is what exists for now. If we propose to destroy it we fall into fantasy, into utopia.

We attack this system from our individuality, not only with attacks, but also by rejecting the Technoindustrial Society along with its values and attempting to abandon Civilization, it serves nothing to attack the system and continue having its own values rooted in you (or vice versa).

5.- The movement named 15M in the Spanish state and its replication in other cities around the world has generated hope in sectors of the left which have begun to label it the Spanish Revolution. How does ITS view the development of this movement? What do you hope to have come from it or what critiques come up?

The 15M movement is a movement that only proposes to reform the system, which it improves. The demands of the subjects who comprise this movement are based in political remands around austerity, the lack of employment, and a “better” economic strategy (among others); what this type of movement does, is that the people who are demanding that the government be accountable for the way in which they administer their economics, financial management, etc., it is erroneous, that if they do not want a strong state crisis (or in an extreme case civil war), they should apply some reforms in order for the system to continue its course, in short, the system digests these types of protest as proposals to strengthen itself; these types of people are called leftists (the term we have already used in different ITS communiques and is also explained as well in Industrial Society and its Future by the Freedom Club), leftism becomes one of the many more ingenious functions of the Techno-industrial System. Thousands of people (or even a few) say they are going to rebel against it, when in reality they are only helping it realize its faults, to make them better, it regenerates, and self perpetuates.

6.- Continuing with the theme of leftism, in the public critique made by the editorial group “Anonymous with Caution” they said that your attacks only serve to make the system stronger, that many universities and institutions have redoubled security around nanotechnology engineers as well as the researchers that develop them- What is your position in light of this criticism?

Look, the critique of this editorial group falls short of what we are now, you can read more about this in our last communique published on January 28^th of this year (2012).

Responding to your question, we do not think the system is made stronger with the type of actions we have carried out, and we have seen evidence of this.

Since what happened at the Tec, institutions, businesses, and universities that develop nanoscience, declared an immediate alert, principally as to what arrives in courier mail, well, of this there is no doubt.

Now, is the system made stronger when an explosive detonates in the hands of a professor and leaves his colleague wounded (as well)? Only in these moments does the system intensify security, but does not reinforce it in its totality, we remember that the system is not only nanotechnology, that it is comprised of other things, roots equally or perhaps more important than nanoscale science. So, you can’t say that the system has made itself immune to the attacks of our actions because, whats more than this, we have checked these boasts and they say it is strengthened when in reality it isn’t; this became very clear during the attack on the Polytechnic University in Pachuca en Hidalgo (December 8, 2011), our device (which arrived by mail courier in fact) left a professor wounded (we will say here as we said in the communique in which we claimed they attack, there was a mistake in the name of the researcher of nanotechnology that was our fault, his name was Villanueva not Villafaña), this act was evidence that the system had not fortified because even with the security protocols, another person was left newly wounded by ITS.

This is not only confirmed now by the ITS, but also as well in the past, Freedom Club equally proved this, 23 people wounded and 3 killed over 20 years, this is not a sign that the system became resistant to these types of acts.

In any regard, to say what this editorial group said is to exaggerate that which for now we have done, the attacks of ITS, yes, have not had destructive results stronger than material damages, paranoia, a few wounded, and a death, besides the fact that for some months we were the only public group who carried these kinds of ideas out in practice. For the system this is not sufficient for them to consider us a real threat, because we are merely beginning, its safe to say that individuals or groups in the future, taking into account our errors, will carry out more destructive acts against the Techno-industrial System; with this, we are not saying that we have faith in this happening, but only that it is logical that we will not be the only ones.

7. On November 8, 2011, only three months after the parcel bomb was sent to the nanotechnology researchers at Monterrey Tech, in which Herrera Corral and Aceves López were wounded, a researcher of the Institute of Biotechnology at UNAM (National Autonomous University of México), Ernesto Méndez Salinas was assassinated by a bullet to the head in the middle of Teopanzaolco avenue, in the city of Cuernavaca. This action provoked various new speculations as to the author of this action, putting the spotlight on ITS once again. Does ITS claim this attack? And–in the hypothetical case of being its perpetrators–why did you not claim responsibility through a public communique as has been your custom? Perhaps you decided (as other groups of anti-system action) to renounce these types of pronouncements and focus on propaganda of the deed?

Concerning this action, we want to publicly declare that the group ITS takes responsibility for the attack.

The “prominent” investigator, Méndez Salinas, received a shot to the head which ended his life, from this extremist group, this is a fact.

The Federal District (D.F.) police very well know that ITS was responsible for this act. Around the middle of February 2011, we sent a letter with a claim of responsibility inside addressed to the director of the Institute of Physics of UNAM, to Dr. Manuel Torres Labansat. Inside there was a .380 caliber bullet, in addition to a note which practically said the researchers of aforementioned campus would end up the same as Salinas. The sending of the package with the bullet and the note we claimed in our last communique (January 28, 2012), only we did not mention this, for practical reasons.

We want to make it clear that the actions we carry out in practice, we claim in a prudent manner, if the situation is favorable, the claim will follow (as has been done with past attacks), but if there are things that are not so favorable or that we can “get more juice” from, we wait, and this is what we have done.

Practically, looking at the situation this year (2011), everything is in tension in respect to what we have begun to do, we knew beforehand that the police would not tell the media that we were responsible for the aforementioned attack. This is why we were saving it for a precise moment.

Honestly we do not know when this interview will be published, but supposing that it is delayed in its publication, we are thinking of claiming this act in a more detailed way, when we have executed some other attack in the not-so-distant future, well, it is also clear that this small part of the claiming of Méndez Salinas’s assassination will also be made very public when this book is released.

8. Want to say anything else?

We hope that with this interview (dated April 28, 2012) our position has been made a little more clear to readers. And we are grateful to the editorial for this interview and to the portal War on Society for serving as the intermediary to make this exchange possible. That is all for now.

2^nd Interview (Autumn 2015)

In February the magazine, “Destroy the Prisons”, strongly critiqued your radical ecological positions. What do you have to say regarding the criticism of this anti-prison magazine? What criticism do you have of prison abolitionism? What is your position regarding this sort of abolitionism as an alternative to depriving people of liberty?

RS: Well, to begin replying to that point, we would have to ask a series of other questions first, such as: How would this abolition be carried out? Would it be regional, international, universal, or other? Perhaps in that last question we are being facetious, as any person who is serious and realistic on this subject will realize beforehand that this is merely a childish fantasy and idealized utopianism. The jails will not be abolished if civilization continues, that’s obvious. But just to be clear, we are not saying by this that these people should struggle for the destruction of civilization instead.

That would be falling into the same unrealistic trap.

Human jails were made to contain those whose impulses, reactions, and instincts made them incapable of living in society in a peaceful way. The technological system has an essential role to play in the penitentiary structure. There would be many more prison breaks if not for the security cameras, motion detectors, drones, electric fences, etc. One could thus quickly conclude that the object of one’s critique should not be prisons per se, but the giant technological corporations that ensure that prison really is a detention facility for those who are dangerous to the system.

Civilized life, sedentarism, to live with an abnormally large number of unknown people cooped up in the city, the frustrations, the artificial needs, the seeking of upward mobility, “stress”, junk food that poisons the blood, and many other things are actions that merit a reaction. Some people manifest this reaction by disregarding the legal structures and seeking out illegal activities. But this all comes back to the principle of causality, to action / reaction. If you live in civilization, no doubt that you will be affected by this way of life. Although we have to say that we too detest human prisons, the physical place as well as the domineering people who work there and the quarrelsome prisoners. They’re awful places. But when we talk about prisons we just don’t mean human prisoners and jails, but also all other types of prisons and cages. Another question that we can bring up here: What prisons are we talking about abolishing? Many times those who call themselves “anti-prison anarchists” are only committed, in some cases, to rejecting and attacking the prisons that hold their comrades. But they feel animosity for rehabilitation centers because these go against their principles since they limit the “freedom” for which they fight so adamantly. Many vegans, freegans, animal liberationists, ecologists and others would agree that prisons are not just these places, but also cages where they keep animals captive, be it in circuses, laboratories, universities, and nurseries.

Those who oppose formal education would agree with us that you can’t just talk about prison, we shouldn’t just mention jail cells, but also classrooms.

Those who oppose salaried labor would be in agreement that not only should the jails, the prison cells, the cages, and the schools be condemned, but also factories. And we can also point out here those who oppose psychiatrists, asylums, vices, and maybe even our own minds. But also the totality of these things, the Great Cage itself: civilization.

I once saw a cartoon of a famous cartoonist very well known in Mexico about a man who came and went to work every day and somehow tolerated his asphyxiating daily routine. But suddenly he realized that he had wings, so he spread them and began to fly. He flew over the cars stuck in traffic, and over the crowds of people, showing them that he could go wherever he liked with his wings. Smiling he flew higher and higher, feeling truly free, shedding his suitcase and his clothes. But then suddenly he hit a fence and fell. He wanted to fly higher than the rest, thinking that there were no more fences that could hold him down but he found out the hard way that there were. That’s the Great Cage we know as civilization. So the lesson is: anyone who thinks that they are totally free only does so because they haven’t yet flown high enough to hit the bars of the Great Cage. Many anti-prison anarchists, but not all, suppose that, like the man in the cartoon, getting their buddies out of jail will make them free, and that’s where the struggle ends. Many perhaps think that the prisons are the main objective, but hopefully one day they will also notice the Great Cage itself.

XT: In some of your writings you critique the positions of Kaczynski. You deny his importance yet you acknowledge him as a predecessor to your own work. Do you think that you are being unfair in not granting him a prominent place in the anti-technology movement? Aside from the contexts being obviously different, what would you say is the main difference between your position and that of the imprisoned mathematician?

RS: We gave credit where credit was due when it was appropriate. Many groups that joined RS took much from Dr. Kaczynski and they stated so publicly. This was no big deal until 2012 when the editorial group, Último Reducto, began to criticize us, and so we started to realize that we didn’t really agree with the idea of a revolution against the techno-industrial system and other things. Thus, we devised our own ideas in this regard. As we said, we always acknowledge Freedom Club’s work and the analysis of Uncle Ted, but later we had to reject them, and that’s when we stopped talking about them. But if you ask us now if he had an influence on us, of course we’d admit it. The main difference between what Kaczynski and his acolytes propose and our own position is rather simple: we don’t wait for a “Great World Crisis” to start attacking the physical and moral structures of the techno-industrial system. We attack now because the future is uncertain. You can’t create a strategy based on assumptions, thinking that all will go according to plan and with assured victory. We stopped believing in that once we grasped the enormity of the system itself, its components and its vast reach on this planet and even outside of it. If civilization collapses tomorrow, or within 30 to 50 years, we’ll know that we waged a necessary war against it from our own individuality. It’s funny, but they call us “anarchists” within the “anti-civ” movement of the early 21^st century, just as they called the first people who didn’t wait for the “right” conditions to plant bombs and assassinate people “anarchists” in the 19^th century. These people had serious difficulties with“legal” anarchists who wanted to wait for “revolution”, as they were often rejected by the latter as apolitical criminals. In making a comparison between us and theorists who wait for an “anti-tech” revolution, the analogy seems to stick. This is what our published words and deeds seem to be indicating.

The second difference is that we have modeled ourselves and are inspired by the resistance of primitive nomadic hunter-gatherers. Those who currently constitute RS still have in our blood the warrior spirit of our ancestors. Of course, it’s obvious to us that we are civilized individuals, but we still heed the call of the wild, and we give ourselves over to the attack on all that is unnatural. This compared to the theories of Uncle Ted which failed to go farther than a comparison between techno-industrial and previous ancient societies. Basically it’s something very similar, but we have focused on what we have in our own context here, in ancient Mesoamerica.

XT: In the United States there are radical ecologists who support a “post-apocalyptic” hypothesis. Their analysis is based on the idea that techno-industrial society has reached its peak, and its fall is inevitable. Richard Duncan has spoken of “Olduvai theory” which posits that our current industrial civilization can only have a maximum life of one hundred years starting from 1930, placing its end around 2030. The transition seems to have started in 2007 when world per capita energy production began to shrink due to falling rates of fossil fuel energy extraction, while at the same time demand increases due to the increase in population. This will cause a catastrophic economic and social collapse in the coming years, and little by little the human population will be reduced back to numbers seen in previous times. If Duncan’s hypothesis is correct, why act now instead of just waiting? And at the moment of acting, aren’t you just presenting yourselves as some sort of vanguard?

RS: Personally we don’t know how long the structures that support civilization on its decadent path will last. We can read much concerning various existing theories but still we’ll be left waiting for the appointed prophetic year in which maybe it’ll all end. But either way, all that the learned can propose are theories.

The here and now denotes all that is evil. People rot because they are content with conformism, a herd mentality, and technological “advances”. There are the technological advances invading our lives more and more and the ever- worsening economy. There are social explosions taking place everywhere you turn. Artificial reality consumes us, and it looks like things will explode sooner or later. As individualists we have decided to take the rest of our lives into our own hands and not wait for the crisis to happen. Why? Because we are already living it. We don’t want to wait because Nature encourages us to return the blows that it has received right now.

We’ll share a story with you. One night in August 2011, a section of the group Its broke into the Cinvestav of Irapuato, Guanajuato. We jumped the fence and we scaled the roof of the National Genome and Biotechnology Laboratory.

From above we could see the guard at his post, speaking on the phone while we watched him hooded from the darkness. We walked to the place where they did tests. I was surprised to find in one of the rooms a large plant that was hooked up to cables so that various computers could monitor it. The only thing that I felt at that moment was disgust and the immense desire to destroy everything in that place. I saw the real manner in which technology tries to subjugate wild nature. Technology tries to obtain more information from nature under the scientific yoke, subjugating it and making it artificial. Do you think we can just sit back and wait until everything is in place for the system to fall, even when we see these horrid indicators among us even now? NO. And what if that supposed collapse doesn’t happen in 2030? We’ll put our faith in some other convincing theorist who asks that we wait until 2100? NOT THIS EITHER.

As for what you say concerning a vanguard, we don’t think we are or ever will be one. We have been a realist alternative to those who look to us, but our intention is not to guide on the straight and narrow those who consider themselves critical of the technological system. We have explained our motives from the beginning only because it seemed appropriate for us to do so, and that’s it. We don’t want to create a movement or anything like that. The only vanguard that exists here are the sincere acts of people who value nature and who have decided to take the extremist defense of wild nature to its logical conclusion. That’s all. There is no group behind any of this, or leading it.

XT: There are groups in the Southern Cone that seem to be echoing many of the same positions. Don’t you think they are franchising your ideas down there?

RS: Not at all. If those people are publishing our ideas, they have reasons that only they know. And as you say, what we are defending here is an open PROPOSITION for those who would like to take it up. Intelligent people who would like to take up some of our ideas and methods, if they are sincere, will always be looked upon in a good light by the various factions of RS.

XT: The historian Eric Hobsbawn considered the Luddite Movement as a form of “collective negotiation by uprising”, a tactic that had been used since the Restoration in Great Britain. This was the case since mass demonstrations were impractical due to the layout of factories throughout the country. Don’t you think that this anti-technological militancy serves as an overture to enact reforms favoring economic deceleration that the State must enact if it wants to continue to govern? Aren’t you doing the work of the State for it even if unwillingly?

RS: We can see today that there are growing criticisms of technology coming from many sources. There are many people who are starting to realize that the current system is rotten. So the inevitable question arises: Is this a beneficial development for the war against the technological system? If the criticisms entail refusing to negotiate with the system, this would be positive indeed. But looking at the situation we realize that the majority of criticisms of technology have a reformist slant to them. For example, they’ll say things like, “technology is making us less social and limiting interpersonal contact, it’s good if we limit its use,” “sedentary life in civilization causes a lot of health problems, we should work out more,” “we’re surrounded by artificiality and I can’t stand life in the city, let’s go live in the country,” “garbage is polluting the oceans, we should buy more environmentally-friendly products,” “technology isn’t the problem, it’s how you use it, etc,” These supposed criticisms are over negotiable things, and one could even consider them proposed measures that allow the reform of the system, as well as its strengthening and growth. But what if instead we said things like, “technology is the problem, let’s light some tech company on fire with everyone inside,” “civilization is dangerously expanding and destroying what’s left of nature in its path in the process, let’s assassinate the chief engineer of a major project,” “this idiotic society has laws that allow the machine to keep running, these are part of the problem, let’s go ahead and detonate an explosive in a public place of symbolic importance,” etc. These kinds of extremist criticisms are non-negotiable, and these are the ones we adhere to. Thus, in responding to your question, we find it difficult to believe that the system can use these ideas and praxis for reformist ends, or that these result in a means by which the system can propagate itself.

XT: To go up against the massive plot that is contemporary society is a titanic task. There are elevated chances that you could lose your life or end up in a jail cell for the rest of your lives. Why then assume defeatism as the final course of action? Don’t you see that this is akin to martyrdom?

RS: Pessimism seized us when the scales dropped from our eyes and we realized that it would be impossible to destroy the entire technological system from our individualist perspective. We do not aspire to its total destruction. This would entail convincing and leading the stupid masses at some point. We would rather work for destabilization. We would like it if the entire technological system would fall, but that’s something that we are not capable of carrying out. Último Reducto has painted us as defeatists, but we would say that this is in the eye of the beholder. We are pessimistic toward the point of view that a select group of persons can help to destroy the system through their actions, which is Último Reducto’s position. But we are not pessimists because we have surrendered. We will keep doing what we do as long as our strength and circumstances permit us to do so.

And that’s because there’s no other real thing to aspire to. We’d be fooling ourselves if we said that we are going to bring the whole megamachine down. That’s not what we want to do. We aren’t martyrs either. We’re only embarked on a mission of self-defense, to defend nature from that which opposes it, without concerning ourselves with what is to be won in the future. Nothing that could potentially happen interests us. The extremist war against the technological system should be disinterested, without expecting a positive outcome, nourished by sincere acts of reverence for and in defense of wild nature. That’s what guides us. Responding to threats is a biological need of warriors, and we behave accordingly.

XT: Wouldn’t it be better to publicly debate this position with different societal actors and let the people decide what will be their fate?

RS: The people would take the path that most suits them, namely the path of least resistance, while positions that criticize civilization are on the table so that they can decide whether to adhere to them or not. Our position is like a coin tossed in the air over this table. Whoever considers himself capable and with the right amount of guile to take it up will do so. We don’t want our tendency to be the “most coherent” among others. It’s the position we defend and that’s it.

XT: There is an issue of the U.S. magazine Green Anarchy that does a comparative study between primitivists in a group in Oregon and the agrarian communist experiment of Pol Pot in Cambodia which is entitled, “Did the Khmer Rouge practice primitivism?” Don’t you think that there is a certain continuity between your positions and those of the Khmer Rouge, with the obvious exception of the latter trying to construct a State? What would be the difference between your positions and the forced agrarian policies and primitivism that drove the Communist Party of Kampuchea at that time?

RS: What the leader of the Khmer Rouge led in Cambodia in those years was a Maoist dictatorship. It was communalism inspired by the ancient agrarian modes of life of the Khmers, the original people of that country. What most calls our attention in that period was the collapse of the infrastructure of civilization. Money ceased to exist, the schools and the markets closed, and thus they sought to transform the country into a self-sufficient extreme agrarian state. But in order for all of the country to cooperate in this endeavor and impose this way of life, large sectors of the population had to be forced to do so.

We don’t know how anyone can see continuity between our position and theirs. It wasn’t even primitivism, to tell the truth, if by “primitivism” we mean to take up again a form of life close to that of our hunter-gatherer nomadic ancestors, and not the way of life of the peasantry before the Industrial Revolution. A major difference between RS and Pol Pot is that we don’t want to force anyone to return to ancient lifeways. The people are stupid and they love to live

in their modern shit. Only those few who reject civilization and go to live isolated on the mountain should be respected. We do NOT advocate communal life either before or after the collapse of the system.

XT: Kevin Tucker is another member of the inner circle of the English-speaking primitivists. He advocates a position called, “primal war”. This is a carbon copy of “social war”, posited by Johann Most and has spread among informal groups. Does your positing the warlike character of the Teochichimecas and Chichimecas, as well as your descriptions of the Mixton War, seek historical precedent for your acts? Is there any connection between Tucker’s positions and your own?

RS: To be honest we haven’t read much on Tucker’s positions, we only know that he is one of Zerzan’s colleagues, and that he was harassed by the FBI on the suspicion that he knew something about the actions of ALF/ELF. Either way, considering this question we would like to take the opportunity to clarify something that hasn’t been properly understood or something that perhaps we haven’t communicated clearly enough.

We in RS recognize and remember the Mixton and Chichimeca Wars as historical references SOLELY for the purpose of showing examples of group defense of ancient lifeways, beliefs, and places on the part of savage warriors. And some may think that, in mentioning these wars, we want to repeat these historical events in the 21^st century. Maybe some thought erroneously that we really do advocate ethnic indigenous people rising up as one, or rather that they rebel and reenact what had previously been done, but that’s not the case either.

In studying these savage uprisings specifically, we felt that we had a historical foundation that linked us to the genuine extremist defense of wild nature in these areas. You could see that the indigenous Teochichimecas here did not surrender either to indigenous Mesoamerican civilization or the European one. They kept their fighting spirit, they defended their primitive origins and by extension their beliefs tied deeply to nature, which were considered pagan and thus punished by the Catholic Church. They were known for their “cruelty”, their indiscriminate attacks against soldiers, allied Indians, blacks, mulattoes, women, children, etc. Their nomadic or semi-nomadic life made them difficult to pin down, and the craggy mountains were their best hiding places. Nature hid them before and after the battle, their relationship with nature was totally developed in places like deserts, forests, or semi-deserts which the Spanish said no one could possibly survive in. We have learned about these things both from archeological and anthropological research, as well as from the elders of certain ethnic groups that still live up in the highlands, and these things fill us with pride, and we claim them as our inspiration. The souls of our worthy ancestors have seized our minds and bodies, and it is now time, today, to continue the conflict against civilization and all that would subjugate us.

XT: So social war is the same as primal war?

RS: Social war is a term embedded in and taken up by many insurrectionary anarchists, which is very much in fashion now. We in RS are in an individualist war, planned, unbound, and executed by us against a variety of targets that are at the same time real and/or represent modernity, technology, civilization, artificiality, progressivism, and humanism. The terms seem the same, you have read about the call to primal war and posit that there is a similarity between this and social war, and I guess in that you may be right. I can’t give a concrete response regarding something that we have not proposed and wouldn’t even know the details of.

XT: In a similar vein, in some of your writings we have read you criticizing anarchists for their hope for a future free society, but you give a millenarist character to wild nature. You demonstrate this in such archeological studies as “The Place of the Seven Caves” (Chicomoztok): aren’t you falling into the exact same error that you criticize? What’s the difference? Aren’t both sides pursuing an idyllic world which neither has experienced? Isn’t it a remnant of Christianity to seek redemption in an ideal world?

RS: We don’t believe in or have faith in a future society. We don’t hope to see that “Armageddon” where nature will destroy the evil of civilization. We don’t believe in any of this. If this were not the case, we would be in no position to criticize the anarchists who believe in a “better” future, since we would be advocating the same thing with some noticeable differences.

We don’t know if there will be a global collapse of the system one day. The experts say that there will be, but we cannot know for certain. It could be the case and nature will rise from the ruins. But it could be that the system is always one step ahead of things, and could become self-sufficient and repair itself with ease. As we said, we don’t know the future. We would like to, but the reality is otherwise. Chicomoztok is only a look to the past, in the codex in which we can see and interpret graphically the life that our ancestors led. We see how they used friction to create fire. We see how various tribes gathered in their respective caves. We see the fruits that they gathered, the fauna that lived around them, the hunt, their clothing, skins, jewelry, feathers, etc. There are even symbols of war. There are many symbols in that codex that seemed important and thus we adopted them, for it is a sort of window into the life of our ancestors when communing with nature.

It’s a mythical and unknowable place, so why do many of our factions sign that they are supposedly writing from Chicomoztok? When they sign their communiqués that way, it’s to mock the authorities since they can’t find us and we are in a place that doesn’t have an exact location, you see?

To clarify things, we cite here the opening of the introduction to our work, “The Place of the Seven Caves”, which we recommend be read in its entirety:

“In Wild Reaction, we understand Chicomoztok as that place isolated from civilization, the destination of many diverse savage nomad tribes, which represent the wild and full life that our ancestors enjoyed before they were convinced to adopt sedentary life.:

It is a look to the past which tends toward regression, and to that which we have been losing little by little.

It symbolizes our adherence to our primitive past and by extension to the extreme defense of wild nature, the first fire that initiates individual and group conflict against that which represents artificiality and progress.”

Many investigators have attempted to find that place called “the Seven Caves,” but until now it has been lost in a region that centuries ago constituted what is now known as the “Gran Chichimeca.” That’s a dark and shadowy place in which hides a savage essence, in which dwells a story never told before, the memory of innumerable lives, adventures and conflicts which the winter took away along with the ashes of the indigenous Teochichimecas. This is the place that the factions of RS remember in a pagan manner while we hide in plain sight, or in secrecy and terrorist anonymity.

XT: On this and returning to the publication Green Anarchy, historian John Zerzan is one of the important figures in primitivism. His positions on the negative dialectic though daring don’t lose any impeccability in their construction. What is your opinion of this historian, focusing on his positions and not on his life? What is your opinion concerning the use of language and arithmetic as tools for inter-species domination? Do you consider any of these arguments viable?

RS: In the past years, Zerzan has become one of the most “radical” theorists in U.S. primitivist circles. For us, however, he is a romantic, an optimist, and politically correct in the worst sense of the term. His positions have caused quite a stir and resulted in outright condemnation from some, especially those touching upon the theme of language.

Just recently in an interview with the magazine, Vice, he said the following to a question concerning language and domination:

“I have to say this is the most speculative thing that I’ve written about. I’m not abandoning the argument, and I try to make a case for questioning symbolic activity, even including language, but it’s much more clear in terms of time, and numbers, and art. What makes it so speculative is that no one knows when speech started. There’s no way to prove it.” As you can see, Zerzan isn’t really even sure of what he had posited many years ago.

We aren’t anthropologists who specialize in the theme of linguistics, and to tell the truth we aren’t familiar with that debate. It seems to us to be a bit petty, to be honest. Even so, we recently wrote something on this topic in an essay entitled, “Nietzsche and the actuality of his criticism of scientism”:

“The modern human is obligated to live in society, having to contend closely with his fellow man. From this through language comes law that upholds the social order, so that man may live in peace within society without entering into conflict with others. This arrangement necessitates such concepts as ‘truth’ and the ‘lie’. These designations concerning truth and falsehood are invented by rational man and are ascribed with certain validity, though they are merely anthropomorphic fantasies.”

Language in this (post)modern age has brought forth in anthropomorphic reason a scientism that tends towards artificial human progress, and for sure this attacks wild nature. The other variants of this postmodernism such as those found in art, language, arithmetic, etc. are the result of the complexity of civilization. They are tools which the system uses to make sense of all those things for which it does not have an exact or reasonable answer. These tools are only phantoms since in real life, or rather in the realm of nature, they don’t exist. Anthropomorphic thinking is nothing to the universe, but even so humans seek to falsely place themselves at the center of all things.

XT: In Mexico, do groups exists that choose voluntary isolation as happens in Amazonas and whose existence are on the margins of Western society, which is awfully close to some of the propositions of anarchism?

RS: The only groups that we are aware of that live in isolation are the Raramuris and the Wixarika, even if these are few. They inhabit the deserts and semi-deserts of northwest Mexico, even though we don’t doubt that there are others. These groups live a very simple life, they are semi-nomadic and they gather their food in the arid northern lands of ancient Mesoamerica as their Teochichimeca ancestors did. They hunt some animals and even have very unique beliefs, though it bears mentioning that these are often mixed with Catholicism. Nevertheless, it is inspiring to know that they have maintained the same perception of things that their remote and primitive ancestors had.

And quickly comparing their lives with the anarchism you are asking about, I see few similarities. First of all, there is in these ethnic groups an authority figure that the rest of the people follow, though not merely as an unjust authority. It could be the strongest or bravest man or the shaman. But it’s not up for dispute that there is an authority figure. That’s one thing that many anarchists don’t approve of: those who refuse any authority that seeks to govern since in their mind it might try to “impose” something on them.

Secondly, the people in these groups have a specific role to carry out, they have hierarchy. It may be that men have to work more in the hunting season, or it could be that women work more in the times of nomadic gathering. Or it could be that both work equally in the time of harvest if as semi-nomads they have planted something. This is all to say that there is no equality. The division of labor is considered acceptable and the role that each individual carries out is what makes the group stable and without major conflicts. These are their customs, this is how they have survived from time immemorial, Thus, one cannot say that their life is similar to anarchism since one of the qualities of the latter is equality, and this is not compatible with the lives of these indigenous groups.

Thirdly, anarchism pushes atheism, that is, not positing gods or divinities that exist above an individual. In contrast, these groups of semi-nomads (as we indicated) have a firm belief in natural divinities and spirits that are much more powerful than they are. Making gods or believing in a spiritual authority from which all emanates is something totally contrary to anarchism, or am I wrong?

Fourthly, it is the case that these societies do not have a state or police force. They are too small for someone to control them like that or for someone to assume that sort of responsibility. There are no judges either, but if the occasion arises that someone must be punished, the elders are the ones who carry it out or who indicate what would be the suitable punishment for the evil doer according to their traditions and customs. And while no one gets imprisoned, there are punishments.

Fifthly, one of the premises of anarchism is that we are all equal, that we should all have the same opportunities, and free association is one of the pillars of the construction of a “new tomorrow”. From our ecoextremist point of view, all of this is absurd. Equality does not exist, we are all different and we don’t all have the same opportunities. We accept free association not to build a new and better world, but in order to develop ourselves individually within our circle of allies and not with strange or unknown people. Anarchism’s position is very humanist and falls within the suffocating parameters of being Western. These values indicate a tendency toward progress within the human being, and thus toward the progress of civilization, even if it is one that is “freer,” “more just,” “more compassionate,” etc. All of this is still garbage. We should point out that this is our opinion concerning anarchism; anarchy, well, that’s a different story. This is how it was described by one of the most representative theorists of this anarchic tendency, Gustavo Rodriguez, when he stated the following in an interview:

“We don’t believe in miracles, even less in ‘utopian societies’. Thus, we don’t busy ourselves in trying to ‘improve’ the image of that intangible product known as ‘Utopia’. We are convinced that ‘anarchist society’ won’t suddenly materialize first thing tomorrow. To be honest, we are pretty sure that it will never materialize. But this doesn’t bother us in the least.”

“For us Anarchy is not only possible but it materializes in an ephemeral manner every time there is a successful expropriation. It is constituted in those little moments in which the night is illuminated by refractory flames. It is confirmed in every jail break, it is verified by every instance of physical elimination of our enemies.”

Although we digress a bit from the main subject at hand, I will continue. The main point is that these isolated societies do not have a moral code similar to that of anarchism. So as stated in the second point they do not have equal opportunity, and that is something that is incompatible with what anarchism proposes. I think that if you wanted to find a good comparison with another system that aligns better with the positions, values, and practice of anarchism, you would need to have recourse to the communities of free spirits, hippies, peasants, and others who have went off by themselves to live a more autonomous or sustainable life. But with the small societies in voluntary isolation there’s really no comparison there. Though, after discussing all of that, my own question would be: what does anarchism refer to then? For there seem to be infinite meanings and interpretations over which even the anarchists themselves have little control.

XT: It’s interesting that you bring up concerning the groups of voluntary isolation in Mexico, but what do you think of the anti-development theories of Miguel Amorós?

RS: Amorós’s anti-development propositions are interesting in terms of the megamachine, not only describing its economic aspects but also its civilizing elements. They describe quite well what modern progress has ended in, perverting ecosystems and how it is that population growth has invaded our natural surroundings.

However, we must state that there are things that didn’t really convince us in Amorós’s book, “Anti-development perspectives” in which he stated: “the salvation of our age depends upon the generalization of [anti-developmentalism] as a determined form of consciousness.”

“Salvation of our age?” Maybe the above-mentioned theorist believes that one day in the distant future, when his ideas are “generalized”, the survivors will somehow “save” the age from harmful development, which seems to fall again into the vague category of “revolution”. And we’re not just speaking off the cuff here. The “friend” of the Friends of Ludd proposes a “new type of revolution”.

It should be repeated that his critique is good and in that regard it draws attention to the idea that he hints at when writing against work and consumption, a necessary negation considering his anti-development ideas. What we are not in agreement with is when he proposes a perennial imaginary scenario about a possible “revolution”.

Is it possible for the critique to remain in motion, the negation of all that exists, and the drive that incites the individualist to take the reins of his own life, stealing it and appropriating it, without wanting something more transcendent, like a “revolution”?

XT: Almorós’s position for you is useful but you disagree adamantly concerning the positing of a future that undoubtedly implies a “revolution” of a new type. One thing we’ve never read about is your opinion on how other sectors of society are affected. You have no opinion on sexual preference, disabled people, indigenous people in struggle, political prisoners, etc. Don’t you think that in focusing your criticisms on technological development, you are leaving behind a myriad of conflicts and submitting to the technological mindset at the same time in that you are becoming “specialists” in a manner of speaking which is of value to contemporary society?

RS: That’s a good question. Hold on to your hat because you are definitely not going to like our answer.

On “indigenous people in struggle,” as you have written, we have addressed this to the “Destroy the Prisons” group: We recognize the resistance of the Purepechas in defending and dying for the forests of Michoacán. We admire the rebellious Huichols who oppose with all of their might the development of mines in San Luis Potosí. We support the Chichimecas who resist the Christianizing of their native beliefs in Guanajuato. We back up the Mixtecos who reject at all costs the medicine of the city and prefer to continue to keep healing themselves with plants that they gather in the mountains of Oaxaca at the risk of being regarded as witches. We support the decision of the Kilwa who prefer extinction to being absorbed by Western life. We exalt the resistance that distinguishes some Raramuris as semi- nomads detached from civilization in the deserts of Chihuahua. The struggle against progress and in defense of the

Earth encompasses indigenous people who resist in their homelands, as well as civilized people in the cities committing acts of sabotage and terrorism against that same progress. For the struggle in defense of Nature is not one alone. The strategy, contexts, situations, and risks all vary.

As for “political prisoners”, there’s not much to say. If we don’t share their political positions and activism, we find no reason to defend them. Those who are in the can for those activities have their own circle of supporters, those people can take care of them while in prison. It should be pointed out that RS does not have anyone imprisoned for anything related directly to our activities, and truth be told we’re proud to be able to say that. For those jealous anarchists who we know full well criticize us, we ask: how many people in prison does RS have? None. How many imprisoned anarchists are there? A lot. That speaks much to how careful we are in terms of security, and that in the face of a recent series of actions and robberies that we carried out (Note: this refers to the counteroffensive of April 2015). We’ve always come out unscathed from these due to our boldness and discretion. This isn’t arrogance, it’s the reality. People who can accept that, great, but those who can’t can continue with their sniveling and sterile criticism.

Some time ago, the Nocturnal Hunter Faction of RS detonated an explosive at the Mexican Telethon Foundation, over there in the municipality of Tlalnepantla in the State of Mexico. The butane pipe explosive exploded in the entrance of that place destroying the glass that protected a bunch of wheelchairs for kids, leaving them all burned. In its communiqué, the faction stated the following:

“The ‘Teletón Foundation’, is also an agency along with the two most prestigious universities in Mexico (UNAM and ITESM), in charge of the development of technological and scientific innovation with therapeutic purposes, to say, together they completely adhere to the idea of civilized progress, to make sure this system follows its course. Surely many will ask: And what harm is caused by the existence of these types of charities for disabled people? Perhaps the questioners have not taken into account that the system always dresses as a “well intentioned nun” to continue perpetuating itself. Complete technology will always have the same purpose in whichever of its forms, whether therapeutic or weaponizing, educational or of massive destruction, medicinal or poisonous. And that purpose is to continue existing over wild nature, because of this our attack.

Without more explanations: We are not Christians, nor do we characterize nobility, we do not seek nor defend charity

from anyone or with anyone!”

Based on this attack many “Zerzanians” branded us as cruel, inhuman, even to the point of comparing us to ISIS, something that instead of bothering us, made us laugh out loud. And that’s because many “gringo primitivists” over there are so politically correct, so romanticist when it comes to their embedded image of the “noble savage”, that they are deeply scandalized when “Mexican” critics of the technological system do these sorts of things. We couldn’t care less about disabled people. Like persons without disabilities, they form part of the same complex system, and we attack their institutions regardless of if they are missing limbs or if they are sick or not. Yeah we did it, and we’ll keep doing it, regardless of what people think. Sexual orientation is a big thing now, the defenders of the rights of homosexuals and the rest of those people. They’ve won their struggle that they’ve been waging for years now and they can marry legally like everyone else. They can have jobs and even top level jobs, they can get medical attention if they are infected after some wild party, they can adopt kids, etc. Their struggle has meant that they can now integrate into society (with all of its prejudice) and be another cog in the machine. The same is the case for other previously vulnerable groups: feminists wanted gender equality, now they can be exploited by employers just like their husbands, fathers, and sons. Blacks can now hold important positions even in government (just like that bloodthirsty Obama!) which they were excluded from just 50 years ago; now they form part of the dirty system. It’s the same thing that happens with these disabled people. If we put in the same room an average man, a black man, a woman, a disabled person, a gay man, and an animal rights activist, you will see that they all have distinct personalities, thoughts, morals, abilities, etc. but one thing unites them. Every one of them has a role to play in society, and that’s to uphold the integrity of the system and make sure that it keeps on going. For us they are perhaps different but perhaps not, for we see one general rule followed here, and that is the HUMAN (such as it is) expressly contributes to the destruction of wild nature. His civilization is destroying all in its path, his technology is turning everything more and more mechanical and his science subjugates that which is natural and turns it artificial. We don’t focus on the problems of people, or on the problems of one sector in particular. I think that there are people who see, worry about, and fight on behalf of lesser causes, such as obtaining “rights”, new laws, reforms, support for oppressed groups, etc. That’s their specialty, not ours. We focus on the technological system, on civilization, for this is the root of all evils that besiege us as a species, the rest are symptoms of the real problem.

XT: In truth we have to agree to disagree (strongly) on these last points, from the way you tackle them to your opinion about oppressed groups. But let’s switch gears a bit and talk about the current low intensity war in Mexico centered around narcotrafficking. The escape of Chapo Guzman is clearly indicative of the complicity of some authorities with those elements. What’s your opinion on narcotrafficking?

RS: You know, Mexico is a steaming pile of shit. It’s conflicted, corrupt, and prostituted to the highest bidder, treacherous, run down, and even though there are people who say that there are “good things” about it, we see more bad things than good to be honest. Really we can’t even know if there person who was imprisoned in that maximum security prison and who escaped was actually Chapo Guzman, or an impostor. That’s for starters. Lies piled upon lies are daily fare here. Personally, I don’t trust anything that the media blabbers about, every one of them is blowing shit out of their ass. That there is a low intensity war going on, that’s for sure. But you can speak of this just not in terms of narcotrafficking, there are also groups, politicians, private interests, etc.

Drug trafficking continues because people consume a great quantity of narcotics, since city life has totally corrupted our species. They seek happiness in certain substances that only cause health problems. It’s a profitable business: as long as there are addicts, business is booming. But you know what? You’re going to say that I sound like a broken record, but the problem isn’t the addicts or the dealers, not the hired guns who kill defending their turf, nor the chemists who make the product, nor the politicians who permit the whole business, nor the drug lords who get rich off it all. The problem is civilization itself. And as long as the Great Cage exists, all of these problems, from narcotrafficking to corruption to prostitution to human and organ trafficking to pediophilia to rape and all of the other horrible things that we all know as those immersed in artificial reality will continue to exist as well.

Yes, it’s sad that entire families have to abandon their homes because of violence. It’s outrageous that one of your family members ends up being killed in the crossfire between drug cartel assassins and the Marines. It’s disturbing that the situation that we are living in Mexico is getting worse and more and more cynical by the day. But narcotrafficking and all of the things that go with it have only one cause, and that is civilization.

XT: That is an interesting point. To close, Mexico is living through a turbulent period, with an important social mobilization taking place. How do you see the future of this place? Are we getting close to a popular uprising?

RS: For a while we’ve been hearing about there being a popular uprising. There was one supposedly in Oaxaca in 2006, or a couple of years ago there was talk among experts of the right conditions for one in Michoacán. Even though this latter one was a bit different from what happened in Oaxaca, confrontation there died down gradually as the defense units started working with the government, whatever. They said 2010 would be the year, then 2012. After the disappearance of the students of Ayotzinapa there was a tense atmosphere in Guerrero as well as in the center and southern regions of the country. But what has happened up until now? Business as usual, injustices and massacres as in the past forty years. Repression of protesters and the indignant response to this repression… like a vicious circle, a circle in which the State comes out the winner. A large scale popular uprising? Yeah, whatever.

More to the point, two RS factions saw an opportunity to unleash a wave of violence and to inflict direct damage at the heart of Mexico City. On November 20^th of last year, on the anniversary of the Mexican “Revolution”, there was a demonstration demanding justice for the 43 students who disappeared in Guerrero. Tensions were high and confrontation was a given. The “Blood and Flame” and “War Dance” Factions of RS were in attendance, with every intention of instigating a confrontation between police and protesters. Members of these factions stated that they saw plain clothes police agent provocateurs infiltrating the anarchist Black Bloc. RS infiltrated their ranks and began the provocation. There was a moment where, if the momentum had continued, the people would have taken the National Palace, at which point the military police would have opened fire on those folks. That would have been the precise moment to return fire and escalate the conflict, deepening the war against civilization. We should clarify that, as always, RS doesn’t take all of the credit, there were many hooded folks and common people in various groups who were in the thick of it, that’s true. Even though what the factions wanted at that moment didn’t come to pass, the disturbance worried the government greatly.

In their communiqué, the factions stated:

“One of our objectives on the path to destabilization is to provoke violent confrontations so that guards open fire against the citizenry and the latter decide to defend themselves, thus escalating the conflict. ‘For when the crisis becomes more acute, it’s better to push it along and make it worse…’

As we have written previously, RS is not a group that either ‘understands’ or ‘respects’ the masses. We don’t participate in demonstrations to express “solidarity”, not to ask for ‘peace’ and ‘justice’. The RS factions want to escalate them and see this system and this civilization burn and fall due to the problems of those who constitute it.”

3^rd Interview (July, 2016)

Mexican Press Interviews ITS

Interview of the In the Morning (Por La Mañana – EPM) Team with the group, “Individualists Tending Toward the Wild” after its taking responsibility for the murder of José Jaime Barrera Moreno, Head of Services in the Department of Chemistry of the UNAM (National Autonomous University of Mexico)

Found on the Facebook page of Ciro Gómez Leyva, a Mexican journalist July 1^st , 2016

EPM: Why kill?

ITS: Why not? Is it a sin? A crime? Is it bad? Someone certainly said, “yes” to one of those questions.

We respond to be clear that we kill because this is WAR. We do not recognize any other authority but the authority of our pagan deities tied to nature and who against Catholicism and the Judeo- Christian god. These gods push us toward confrontation.

We kill because we do not recognize any other law but the natural laws that govern the whole of this dead world. We kill because we reject all morality that they seek to impose on us. We kill because we consider it neither “good” nor evil” but rather it is a response from our individuality to all of the destruction that human progress generates. Within the specter of terrorism, killing can be a strategy, a call, or a warning for what will follow…

Getting to the main point, we killed the head of Chemical Services of the UNAM to remind people that we can attack anyone at anytime within this university. It is to show that our objectives have widened since 2011. At that time, we targeted the scientists and investigators. Today the entire university community can be and are the target. Why? For the mere reason that they form part of the student community of this institution of higher education devoted to progress.

We warned the UNAM authorities in past months that if our actions continued to be silenced, there would be consequences. The result was this scandalous death within the University City that serves as a lesson. It doesn’t matter to us that it was just a worker. It would have been the same to us if it had been a student, or a teacher, or best case scenario, a renowned scientist. The real target, the UNAM, was struck again, the authorities are demoralized by it, and we have another death to our name.

EPM: How can you prove that this was done by your group?

ITS: The proof is in the facts of the case. There was nothing missing off of his person. It wasn’t a robbery. The body was found in a place where there were no cameras. This indicates a direct assault and that’s it. We know that the Mexico City police is already preparing its incompetent and idiotic “investigation” (like always) to indicate that it wasn’t us in order to not cause alarm among the university community.

We thought of scalping him as proof but that wasn’t possible at the time. As we wrote in our communiqué, that’ll be for next time. You and everyone else can’t think what you like, that it was a common mugging, a personal vendetta by people from his neighborhood, that it was a mistake, etc. But our record doesn’t lie. This isn’t our first time doing this, we have a reputation. We have demonstrated with this and other actions that we aren’t playing around.

EPM: How many targets do you have?

ITS: Our concrete target is all of civilization, the universities and companies that train slaves so that this system keeps growing, as well as malls and institutions that fill minds with garbage and make sheep that go directly to the slaughter. (By that statement we aren’t supporting “mass society,” which by its very existence threatens the Earth with destruction.) We attack the symbols of modernity, religion, technology, and progress. We attack directly those who are responsible for the spread of the urban stain that swallows up the last surviving wild places.

In summary, we, the eco-extremists, are against human progress that corrupts and degrades all that is beautiful in this world: that progress that makes everything artificial, mechanical, gray, and sad. We don’t tolerate it, so we have been at war with this civilization and disgusting progress for some years now.

EPM: They’ve never arrested anyone from your group?

ITS: In 2011, after blowing up two investigators from the Tec of Monterrey Atizapán Campus, we said that the PGR (The Office of the Attorney General) and the other security institutions were a JOKE, and we’ll keep saying it. Up until now, no one from our group has ever been arrested.

EPM: To what are you referring when you mention the attacks of April 25^th and 8^th?

ITS: We have to clarify here that ITS was NOT responsible for the attack on April 8^th at the University City. This was the work of another eco-extremist group from our tendency, and we mentioned it in our last communiqué to show that the university authorities silenced these attacks. On the other hand, the April 25^th attack was part of a coordinated operation of ITS groups in Mexico, Chile, and Argentina, namely:

• April 6^th: The “Mystical Horde of the Forest” abandoned an explosive device in the Department of Physical Sciences and Mathematics at the University of Chile in Santiago, although they found the device before it exploded. This generated a great deal of commotion among the university community in the country of earthquakes.

• April 12^th: The group, “Ouroboros Silvestre” detonated an explosive in front of the University of Ecatepec in Mexico State, only a few meters from the Municipal Palace in downtown San Cristóbal. The device exploded but no further details are known.

The same day the same group abandoned a timed explosive device in the Comunidad Educativa Hispanoamericana in the same municipality. The device exploded and wounded one of the security guards at the institution when he picked it up. This act was silenced by the media and the authorities of the municipality, who stated that the device exploded without any causalities and only resulted in material damages.

• April 19^th: The Group “Fury of the Lynx” detonated a homemade explosive device at one of the entrances of the Tec de Monterrey Mexico City Campus in Tlalpan, without more details being known.

• April 21^st: The Group, “Wild Constellations” abandoned a package bomb within the National Technological University in Buenos Aires, Argentina. No further details are known due to the silencing of the action by the authorities.

• April 25^th: The “Hidden Fury of the Lynx” group abandoned a timed explosive device also at the Comunidad Educativa Hispanoamericana in Ecatepec, but this time in the Architecture Department, which detonated but no further details are known.

The same day, the same group abandoned an explosive device of similar mak in the Engineering

Department, specifically in A Building, but further details are not known. All of these attacks were carried out by groups affiliated with ITS and responsibility was taken for them in our seventh communiqué.

EPM: Who were you attacking?

The April 25^th attacks in the University City in particular were symbolically and materially against the UNAM and any person in that university who happened to be in the vicinity when the explosives detonated. It’s false what the media is reporting, namely, that the April 25^th attacks were against the Chief of Chemical Services in particular. That’s a lie.

EPM: If you don’t believe in a better tomorrow, and are not revolutionaries, what are you asking for? What is the goal of your struggle?

We’re not asking for anything. We don’t have demands and we aren’t petitioning for anything. Can we negotiate concerning the loss of our natural human roots that resists the artificiality of civilization? Of course not. There’s no negotiation here or roundtable talks, none of that. We don’t believe in revolutions because these are always directed to “solving problems, to constructing something “newer and better”. Let’s just say that the era of “revolutions” and “revolutionaries” is over. There is no “revolution” that can change a negative thing into a positive one since all today is corrupted. Everything’s for sale, because what drives the world today is not political but economic power. Revolutions are a thing of the past, and we’ve understood this quite well. We don’t want to solve any problems here, we aren’t proposing anything to anyone. We aren’t trying to change the world, and we don’t want the masses to join us. Enough with the bargain basement utopias! Enough with the thinking that we can have a better world! Look around you, we are surrounded by the horrors created by this civilization, by an alienating technological reality (social media, telephones). We breathe the thick air of this dirty city. The roads full of cars; see the masses pressed up against each other on buses and on the metro. You can see on their faces that they’ve had it up to here with more of the same. Economic power is had by the few; they live in luxury and are surrounded by money and comfort. The media is sold to the highest bidder. If people protest, they are disappeared and killed. Social tensions heighten, and when it seems like things are finally going to explode, it all returns to normal, or another kind of “normal” at the most. That’s why we’ve stopped believing in a better tomorrow, because the decadent present is all we have, and in the present, all that we see is progress without brakes leading us over the civilized cliff.

Civilization is rotten and it keeps corroding but advancing at the same time. We would love it if we could make it collapse with our own hands, but that would be another childish desire. We’re not betting on the collapse of civilization, nor is its destruction one of our goals. Let that be clear.

On the philosophical front we are pessimists since we have seen all that is beautiful to us, namely nature, be lost, and it is being pushed closer to extinction. There’s nothing for us to fight for, except for our own individualities. We continue to be human and not robots. We are the Wild Nature that is left, the last of the last. We continue to consider ourselves part of nature and not its owner. We eco- extremists are rescuing our primitive roots. Among these is confrontation, the struggle that has identified us as the people of this land, sons of the mesquite and the coyote. We are at war with those who seek to domesticate us, just as our wildest ancestors were, who did not allow themselves to be subjugated by the Europeans who invaded the Gran Chichimeca.

Eco-extremists are domesticated animals who still retain their instincts. For most this will surely be “incoherent” as we say all this yet still use technology. We state that we don’t hesitate to use it to achieve our immediate goals. This is a fact, it doesn’t matter to us one bit if we fall into

“inconsistencies” here. We don’t care what anyone thinks, really. One of ITS and eco-extremism’s goals is attack, it’s to return the blows that Wild Nature has received without fashioning ourselves as “revolutionaries”. We do this disinterestedly guided by our egoist impulses. Eco-extremists are like the bees that sting leaving the stinger in the victim, knowing that they will die in the process. In this case, the victim is civilization, and we know that we aren’t going to come out of this war victorious.

This will seem to you like we are “mentally disturbed or unbalanced”, but look, nihilist eco- extremism is a tendency that was practically born in Mexico. It has since been taken up by individualists in Chile, Argentina, and Europe. So we’re not the only crazy ones here at least.

Perhaps this leaves more questions than answers at this point, but one thing is clear: what’s done is done.

For the internationalization of the Eco-extremist Mafia! For the extreme defense of Wild Nature! Death to the hyper-civilized!

-Individualists Tending Toward the Wild – Mexico

4^th Interview (August 2016)

As a reader, I have never been very satisfied with all of the interviews that have been done with eco-extremists through the years. The interviewers have either seemed badly informed, of bad faith, unwilling to engage with anything new, or they simply didn’t seem that smart. In any event, as a reader who is a bit more informed on these topics, I wanted to ask some questions that got to the bottom of what eco-extremism is, its origins, and recent developments. Thus, Xale, Chief Editor of Revista Regresión and a member of ITS-Mexico, an expert on these topics, has been very generous with his time in responding the following questions and/or thoughts.

It should be noted at the outset that this conversation is held in the journalistic spirit. We ask and answer the questions to inform and not to exhort in this document. The interviewer declares him/herself independent of ITS and eco-extremism, and the purpose of this interview is purely to inform and “entertain.”

Let us begin:

HH: Since the beginning of the new phase of ITS and its internationalization, what in your opinion have been the lessons that the eco-extremists have learned? How do you think eco-extremism has evolved since the beginning of this year?

Xale: This calendar year has seen a great amount of movement for us. It has been full of news, new complicities, and new characteristics of eco-extremist acts and texts.

As an individualist advocate of this tendency, I think that the lessons from this year from eco-extremism’s expansion vary widely and depend on the individualist who experiences them. Speaking personally I think that there has been a qualitative advancement regarding the extremist acts against selected targets. The intelligent reader will know that I am speaking of civilization and its progress.

The Chilean members of ITS have shown us that one can do a lot of damage with only one liter or less of flammable liquid. This they did on the Transantiago bus and at the Vivo Mall, in February and May, respectively. They have also taught us how, even if in some cases the devices don’t work, the threat remains. There is no discouragement and the war on the nerves continues.

The eco-extremist adherents to ITS in Argentina have also shown us a particular terrorist and indiscriminate attitude. The most recent bomb threats at schools, universities, and train station in May and June show us a defined tendency to disregard civilized human life in all its forms and in all of its corners. This is also evident after reading their most recent August communiqué in which they take responsibility for poisoning dozens of bottles of Coca-Cola that were distributed in a couple of supermarkets in Buenos Aires. In this manner they formidably threatened the social and physical well-being of the hyper-civilized.

Eco-extremists in Brazil have also recently joined ITS, showing the element of surprise. They have attacked ferociously and have shown that the threat of ITS is unpredictable. This irreverent attitude was manifest in the three kilos of blasting powder that they detonated in a shopping center in Brasilia. The attack leaves authorities demoralized since they have to search and search for those responsible. These attackers are now part of a tendency present in four countries which threatens to spread to more.

Eco-extremists in Mexico, the place where the international project of ITS was founded, have also demonstrated many lessons. Their homicidal attack against the Chief of Services of the Chemistry Department of the UNAM aimed to demonstrate the ease with which they can attack the hyper-civilized at any given moment with only a knife. In hitting this target, they showed that it is possible to strike at the most advanced center of study on its own turf. This assassination taught the authorities a lesson that they should not have covered-up past attacks on the University City.

The constant attacks with explosives show as well their capability of attack, the diversity of tactics, and their prolific activity even if these attacks are covered up.

The old ITS in 2011 focused on branching out nationally. From that year until 2013 it spread to Mexico City, Mexico State, Morelos, Hidalgo, Coahuila, Veracruz and Guanajuato. During this time, its expansion was barely halted. Now ITS-Mexico has a regional presence only in Mexico City, Mexico State, Jalisco, and Coahuila. Even though it has now internationalized, this shows the perseverance and continuity of the project.

Touching on the issue of theory, eco-extremism has also been growing in this regard. In the cycle of RS [Reacción Salvaje] I believe that the editors of Revista Regresión along with the factions of RS gave a theoretical basis for the tendency. These centered on the study of nomadic hunter-gatherer groups of this region, recovering their hostile attitude to all that is alien as well as their pagan animism. With the end of the cycle of RS, we gave these themes “a rest” and focused more on practice. Other theorists, however, have picked up the slack. I consider Chahta-Ima to be the most important eco-extremist theorist in this newest cycle. His essays and investigations have been fundamental for the development of other individualists by giving them foundations in history to attack or keep attacking.

The eco-extremist requires theory and practice. He or she needs to know and to do. They need to learn and at the same time to teach their brothers in arms.

Speaking generally, eco-extremism does not have “future plans”. It doesn’t act “under a program”. It doesn’t outline any future methods of struggle beforehand. There is no strategy to follow. We eco-extremists act spontaneously, we weigh whether an action is opportune or not for spawning a reaction. We follow our animal instincts and we continue with our warlike inheritance until, like the migratory dove, we disappear.

HH: I think people who read eco-extremist literature do not understand the role of the “war on the nerves”. I know that this has been explained previously, but you still find criticisms of eco-extremist actions that state that they should focus instead on attacking the power grid or whatever. They state that eco-extremist actions range in anything from jokes in poor taste (with bombs) or psychopathic murder (as was done at the UNAM). It hasn’t sunk in that all of those actions are part of a tactic known as “war on the nerves.” Being “under the radar”, deception, indiscriminate attack, etc. don’t just serve to strike out against the infrastructure of civilization (which, to be honest, is difficult to target, and upon being destroyed, it is rebuilt again providing “gainful employment” to the dumb masses). The purpose of these actions is also to become like the “monster under the bed”: a threat that civilization has created against itself. For me, at least, this stage of eco-extremism has underlined that aspect of ITS and the other groups.

Xale: Certainly, the people who make references to the actions of ITS and other groups as being “jokes in poor taste” or carried out by “murderous psychopaths” probably think that the war against civilization is a game. Maybe they think it’s only about attacking power grids or similar targets. We and the other eco-extremists no longer think that. We believe in waging a “total war” against civilization, as in a REAL war and thus we don’t worry about whether our acts are “acceptable” to other radicals or if they impress the media. If the actions of ITS bring disapproval from others, or are disturbing or intolerable, that’s precisely what eco-extremism wants. That is, to show that the War against Civilization should be taken seriously and it should be carried out by individualists who truly hate to the death all human progress. There should be blood spilled, there should be wounds and death since that is what War is. That’s what we carry out and we don’t hesitate in accepting this fact.

Lately the Western world has been classifying anyone who carries out any act of extreme violence as being a “psychopath,” “a mercenary,” etc. That’s what we see when they refer to the terrorist acts of the Islamic State, and indeed it is a strategy of governments and their media to belittle greater causes, lowering them to the level of being a mental disorder or what have you. It’s understandable then that people who share Western values follow this strategy to slander eco-extremists.

HH: What is the relationship between eco-extremism and nihilism? I ask since it seems like Nihilist Terrorism is the “branch” of eco-extremism in Italy and maybe in other places.

Xale: A little while ago the nihilist terrorist tendency has emerged and developed side by side with eco-extremism. This tendency is not passive and renounces all of the fundamental moral values of civilization. Terrorist nihilism, and especially the version that some groups of individualists in Italy have defended, is a philosophy with which we have found authentic affinity since it is totally opposed to the humanism and progressivism that we eco-extremists criticize so much.

I believe that the individualists of the Americas (of whichever country) feel sympathy with eco-extremism and this can be seen with the expansion of ITS. In certain groups, certain small but important aspects have been adopted from this tendency. But I have noticed that “Latin Americans” in particular have been more drawn to it than the Europeans who seem to be more drawn toward nihilism. But in this point, eco-extremism and nihilism go hand in hand.

It’s not unusual that we who inhabit the lands on this side of the world feel attracted to this tendency, since eco-extremism is the call of our ancestors. It is not a war for native separatism or indigenous identity, or to give a political sense to any of this. No, it is a war that we inherited from our ancestors. We invoke the dead of our grandfathers, and they have possessed us. Any individualist feels in the blood the fierceness of the ancients, be they Teochichimecas, Yahis, Selknam, the great variety of Amazonian tribes, etc. Surely they are looking upon us to see what we say and do. I believe that this is even a genetic question (to put it in scientific terms). Many eco-extremists still come from native families: this drives us to continue the conflict in which they gave their lives. That is to say, we aren’t strangers in this fight, we still heed the wild call to defend ourselves by any means necessary.

Historically, the Americas were invaded by the whites in the sixteenth century, and with them came destruction, epidemics and disasters. They raped our sacred lands, the profaned the tombs of our dead, they killed our elders, they enslaved our women, they sold our children, they burned our houses, they stripped the Earth of minerals and they humiliated our ancestors in the most disrespectful ways. They killed the prey we hunted with veneration, they mocked our spirits and exterminated our languages and our culture; they consigned them to oblivion, all this and more in only the last 500 years, which is a relatively short time. Today the situation is no longer a racial one, it’s no longer a question of the white man who commits the atrocities, but rather civilization as a whole. We no longer have anything to fight for, we don’t have a community with which we share a common tongue, tradition, and environment. Elders no longer impart to us their ancestral wisdom. They have domesticated us for years. They have made us live in big cities, they’ve made us need money to survive in urban areas and work like slaves for it. They’ve made us believe that science can explain everything or that religion is eternal salvation. They’ve enclosed us in schools to educate us. They’ve tried to take the warrior spirit away from us by eclipsing it with modernity and religion, progress and monotony, drugs and entertainment, humanism and non-violence. They have tried to bury in a deep grave the accursed history of our ancestors who stalked their enemies, shot them with arrows, scalped them, and took out their tendons to sustain the points of their arrows; they conspired, and they fought to the death. Xale, the Teochichimeca tlatoani (leader) lives in me. He speaks to me in the tumultuous wind, in the thunder that echoes indiscriminately through the city. He whispers to me in the moss of the river, in the Dragon’s blood that grows toward the sun, in the shadow of mesquite. He awakens me in the flames of the fire, in the eyes of the nocturnal coyote, in the frigid cold of the mountain, in the tracks of the mountain deer. He speaks and whispers to me, he teaches and guides me. He has taught me to transform myself into an animal when I carry out attacks alone or with my pack. He has told me that every eco-extremist has a spirit that accompanies him as well. He has told me that the very fact that we have these thoughts means that we are a danger to our enemies and one of the most important things that he has told me is that revenge will be terrible…

HH: Indeed, it seems to me that the nihilist-terrorists of Europe have their own peculiar mode of expressing themselves. But overall the affinity comes in action. Some nihilists in other parts think that eco-extremism is trying to shame those who think that to carry out any action is “moralism”. I know that you’re not a nihilist in the same sense as your allies in Europe, but in your opinion, can you be a nihilist without physically attacking this society? Some nihilists say that their “Ego” doesn’t really want to attack anything, and it’s better to do whatever they wish.

Xale: That’s the attitude characteristic of the passive nihilist, one who states that attack isn’t an essential part of their thinking. It’s understandable that nihilism has those sorts of variations and misrepresentations in the modern era, but this does not conform to the original school of thought. It’s well-known that before the October Revolution in Russia, there existed a large number of women and men in secret societies who carried out selective and indiscriminate attacks that pushed Czarist Russia towards the abyss. These were the founders of terrible nihilism. These women and men aimed to wound society, they were driven toward a confrontation with the forces of that regime; those who made bombs to throw at those who were responsible for the societal and economic ills of the time. They were the ones who stabbed and stained their hands with blood; for their time they were quite advanced. Today they’ve “calmed down”, the new nihilists are dedicated to criticizing without doing anything. They relax and are bogged down in their own inertia. There’s even a philosophical strain of nihilism based mainly in art (?), but it too is “nihilism”. What I would take from all of this is that, even among all of the flavors of our time, there do exist real nihilists who ferociously confront society in the same manner as the original thinkers did. In Italy, we have the examples of “The Nihilist Sect of Free Death,” “Memento Mori Nihilist Sect,” and the “Cenaze Terrrorist Nihilist Clan.”

HH: Related to this question, it seems like a difference between the first stage of ITS and the Reacción Salvaje stage was a return to indigenous / savage / pagan roots with RS. Even now there are references to “Chicomoztoc,” etc. But I perceive a diminishing of this aspect in the present in favor of an opening to other ideas and ways of understanding things. Do you think that this perception is correct? Is this a necessary part of the expansion of eco-extremism?

Xale: Yes, as I have mentioned in the first response, in this stage of eco-extremism, we have put aside references to native groups a bit, since we have recently been studying and mentioning the question of paganism.

This shift in interest from the native theme can be seen in the communiqués that have been published of late as well as the content of Revista Regresión. And as you have indicated, there has been an opening to other questions concerning nihilism and criminal activity. I should clarify that this is not because we consider it more important to speak on these themes rather than focus on the war of indigenous peoples. No, it is our current circumstance which demands that we expand into other variants which can conform to the eco-extremist tendency.

With RS there was a concrete study centered on native war, and in fact most of the communiqués of that group had references to the war inherited from our ancestors. But after this cycle, and having more individuals who participate in our theory and practice, it is necessary to make an opening into other themes to consolidate the tendency.

HH: One interesting thing is that “to be native” in places like Canada and the United States doesn’t necessarily entail illegality nor war against civilization. Many modern tribes function almost like businesses. They have casinos or they rent their land out for oil and gas exploration, etc. Nevertheless, some critics have stated that eco-extremism exploits the memory of “dead indigenous peoples” for its sick anti-social causes. How would you characterize the relationship between eco-extremism to today’s indigenous peoples who are not that opposed to (and are sometimes allied to) civilization?

Xale: This criticism always makes me laugh a lot. To say that we are exploiting the memories of “dead indigenous peoples” only lengthens the list of excuses from this type of critic. Eco-extremists don’t exploit anyone’s memory. We would be “anti-social crazy people” if we were justifying by the same discourse the rape and prostitution of children, organ trafficking, sex with corpses, and the other illnesses derived from the atrophied minds of the hyper-civilized. But as we are only justifying politically incorrect acts against civilization, acts that were carried out by our ancestors, and even some contemporary tribes, this criticism is completely erroneous.

I am not going to deny that many indigenous and native groups in many parts of the world are accomplices to the major corporations that are devastating their territories. I am not going to deny that many indigenous peoples here in Mexico even are separated from their traditions and they have adopted Western practices. This often leads to harm to their environments as mandated by large corporations. You can count those tribes not absorbed into the dominant society on two hands; there are very few. Although I should say in many cases where indigenous peoples depart from their origins, they do so under their own volition because they want to adapt to the modern way of life. In other cases, however, they are manipulated to do so and are put into conditions which force them to depart from their cultural origins and join the walking dead in the cities. Here there are very well-known cases of companies that arrive in secluded villages to get cheap labor, and they convince the indigenous people there to work in the cities since they will get good money and creature comforts, which turns out to be completely false. When the companies no longer need them, they abandon them to their fate there. They then have to survive in a city as monstrous as the Mexican capital, and it is very unkind to survive on the streets here if you are an outsider. Thus, the indigenous people end up being homeless drug addicts, or in jail or dead. It’s a sad situation, sure, but it’s part of daily reality.

HH: Eco-extremism has a very complicated relationship with anarchism. Sometimes such phrases come up as “Anarchy by not anarchism.” Can you be an anarchist and aligned with eco-extremism? How would that go?

Xale: I just got finished writing an article entitled, “Indiscriminate Anarchists,” for issue No. 6 of Revista Regresión, where I describe the terrible terrorist acts that anarchists committed that have been buried and long-forgotten. In the text I mention the constant fights between anarcho-bandits and the anarchist-humanists of their time. This was due to the fact that the former always attacked their targets without regard to hurting innocent bystanders. These acts could be classified as “indiscriminate attacks,” a practice that has been a point of contention among today’s anarchists.

With this text soon to be published, I show evidence that some anarchists in the 19^th century acted indiscriminately, violating moral and political codes of morality that are associated with anarchism as they were understood by the great majority of the traditional anarchist movement.

With this text I also aim (if only temporarily) to resurrect those anarchos from the tombs in which the official and not-so official history wished to leave them.

It’s funny to read, for example, about how the social anarchists were scared stiff by the terrorist acts of Di Giovanni around 1900. It is uncanny that some contemporary anarchists have the exact same reaction when they learn of our attacks, namely, calling us, “bandits,” “inhuman,” “these aren’t our comrades,” “let us exclude them from our movement,” “random attacks are for cowards,” etc.

Responding to the question, I think that anarchists CAN be allies to the eco-extremists, only if and when these anarchists firmly hold to the demonical and terrorist characteristics of their predecessors. On the other hand, the humanist anarchist who worries about society and dreams of a “better world” CANNOT be an ally of eco-extremism.

HH: What would be the difference then between an anarchist who sympathizes with eco-extremism and one who rejects it vigorously?

Xale: The difference would be substantial. In fact, the anarchist who sympathizes with eco-extremism would have to subvert much of what was said by traditional anarchist thinkers, shaking off the humanism and progressivism that aims to obtain a better world without “State-Capital.” He or she would have to leave aside utopias and focus on the decadent and pessimist present in which we find ourselves. He or she would have to assume the role of an individual within our present circumstances and act accordingly. He or she would have to disregard all that is human (in philosophical terms). He or she would have to act in a cold and calculated manner without regard to collateral damage. He or she would have to be like Di Giovanni, like Mario Buda, like Santiago Salvador, like the galleanist anarchists.

HH: It seems to me that “social” anarchism is a vestige of the old politics of the masses. I can’t really say much about that, as I have never been an anarchist and I don’t know the history very well to be honest. On the other hand, I suspect that a lot of individualist actions that you mention took place before the “modern era of Revolutions,” as in Russia in 1917, Spain in the 1930’s etc. The social anarchist has a lot of trouble closing that chapter of history, even if the rest of the world (political or not) already has. The rest of the world has renounced all of this talk of the masses fighting in the streets or whatever. Even in extremist Islam, when it hasn’t been a question of conventional war, many of their attacks are individualist and indiscriminate. But the social anarchist can’t separate himself or herself from the idea of “waking up the masses,” to bring forth a “new dawn,” because he or she can’t renounce the old analysis or it would take away their hope and they would have to become a disgusting nihilistic eco-extremist or something like that.

Xale: The historical context which unleashed this accursed anarchy that I am speaking of happened before and after the Bolshevik Revolution and before and after the Spanish Civil War of 1936.

For example, Santiago Salvador acted alone in November 1893 when he attacked the Great Theater of the Liceo in Barcelona. This was in revenge for the death by firing squad of his friend Paulio Pallás (another anarchist terrorist who in September of that year attacked General Martínez Campos in the middle of a military parade in Barcelona. The terrorist threw a couple of bombs at his carriage, and the general was wounded in the attack, with two generals and a civil guard killed. There were also dozens of bystanders also wounded.) Salvador hid in his clothes two Orsini bombs, a very popular bomb among anarchists of the day that detonated when it struck the floor or other hard surface. The terrorist waited for the opera’s intermission and threw two bombs indiscriminately at the public from the balcony. The first bomb created an infernal deafening sound and blasted human flesh, blood, and splinters everywhere. The second landed on the fancy gown of a woman wounded in the first explosion, but didn’t detonate as the dress softened the impact of the bomb. This anarchist attack left 22 dead and 35 gravely wounded.

Maybe many contemporary anarchists don’t remember that the author of this attack was one of their political predecessors. It’s a pity that such an emblematic personality, who in his moment was a terrible enemy of society and the system, has been forgotten (as have many others). Not totally, of course, there are still those among us who remember him.

HH: There is certain ambiguity concerning the term “re-wilding”. Sometimes it is said that the eco-extremist must do what he can to not be dependent on civilization, but at the same time, “there is no future.” Is there a defined position on “re-wilding” or does it depend on each individual eco-extremist?

Xale: Re-wilding as we understand it differs a bit from how the Yankee eco-radicals understand it. I believe they were the first ones to employ this term. The meaning for them is to designate actions in favor of wild nature, always relating to the preservation of an environment and the spreading of natural settings into the urban spaces in which humans can then little by little become feral.

Personally, I know some eco-extremists who weren’t born in the city and at this very moment are leading the lives of nomads in some place within what is geographically known as “Mexico.” They go out for a while, return to their places, and then decide to attack civilization. It’s a very effective strategy.

That type of eco-extremist has decided to “re-wild” in wild nature itself: to wander like nomads, knowing how to hunt, to make friction fire, use animal skins, gather food, etc. Personally, I respect very much their way of life and consider that if that’s how they want to live, I’m all for it. In any event, to be in constant contact with wild nature always does something beautiful to you. You always give it a much greater value. This type of eco-extremist also knows that there is no future. That’s why he’s up in the wilderness before it all gets completely destroyed. Fortunately here in Mexico there are still wild places in comparison with other parts of the world where they no longer exist.

On the other hand, the eco-extremists of the city also “rewild” themselves individually in their own way. Many of us know how to do what the “nomadic” eco-extremists can do in given situations. But in the city one needs to know how to move about and to be the “wolf in sheep’s clothing”. City eco-extremists need to know how to wage war, how to attack, ambush, evade authorities, mug, use firearms, and savor the last breath when taking the life of an enemy. All of this is also re-wilding: to return to the primitive in a conflict inherited from our ancestors; to put into practice the tactics that the ancients used but in our own conditions. In fact, the murder that ITS carried out also represents “individualist re-wilding”. The goal of assassinating an UNAM employee was not just to take him out and create negative reactions to this act, but rather with the same act, the members of ITS also murdered the civilized person within, killing little by little with thrusts of the knife those Western values imposed on them from childhood onward.

For me and my own, the eco-extremists of the city and outside of it, there is no future; there is only the present. We don’t have anything to fight for except ourselves. To re-wild ourselves is to know how to move about like hunters, to learn to stalk the enemy, to hate him, to spill his blood, to scalp him and offer the scalp to the dead. But it is also to know wild nature, to lose oneself in the wilderness, to be in contact with the cycle of the seasons; to know it, breathe it in, and love it.

HH: Some people have accused eco-extremism of being in favor of authority, since it rejects anarchism. Does eco-extremism have an abstract position regarding “authority” or is too much of a scholastic question in our context?

Xale: You can’t deny that authority has had an important role in human societies. In each ancient ethnic group there has always been a leader in war as well as in spiritual matters. The woman who gathered food could be considered a type of leader when the hunt went badly, being the “head” of the tribe in difficult times. Only relatively recently have we only seen the negative face of authority with the rise of authoritarianism. It has been translated into a concrete phenomenon that has wanted to “impose on us something by force.” That’s due to Western culture that we have stuck in our brains. Forced education accompanied by an authority figure who tells us what to do or say is the model in which we were educated. Up to a certain point, then, it is understandable that many consider authority something harmful and invasive.

It is necessary to cast off that Western culture to see authority with other eyes; to differentiate between an authority figure who wants to impose something on us at all costs and an authority figure who imparts to us valuable teachings due to his knowledge.

Thus, without beating around the bush I can say that eco-extremism doesn’t demonize authority, and it doesn’t flatly reject it as the anarchists do, for example. This is because we don’t only see its negative side in the Western way, but also we see the positive side of authority as indigenous people saw it. In fact, many anarchist groups have had leaders or authority figures. They might call them by another name, like “an example to follow,” but that’s another story. We can also say in the examples of the anarcho-bandits, etc. there was an anarchist among them who had a greater presence, who incited the rest, who had the most initiative, and whose knowledge was more elaborate. To give one example, Di Giovanni was the leader of his crew due to his commitment to all that he did, including bombings editing of books and newspapers, writing letters to defend himself from the calumnies of the “anarcho-Franciscans,” the execution of undesirable people, and hold-ups etc. Bonnot was the one who led his group of robbers in France since he had the most experience in robberies. Miguel Arcángel Rosigna was the one who led a group of robbers in Uruguay due to his almost perfect methodology and intelligence in committing robberies and jail breaks.

Even Bakunin could be considered an authority figure, but don’t freak out here anarchist reader. He’s an example of benign authority who taught valuable things with his theories. Due to this, the anarchist movement became a threat to its enemies.

Thus in gradually answering your question, I think that authority for the eco-extremist is an abstract theme. We don’t put special emphasis on it since we have no problem in accepting it.

HH: It’s true that leftism and anarchism (in general) treat authority as an absolute metaphysical category, when traditionally it hasn’t been anything like that. I blame modern man who can do nothing, is completely domesticated, and for that reason obsesses about the question of authority. In other societies, authority was charismatic. Even in the most primitive bands, however, there were laws and social codes that one had to follow whether you liked it or not. I read recently of someone saying that the modern anarchist wouldn’t hack it in primitive band society because their role would be defined within the band and you can’t shirk your obligation there. And all that without the state or the police, mind you. On the other hand, the social anarchist seems totally bound to solidarity and reciprocity among “comrades” or whatever they call them. But that morality is never questioned…

Xale: I agree with you that the anarcho-primitivst would surely get thrown out of the primitive band like a dog if he or she were ever to try to join one. Surely they would always be whining about something and pushing the others to rebel against the shaman or something like that.

HH: I believe that many interested readers especially in the United States think that eco-extremism isn’t for them, since there the state is very powerful and eco-extremist action does not appear possible. Is there a way to be an eco-extremist in the United States without being immediately thrown in prison or shot down by the police?

Xale: I sincerely believe that people who think that eco-extremism is not possible because you have the largest security agencies in the world “in house” so to speak are cowardly people who can’t think of ways to carry out actions in the United States without getting caught. It’s true that the NSA is spying on the majority of radicals and that the FBI has a list of potential trouble-makers. And it’s certain that the police have infiltrated extremist groups to the point of being able to break them up. I’m not denying that. I think that the problem lies in people who are under suspicion, the ones already on a list and who have their photo in the system. They are people who are part of certain movements and are already suspects for the security agencies. Those people who join movements love the spotlight, to be recognized as being “the most radical.” And they like to brag. Now let’s think of an eco-extremist who isn’t interested in any of that, who acts alone or with an accomplice. Someone who keeps a low profile, who doesn’t hang out in the places where there are people who belong to radical movements (anarchists, environmentalists, ecologists, Black Bloc, etc.). Let’s think of an eco-extremist who knows how to hide, (as much as possible) his Web history. We would consider this person to be very cautious, untrusting and intelligent. Under certain conditions I think that this eco-extremist could carry out attacks without getting caught or killed by the police. Of course, I know all of that is easier said than done. An eco-extremist should have conviction, dedication, patience, and commitment.

An eco-extremist would be very capable of carrying out attacks in the United States, come out unscathed and continue the war, of that I am certain. Only time will tell if I am right…

HH: This is a sensitive issue, and I am not suggesting anything concrete here, of course. I am only observing. But it seems like individualist and indiscriminate attack is a constant theme among people in the U.S., or at least the Yankee mentality obsesses over it. John Zerzan, for example, is always going on about the “mass shooter” who kills innocent people in clubs, schools, or other public places for no reason or for “twisted” ones. As you well know, everyone up there has guns, and lots of guns, of every caliber, etc. The shooter always shoots himself in the end or is caught by the police, but there is never a way to stop these “lone wolves” before it’s too late. I mention this because it can explain the reaction of the well-behaved anarchos when faced with eco-extremist attacks. It’s not a question of something that is separate from their daily lives, but is rather very much a part of it: a “crazy guy” with a gun killing people out of pure frustration.

Xale: I think what you are talking about is really a cultural question. In Mexico there are not really a lot of cases that I know of where a person starts shooting randomly at people. If people have guns here is for protection, for revenge, or it’s for a job (assassination, assault, kidnapping, etc.) If someone gets killed, people don’t say it was because of frustration or it was done by a person who was mentally disturbed. Instead they’ll say something like, “he probably deserved it,” “it was just his turn,” or “that’s what you get for trying to fight back!”

I remember one case over here that was similar to the “mass shooter” thing over there. In 2009, a man was painting slogans in Balderas Station in the Mexico City metro about global warming, the responsibility of governments, etc. The police tried to stop him, and all of this during rush hour and with the station full of people. The man resisted arrest and from his belongings he took out a revolver and killed the policeman trying to arrest him. Many passengers were terrified and tried to hide in the cars. Some bystanders tried to play the hero and take the weapon away, and without remorse he shot them in the same manner. He left some wounded and one dead in the skirmish. When his clip was empted, he was surrounded and almost lynched. He was finally arrested, and the press published that he suffered from schizophrenia due to the treatments he had undergone in an insane asylum. This led to the violent reaction, but in any case, he was condemned to spend some years in a “mental health” clinic and was afterward released. Maybe in this case people over here would say, “that fucker was crazy,” but the context is quite different from what happens over in the United States, though the root causes are the same. In this case, it was the medicine that he was given that made him have a schizophrenic episode; the medicines and treatments that derive from the main problem, civilization.

Addressing the U.S. context, from my perspective I think that the mass shooters have real reasons to carry out those sorts of indiscriminate attacks. They’re not just doing them to do them, or from nothing. They aren’t just shooting to fire their gun. There was something that drove them to do it and plan it out. Killing a large number of people like that considering how they did it can only be the result of a great number of religious, social, clinical, and cultural causes, as well as economic and political one, etc. I’ve known of people who were bullied in school who one day decided to show up to class with an assault rifle and take out the person who was bullying them. Some others have done so for racial injustice against blacks, others for religious reasons and they attack U.S. society since they consider it an enemy of Allah. Others do it out of “white supremacy.” Some do it because they are on psychoactive medications. In the case of U.S. eco-extremism, should it ever emerge one day, the reasons for an act of this type would be attacked but we would know that it was the only option. With this we arrive at the conclusion that civilization is the problem and we attack it without hesitation. That is to say, all of the causes and reasons, actions and their consequences, derive from a framework of diverse conditions, and I think they deserve a profound analysis before condemning them. Those cases and others are for me a single reaction of animal human instincts that attempt to manifest themselves in civilization. And since they find themselves unable to develop as they had previously, they find a release in those conditions. You have to accept that. All of us in civilization are to a certain extent “frustrated” for one reason or another. Thus to say that those acts are derived from frustration is not a conclusion that is totally mistaken when all is said and done.

HH: I think that the “theoretical work” of our current time is to find a means to re-found a paganism / animism apart from the secular mentality of leftism and Western monotheism. For me this signifies a profound knowledge of one’s local environment. Do you think a change in perception, separating oneself from humanism and anthropocentrism, would change the “pessimist” rhetoric of eco-extremism? Or rather, if Nature is the one who wins at the end of the day, and human beings are the real “villains” who are defeated, would this mean that the “true nihilists” are the ones who defend civilization, and, why not, society and humanity simply put. What do you think of this analysis?

Xale: The change in perception that you are speaking of would have to be radical. We would have to change from pessimists to optimists, from nihilists to positivists.

Maybe there would be some eco-extremist or someone similar who, due to his cultural formation and social conditions, would have a different perception to the one discussed here and, as you imply, would consider modern humanity to be the real nihilists. Though, if he did have that perception, I don’t think the central idea of the individualist defense of wild nature would change, nor the embodied recognition of the old deities linked to that nature who are the fundamental basis of this.

But now reality dictates the pessimistic setting and it is within this framework that we develop. We don’t have another option to take up and act on.

HH: What is the role of criminality in eco-extremism? It seems to have emerged as a major theme on the blogs, Revista Regresión, etc. What would you say to those who would object that criminality is also part of civilization and does not merit being idealized?

Xale: Criminal activities are a fundamental part of the eco-extremist tendency. Criminality in this case consists of stealing, planting bombs, burning things, threatening people, acquiring ingredients for explosive devices, transporting arms and explosives, storing these, conspiring with individualists in other parts of the world to carry out attacks, assassinate people, and in some countries it’s even a serious crime to publish, translate, and edit these types of messages inciting people directly or indirectly to carry out crimes. We eco-extremists are criminals, thugs, thieves, murderers, and attackers. That’s the essence of all of this, it is its nature. In this we aren’t idealizing anything. It’s a practice inherited from the naked savages who robbed cattle from the Spaniards, those who ambushed and attacked their caravans; of those who killed the enemy and raided their towns reducing them to ashes; of those who poisoned the tips of their arrows, etc. This is the practice we are continuing only in a different time and context, but in the end it’s the same war. This refers to the practice of criminality, but as a term we have coined it as rhetoric. If society and the authorities say that we’re criminals that means we are. If they say we’re terrorists we’re that too. Those labels don’t scare us, we’re not going to try to defend ourselves saying that we’re not criminals because within their juridical terms we are. We aren’t going to get indignant at this name like the majority of “revolutionaries” and “radicals” do when they’re called those things. Eco-extremists don’t defend “just causes”, their “compassion” and “humanism” don’t represent them. On the contrary, they are best represented by violence and the lack of consideration for civilized life.

Many people see criminality as part of civilization, sure. Many even think that it is a product of social conditions that some suffer in civilization, and that is also true. Evidently, if civilization did not exist, criminality in its juridical aspect would not either. But I emphasize, only in the juridical aspect. This is because crimes against anyone would also take place without civilization. But it needs to be asked, would criminal acts be classified as criminal without civilization? Or would they be classified as retribution only? Or in the modern era is there no difference? Is criminality something that emerges from the problems of a civilization, or could they be considered a consequence without it having to be strictly associated with civilized conditions? We ask this since it has to be remembered that everything in this world and outside of it is governed by cycles, all is constant movement where every action is followed by a reaction.

Let’s take one example: the Aztecs considered the Teochichimecas to be barbarous and uncivilized, and they didn’t dare to explore the Gran Chichimeca. When they did they encountered hostile savages who expelled them violently. The Aztecs then did not consider these natives to be criminals, just “uncivilized”: a people without culture. Under this logic, the Aztecs focused on building a civilization without interfering in the Teotlalpan Tlacochcalco Mictlampa (“the northern place where death dwells” in Nahuatl). Maybe their gods recommended to them not to mess with the Teochichimecas. They listened to that recommendation and left them alone. They devoted themselves to conquering and expanding their empire by subjugating other tribes that were easier to conquer. The War Chichimecas, looking at the Pre-Columbian civilized people, did not enter their territories, and had no need to come into conflict with them.

When the Spanish arrived at the Gran Chichimeca, they began a campaign of total war against those accursed uncivilized peoples. These people responded accordingly with the same harshness as the white man and even worse. It was then that they were considered criminals by the laws of the Spanish crown, and they were then enslaved, domesticated, or exterminated. That is to say, the actions of the Spanish who attacked the Teochichimecas created this reaction.

I would even say that if the Westerners hadn’t arrived with that insatiable attitude of subjugating all people and things, the Teochichimecas would have just continued on with their simple lives, that’s for sure. They would have merely continued to fight against neighboring tribes as that was their perennial tradition due to their conflict-prone nature.

The same is true of the eco-extremists. Since civilization wants to completely artificialize, mechanize, and domesticate us, we respond violently like our ancestors did. Thus criminality is not just a product of modern civilization as such. It doesn’t arise from it. It is given the name of “crime” by the laws of this society but in itself it is a general consequence of an action depending on the established system called civilization, the system of domination, etc.

This reasoning is based only on the juridical-historical aspect, an official punitive matter. But if we break down the term “criminality” a little more, we will see that it is quite relative, and it bases itself on a fixed moral position as in the examples that I will cite here:

-A man holds up a bank with his gun, he threatens the teller with blowing his brains out if he doesn’t give him all the money in the till. In this case, the robber will consider that at that moment he is committing a crime, or perhaps not. Maybe he will think he is doing something “bad” or perhaps not. Maybe like many bank robbers in Mexico City, a bank robbery is just another “job” where he risks his life to earn money, employing strength and intelligence, just like a miner, a window washer on a tall building, or a metal worker.

But for the teller, the manager of the bank branch, and the police, that man is a criminal and he is doing a “bad” thing.

– A worker in a slaughterhouse kills dozens of head of cattle daily. He slits their throats with a sharp knife so that they bleed out and their meat is then processed. It’s a dirty job but at the end of the day this employee is considered to be a “good” citizen because at the end of the week he gets his wage with which he can support his family and as an extra he contributes to the food industry. Slitting the throats of cattle is not considered to be “bad” and much less a crime. But for many radical vegans what the worker in the slaughterhouse does is “bad” and he is a criminal for killing animals so that others may eat them. For that reason the vegans decide to torch his car.

-A law student wants to “be somebody” in life and for that reason in school he doesn’t care if he has to claw over others to get ahead in his law practice. He uses tricks to get his degrees and finally gets to be an important lawyer. In his career he is charged with putting people who are falsely accused behind bars and with successfully advocating for the clients who are almost always rich. For that lawyer none of this is “bad,” and much less is he considered a criminal just because he jails people with false evidence while receiving a handsome compensation in return for each case won. At the same time, his wealthy clients are quite pleased with him. But the relatives of the people he puts in prison don’t think the same about him. For them what he is doing as a lawyer is anything but “good.” And one among them even considers him a criminal. And knowing that he will never get his day in court, that relative decides to follow him and put a bullet in his brain.

As you can see in these examples, and as I stated above, if we analyze the term “criminality,” in many cases we would see the term as relative. For sure, eco-extremists don’t see criminal activity as actions that are either good or bad, but as consequences of other actions, employing and defending the term within the rhetoric that characterizes us.

HH: What would you say of Zerzan’s crew who think that eco-extremists should flee into the mountains to fight against the cartels to free wild places?

Goddamn Zerzan and his buddies! Their stupidity and the incoherence of their criticism never cease to amaze me! Haha it’s obvious that they’ve run out of valid criticisms and they’re just spitting out ridiculous things like that. This would be as if someone asked Zerzan’s band of anarcho-primitivists, “If you criticize technology so much why do you have a radio show on the Internet?” And they looked equally dumb in telling us that we have to go and fight the cartels so that they leave the mountainous regions where they inhabit alone.

To respond to their question I would ask Zerzan and his disciples: Why do we have to go into the mountains to fight against the drug assassins of this or that cartel? We would have to do that if our goal was “earth liberation,” or if our goal was “re-wilding” in the gringo style. But as those are not our goals they can go fuck themselves. There’s no doubt that their chief Zerzan and his subordinates are only thinking within their own terms. They can’t level a sincere or valid criticism because they can’t get out of their closed mentality where they think they’re always right in what they preach. It’s a shame, we were hoping that with all that was written against their (anarcho) primitivism they would come up with a thoughtful criticism but I guess we were wrong. Maybe in another lifetime…

HH: With this question our conversation ends. The truth is that few who read this conversation will agree with all that is contained herein. But the truth is that eco-extremism doesn’t appear to be going anywhere. As a defined tendency, it is still quite young. It’s only five years old, and it has changed much during that time. But we are now living in the ruins of failed utopias, be they socialist, capitalist, or religious. Within that context, eco-extremism will continue to be an option. People hate eco-extremism not only because it is opposed to society, but also because it reflects society without civilized illusions. It reflects the disgust and frustration that the hyper-civilized have, things that they feel but can’t change. It is an attack on all of the lies of the domesticated world. The idealists of today don’t even swallow the pill of optimism and humanism. The world is on the edge of the cliff and there is no turning back. Alea iacta est.

5^th Interview (May 2017)

Second interview with ITS by Radio Fórmula of May 12, 2017. This one focuses on the scandalous murder of a woman in Ciudad Universitaria.

“Why did they kill her?”

The question may have several answers, but let’s get to the point, the murder of the woman in Ciudad Universitaria was a brutal and suffocating reaction of disgust towards the modern human being. Do you think that a person wandering at dawn, shaken by the chemical drugs ingested, is worth living? We think NO, that is why that being received what he wanted, what he deeply wanted, death.

All members of ITS completely repudiate the vices of the modern human being, we reject sharply their disgusting fun, we hate those who with the little or much money they have are living altering their senses, these and these only take away air, are a waste, A trash of people, whether women or men, are the same virus that infects this beautiful Earth that is why they deserve its extinction.

The woman murdered in CU is the faithful reflection of a decadent society that lives with regret, weak people who can not face life with all its crudity, and decides to drug itself with foreign substances, cowards that are only in the world vegetating uselessly.

It is funny that the reaction to having murdered a woman inside CU is so great, and although it is not strange, surely it would have been the same if a woman had been murdered in the National Cineteca, the Polytechnic, or any other area in Where feminists make their own. CU as we have said is one of the cradles of progress, that is where pestilent humanism is hidden and taught under the deceptive mantle of “own and critical thinking.” The samples of repudiation we have already seen and left us with a smile spilling bile, all these feminists are idiots who with those banal demonstrations only make them look helpless, they look like a “revictimized victims”, something completely contrary to what they wanted show. For all feminists and “feminists,” that is, for all progressives,

Ah! And by the way, yes, we are against progress, we hate technologicalized society, and we care a grain of ground cumin being “incongruous” with that discourse, this is seen when we use computers to throw our misanthropic messages into mass.

6^th Interview (2017, Mexico)

This interview was answered in 2017 for the journalist Laura Castellanos, and partially published in her book “Chronicle of a cloaked country” in October 2018.
It is published here in full.
Sent to the mail.

1) When I interviewed them in 2011, their objective was to sabotage nanotechnology scientists because they were the innovators of Techno-industrial development. Why did they start attacking ordinary citizens as well? Why not the powerful who make the decisions that have caused chaos and destruction in this civilization? Do ordinary citizens attack because it is easier for them and it is less risky?

Starting with this interview, we want to emphasize that you have never interviewed us, the person you interviewed was a fraud who hid behind our most recent job at that time (the attack on the Tec de Monterrey in August 2011), to gain fame for others, who to be clear.
Making this clear, we proceed to respond. From 2011 until now our objectives have expanded, as you say, we have gone from attacking centers of technological innovation, to targeting the civilian population. This for a specific reason, because our War against civilization is TOTAL, it is very reductionist to say that “the powerful make the decisions that have caused chaos and destruction in this civilization” as you have written in this question 1, we remember that the “powerful” are not civilization itself, they do not fully represent civilized values, they are also represented by society in general, from the humble worker to the large corporations of scientific innovation. Civilization as such is not only the accumulation of great devastating companies on Earth, it is also the infrastructure that keeps cities and encroaching urbanization on their feet. Civilization is not the hundred scientists we have in Mexico dedicated to nanotechnology, it is also the people who walk like soulless, apathetic automatons who feed mass consumption and the morality that sustains civilization.
Just as in ancient Rome civilization was not only Caesar, in ancient Greece civilization was not only the coliseum and its great buildings, in the Great Tenochtitlan civilization was not only the tlatoani who led the citizens, this is what happens today Today, whoever says that the “powerful” are to blame for all the chaos of civilization is in great error and should consider more seriously the reality that prevails in this era.
For a long time now, the “anti-civilization” and “anarcho-primitivist” discourse declared war on civilization, but these groups only blandly limited themselves to attacking private property, ITS does not stop at that, if we unleash a war against civilization it will to be total, an attack against the big companies that destroy the Earth as well as an attack against the complicit society of all this, because here nobody is innocent, we are all guilty.
We sickly hate civilization, we love the wild, and it is precisely because we love the wild that we attack this civilization mercilessly.
As you may have read somewhere, we consider ourselves anti-class, that is, we do not take into account social classes to attack targets, we do not have political guidelines either, we are openly incorrect anti-political, so we attack both the “powerful” and the their workers.
Apparently you think that we only dedicate ourselves to attacking civilians exclusively, but no, this has become clear this year, in January one of the ITS groups in Chile successfully attacked one of the most important heads of Codelco, the largest mining company important worldwide in regard to the looting of copper, on the other hand, in July, a worker was seriously injured when he opened a package-bomb that he found in a church in Lindavista, and although the worker was not the initial objective, but the religious who hide in the Catholic temples of filth, ITS showed no remorse for the fact. What we mean by this is that everything that represents civilization, human progress, artificiality, etc., is and will be fiercely attacked regardless of social conditions, gender, borders, languages, etc.
And yes, it is quite easy to attack civilians but also, in fact, putting a bomb aimed at a wealthy target is quite easy too, so we do not base it on the ease of the targets to attack but on the role they play within the civilization same. We want to see everything burn completely, we want to be part of the chaos that seizes civilization in glorious moments, we want to enjoy human pain watching them dying.
Many will surely not understand this, especially those who do not get the “social conscience” out of their heads, it seems unacceptable that we exist, that we speak in this way and that on top of that we do the things we say, those people stayed with the discourse classist of two centuries ago, that of the left-wing avengers of yesteryear; They do not realize that this era is over and that to extremist changes, the current context cries out for extremist responses.

2) You say that Lesvy Berlin Osorio was killed, but the Attorney General’s Office in the capital assures that it was her boyfriend and showed video images in which the boyfriend hits her with the dog’s chain. Is the boyfriend related to you? affine did it and then they realized the mistake?

Anyone with half a brain and who lives in Mexico reaches the conclusion that the Attorney General’s Office is one of the largest producers of evidence in this country (along with the PGR, Cisen, etc.), many know that. The video where it is supposedly seen that the woman in question is murdered is not complete (as you have said), it lacked a bit of focus to say with certainty that the boyfriend did it, so it cannot be concluded that the boyfriend was responsible and that ITS lied. In said video you can see that her boyfriend argues and fights with her and leaves her ALONE, and no, the boyfriend is not related to us nor is he part of ITS.
I suppose that because you are a reporter and have access to different sources of information (just as the lawyer in this case and her acquaintances had), you have already seen the CU videos, that material is “exclusive” although some reporters from Revista Proceso published what following in its printed version 2125:

“With the audiovisual material provided by the UNAM, the capital attorney’s office was able to reconstruct what happened when the couple and their pet were heading, in apparent calm, towards their home. Minutes after 04:00 hours, before passing by the Institute of Engineering, both stopped their march and began to wave, as if they were arguing.
Jorge Luis lifts the dog’s chain and in the image it is not possible to distinguish for sure if it hits his partner, although the autopsy results show two recent head injuries. [These cannot be concluded that they are from the chain]
Then Jorge Luis grabs Lesvy with his arms around the neck [Más no ahorca]. The girl manages to get away, and instead of moving away from her, she surrounds her with her arms and places her head at the height of her boyfriend’s chest, who with an elbow to her face pushes her away. her wife. Seconds later Jorge Luis walks away at a fast pace and Lesvy follows him.
At 04:18 hours both stop again near a telephone booth, 30 meters from the Institute of Engineering. But when Lesvy is seen approaching Jorge, the video surveillance camera that was focusing on the scene inexplicably moves in another direction.
It is just the moment that Lesvy is hanging from the telephone cable of the Telmex booth.
After that incident, around 4:20 am, Lesvy no longer appears on the video recordings. Only Jorge Luis and his pet. The former university worker walks towards the exit of CU with his head down and his hands in his pockets. At one point he turns back, stares at the spot where he left his girlfriend, and then kicks his dog.”
“Lesvy’s body was found at 5:50 a.m. on Wednesday, May 3, by the university worker Esperanza Sánchez Hernández, who immediately notified her partner Juan Andrés Sánchez Andrade. They both went to the telephone booth where the body was located and when they realized that the receiver was tied around his neck and that he was not breathing, they reported the incident to the UNAM Emergency Care Center.”

In this reproduced part of the report there is a curious thing, the reporters imply that at 4:18, at the moment in which the camera turns to the other side, that is the precise moment in which the woman is left hanging from the phone and dies, but how do they know that? Can post-mortem forensic tests know the exact hour and minute a person dies? Right? What happened in the 4:18 period? (when the camera moves) at 5:50 (when the worker finds the body)? Isn’t it possible that in 1 hour and 32 minutes someone else murdered her? Anyway, everyone can think what they want about In this case, we know what we did, if most of them think that her boyfriend killed her and that we lied, let them keep thinking about it, we don’t care, just don’t scream when we do another one of ours.
What we can say is that that day, one of our members observed the woman in CU alone and applying a subjugation key, suffocated her until she died and left her tied to the telephone with the chain that the deceased woman was wearing, an easy job when the target is drugged. After expressing this you would ask, but why precisely her? Well, we remember the context, in June 2016 another member of ITS, killed with an accurate stab the head of services of the Faculty of Chemistry of the UNAM, again in Ciudad Universitaria, on that occasion the statement prayed that the terror was leaving to make manifest in that house of studies, and that we were not going to let anyone within that cradle of progress walk safely, and we were not kidding.
UNAM, like other universities (whether public or private), is one of the greatest cradles of progress in Latin America, where minds that tend to civilized human progress are born and, consequently, to the devastation of the Wild and the advancement of humanity. artificiality, that is why she was attacked, her story was tarnished with blood, it was dyed black when we carried out these two murders, it does not matter so much that our victims were a worker and a former university student, the important thing is to generate Chaos, that the Terror takes over those kinds of places where everything we hate is present.
Thus, if we have to kill students, workers, minor employees, teachers and renowned researchers at CU, we will do it, all so that one of the greatest cradles of progress and its members plunge into insecurity and paranoia.
We remember that before, in 2011 we murdered a renowned biotechnology researcher, who worked precisely in one of the UNAM institutes in Morelos, in May 2016 we killed a computer science student from the IPN in Iztacalco and in February of this year 2017 we murdered to the vice-chancellor of the Tec de Monterrey in Chihuahua. In other words, the ITS campaign against the most important universities persists.
Returning to the case of the woman who died in CU, we want to emphasize the social hypocrisy that has arisen around this controversial case. It is quite true that her death had considerable media coverage, this would not have been possible if this same woman had not She would have been a former university student and would not have woken up dead in one of the cradles of progress, but as the context developed in specific situations, her death was a trigger for progressives to take to the streets to protest against the so-called “feminicides”.
This is when the double standards and the inferiority complexes of progressive women (we are referring to feminists) and of society itself come in. Isn’t the number of deaths more men than women in this country? Why didn’t they protest also against the homicides when we killed the head of services at the chemistry faculty in 2016? Was it because he was a simple “man”? Does the death of a woman have more value than that of a man? We leave these questions to be answered by those irritating screamers with colored hair who scream so much for gender equality, not realizing that with their protests over the death of a woman, they are making themselves less just for being women and at the same time , all this contributes to social victimization due to gender issues, think a little, don’t suck!All this mess of gender is rubbish, we see the human not because of their gender, or their skin color, or their customs, etc., but because of the cursed race that strives to keep the Wild subjugated.
For the death of this girl we received a lot of criticism, sterile criticism that only made us laugh in our arrogant faces. The hypocrisy of all those who criticized us was more evident when they only condemned us for the death of this woman in CU and not for the death of the couple we killed on the slopes of Mount Tlaloc in Texcoco a few days before the drug addict’s strangulation In question, there we drilled the heads of a man and a woman, why were we only convicted for the death of CU and not for the death of another woman on Mount Tlaloc? Just because the murder was not in CU? progressives have no shame then.

3) Does all human life deserve contempt? If so, does the life of your relatives also deserve contempt? Would you kill them? Does the life of your relatives also deserve contempt? Would they kill you? Does your life deserve contempt? Would you commit suicide?

ALL human life deserves our contempt, and yes, we would kill our family if need be. For a long time we have completely detached ourselves from the family, that group of strangers found by “chance” (as Nietzsche said), because even your relatives are capable of turning you over to justice when they realize that you are a “monster”.
We do not want any psycho-affective bond that binds us to enter into unhealthy relationships, which are only based on consanguineous hypocrisies, that causes us a tremendous rejection.
With respect to our affines, due to their condition as modern human beings like us, they also deserve contempt, although because we share the same feelings, the same hatred, the same love, and because of their unique essence they deserve our appreciation in that sense, the “ essence” and the “human” we see separately and we give more value to the former referring to our accomplices.
Here suicide is one of the options to be taken into account by each of the members of ITS, that is, we prefer to die by our own hands rather than be caught by those who want to see us in a cage or under their aberrant conditions. We do not see death as something “bad”, although we do not see it as something “good” either, it is simply a path that we must travel at the end of a cycle, embracing death as our ancestors did is one of our greatest desires, yes well, our condition as modern humans has not taken away that feeling of wanting to die for a greater cause, for the Unknown, for the Inhuman, not to have the luck of “martyrs” but to meet our ancestors in the underworld, we know that they will be happy that we get there.
In any case, we know that after we die we will merge with the Earth, with the Wind, with the Water and with the Fire, and that is when our disgusting humanity will be converted into something Unspeakable, we will be part of everything and from nothing to nothing. time and we will continue to wage war with the immeasurable forces of Wild Nature, so be it.

4) About the last epistolary exchange with historical insurrectionists, is it a declaration of mutual war? Will they attack them? Are they afraid of them? Do you think they will attack you?

We know that your job as a journalist is to polemicize certain situations, and even more so when it comes to clandestine groups, even so we answer your question:
We think that the person who wrote that statement only wanted to vent his frustration and disappointment for choosing our own path and getting out of the anarchic fold, because we do not believe that it will do anything against us.
Our statement in response to the shit poured out by “those” historical insurrectional groups is not a declaration of war, far from it, we are not looking for them nor are we worried about their sterile talk, although if we were to find out that they are hunting us, we would not we would stay with our arms crossed or turn the other cheek, that is more than clear.
Everyone can say what they want about others, everyone can spill their bile writing things against eco-extremism, everyone will do what suits them, although we must say that both the person who wrote that statement and us, it is not convenient to “exterminate” each other, he will understand...
In fact, that defamatory statement from the alleged former members of the insurrectionary groups served a lot for the campaign against us to continue, now Mr. Scott Campbell (who is only a pseudonym of a woman that we have well located) has published some other text condemning us again, it is true that the progressives do not have a filler, that they abide by the consequences if they continue along the same line.
About this, we know that there are some people who look for us within anarchist environments as if we were still there, if one day they find us we hope they have enough eggs / ovaries to kill us, because we are not one of those who only hurt in a fight, always be prepared guys, that the members of ITS do not go unarmed or with our guard down!

5) In 2011 I conducted an interview with one of its founders. Then he, without mentioning me and the newspaper in which I published the information, denied having given an interview to the bourgeois press. Now they have given interviews to the magazine Siempre and to Ciro Gómez Leyva of Radio Formula. What made you abruptly change your position?

We repeat again, that languid character whom you interviewed in 2011 was not a member of ITS, he was a member of the Earth Liberation Front (FLT or ELF) but never was or has been a member of our group, and we do not know where you get that he was “one of our founders”, that makes us quite funny, anyway. Be careful, be careful, there are a lot of people out there saying that they know us, or that they are even members of this hermetic group to gain fame in certain social circles, which is completely false, do you think that any of our members Would you risk saying that you are part of ITS to locals and strangers, and thus endanger years invested in this criminal project?

Now, it should be noted that from 2011 to today, MANY of our positions have changed radically, including that of answering questions to the mass media as you noticed. Regarding this, we use any means of communication to generate propaganda for ourselves, since this is due to our egoic strategies as a group. Unlike groups on the left or right that steadfastly refuse to engage with most mainstream journalists, ITS doesn’t give a damn about leftist morality and uses any means to propagate this uncomfortable discourse.
As you can see, we consider ourselves amoral, that’s why we don’t care about many things, we don’t care about attacking owners or workers, women or men, giving interviews to alternative or mass media, etc., hopefully you can understand, if not Well, no way, continue with your leftist position that will be needed now for 2018, the year in which progressives will brand everything that does not seem to them “fascist”, defending tooth and nail their indigenous candidate and their star opposition leader , always looking for a fucking bone as happened with the APPO in 2007.

Chikomoztoc, Mexhico
August 29, 2017
Individualists Tending to the Wild-Mexico

UPDATES

7^th Interview (2017)

1.- Since when does your group exist, in which other countries do you operate?

In 2011, “Individualities tending to the wild” (Its) began operating, carrying attacks in scientific research centers, universities, among others, in municipalities of the State of Mexico, in delegations of Mexico City, in Hidalgo, Morelos, Guanajuato , Veracruz, and Coahuila.

It should be noted here that from that year 2011 until now, we have gone through several stages, for example in 2014 we formed a group called “Reacción Salvaje” (RS) along with a dozen groups that joined us, operating in State of México, Mexico City and Tlaxcala, leaving aside the name of “Its”. Already by 2015, RS was dissolved so that each group continued its journey without being necessarily united.

In 2016 we reborn as “Individualistas Tendiendo a lo Salvaje” (ITS), until now we have presence in Mexico City, State of Mexico, Coahuila, Chihuahua and Jalisco. One of the goals of the new ITS is the expansion of this tendency at the international level, so by February of that year, ITS groups emerged in Chile and Argentina. In Santiago, Chile, a group of ITS set fire to a bus in broad daylight and with the passengers still inside, although nobody was injured, but the attack was the terroristic signal of the arrival of the Eco-extremism to the south of the continent. In that same month, but in Buenos Aires, capital city of Argentina, an ITS group detonated an explosive device near the Argentinean Nanotechnology Foundation, made several threats to scientists and abandoned a parcel bomb at a bus station. In August 2016, eco-extremism arrived in Brazil, an ITS group detonated an pressure cooker filled with black powder in the parking lot of the Conjunto Nacional commercial center in Brasilia.

We must recognize that in these years of activity, Eco-extremism has had accomplices, blood affinities adhered to the tendency of Nihilist Terrorism, defended and represented by the Egoarch Sects in Italy. Several groups have also emerged in Germany, France, Finland, etc., although they do not call themselves Eco-extremists, they share the visceral discourse against civilization and human progress, enhancing the “flag” of individualism. As you can see, we are not a new group that comes out of nowhere, we have an history and the federal authorities know about this, but they have never recognized us directly because it does not suit them and of course, the vast majority of the media spreads the official truth , Although this always stinks.

2.- What is your reason to form a group of this type and really what are you looking for?

ITS are a group of anonymous people with international connections united for a criminal purpose, that is, we are a Mafia.

ITS is a group wich aims to cause destruction and chaos within the civilization, we detest and reject every aspect of civilized, artificial and industrialized life that prevails before the Wild Nature.

ITS is the forgotten revenge that our ancestors inherited us, centuries ago the ancients reacted violently to the arrival of the westerners, but also reacted in the same way to the arrival of the Mesoamerican civilizations, the native nomad hunter-gatherers of these lands never surrendered and many preferred to die rather than submit to ways of life alien to their cultures. As ITS we rescued that savage resistance, now we react violently to any hint of civilization as did our older ancestors.

ITS is just an expression of something bigger, ITS is also the rain that floods cities, it is the avalanche that bury entire villages, it is the thunder that hits infrastructure alien to the environment, it is the earthquake that unexpectedly made everything fall apart, it is the attack of the Jaguar on its prey, is the beautiful song of the pheasant, the flight of the condor, the swimming of sea turtles, is the grass that comes out of the cracked pavement of the pestilent cities.

We all have a primitive killer deep inside our being, we let it out and this has arisen and we are not going to stop, because Eco- extremism is just an expression of the Wild, ITS is just a group of individuals with a common end , But in itself, the Wild will always prevail.

We do not want to return back to the caves, we do not want to be primitive homo sapiens anymore, whoever says that is an idiot and has not read anything we have written.

That is ITS, and we do not really expect many people to understand this, actually very few do it.

3.- Why use crime as a mean to solve conflicts, why arrive to the extreme of attacking against people? Is there no other way out?

For us there is no peaceful way out of this, there are no deals with anyone, there are no agreements or negotiations, what we are living is a War between the civilized and the Wild Nature. Is there another way out for the thousands of trees that are cut down by the human hand daily? Was there any other way out for wild marine animals trapped in the nets of legal and illegal fishermen? Was there any other way out for our ancestors who were expelled from their territories and slaughtered centuries ago by the Westerners who came to “conquer” us? Was there another way out for the devastated Earth because of extraction of minerals from large industries? Is there any other way out of all this civilized madness? OF COURSE NOT. The modern human continues to believe in himself as the center of the universe, he continues to feel god and master of everything that surrounds him, even if his existence means for the universe a total insignificance. We, ITS, accept that we are part of the modern human being, but we have realized that we are still part of the Wild Nature, because when we see a polluted river we feel rage, when we see machines piercing the Earth, we are sad. When we see thousands of cars coming and going from the stinking cities we feel hatred, when we see the advance of the urban sprawl burying entire environments we feel repudiation, when we remember that the ancients died fighting against the civilized all we feel is to claim their revenge and continue with their War, and crime is the fist with which we hit. Someone said that in a country full of thieves, being a criminal is a pride, and we take his words.

It is necessary to emphasize that our cause is not noble, it is not about justice in case you believed it at any moment, ITS is a politically incorrect group of criminals, amoral vindicators of the Wild, assassins of the western values and we do not weigh it to say it as we learn of that, Of the Wild, we are indiscriminate like earthquakes and floods, we are bestial like jaguars attacking and discrete like foxes stalking.

4.- Is there any person or group that sponsors them or any group that is with you?

Within what we call Eco-extremist Mafia, there are several groups that, even being true that they are not part of ITS and are not related to us, lead different theoretical propaganda projects, but there is no sponsorship from anyone, several groups publish magazines, write texts with philosophical and anthropological bases (mainly), create blogs, translate articles, are aware, and keep this in a constant flow of activity. For example, our texts are translated into English, Italian, Portuguese, Czech, Polish, German, Turkish, French, Romanian, Greek, Welsh, and even Hebrew, proof that our words and actions have also been extended thanks to all those who sympathize with our tendency, but again, these groups have nothing to do with ITS activities.

5.- Did you considered yourselves as anarchists or what is your philosophy?

We are not anarchists, anarchism comes from recently compared to what we defend. I tell you, in that age of the Enlightenment, many of the liberal ideas began to flourish in Europe, there was one in particular that had a lot of attachment in those old proletarian masses (apart from Marxism), especially for their idealistic demands, Anarchism had its heyday in the nineteenth century. At that time, people dreamed of a better tomorrow, by working today for the coming “revolution”, which never came to fruition, because of the “obstacles” that the states put against the anarchists. And if that “revolution” came, it was transformed into something completely different from the original ideas, in a funny way since almost always the anarchists were so foolish nobles that they left the way free to the communists, who seized their achievements and attributed their efforts, so happened in Ukraine, Russia, Cuba, Spain, even here, in Veracruz during the tenancy movement, but those are other stories.

Returning to the subject, anarchism is one of those ideas born of the progressive demands of “freedom, equality and fraternity”, demands that we completely despise, since “freedom” no longer exists in this age, it is a dead word and practice, Some fools have wanted to cling to their corpse but sooner or later end up stinking the rotten remains of history. “Equality” is a myth, it does not exist, nothing is egalitarian, and if it ever were, the world would be a faithful copy of Orwell’s novel or worse, of Huxley’s. “Fraternity” is a relative matter, but when progressives invoke it they almost always refer to a fraternity or solidarity with one’s neighbor, which is disgusting, how can one be fraternal with someone you do not know? The promiscuous solidarity is what the system agrees to practice in order to move forward, because the less social problems exist, everything goes according to plan. The system needs less crime, less corruption, less discrimination, less disputes between different social groups in order for the civilization to remain, that is why the media spreads both that myth of equality, non-violence, and in opposition this is why we repudiate equality and we are violent, because we are of those humans that we refuse to be a sheep of the rebound, we are the counterpart of this system, our murderous instincts have returned from the most hostile places inhabited by savages.

At the same time, with our attacks we are honoring the War memory of the ancients, we are bringing chaos and destruction to a civilization that has declared us the war not only to us, but to Wild Nature in general. The modern human virus spreads, destroys forests, pollutes rivers, poisons the Earth, stole minerals, nonsensical swarming, invades environments, modifies seeds, has seen the devastation they have caused on Earth and seeks for new planets to inhabit them in the future, the technoindustrial system has become extremist, why not react in the same way to all this garbage? ITS does it, we react in the form of attacks because this is a war, because although we accept that we are modern humans, we have the flame of wild confrontation inside.

ITS is not defined ideologically, we represent a tendency called Eco-extremism, this is anti-political, amoral, suicidal, indiscriminate and selective terrorist, pessimistic, “anti-revolutionary”, enhances ancient anti-Christian pagan beliefs, raises the name of the Wild Nature, makes fun of the non-sense of humanistic values, firmly rejects human progress, and has no problem falling into supposed “contradictions” in speech, for example in the use of the internet to carry out propaganda, Everything is justified, in this War everything is permitted.

6.- In what way do you operate? Do you do some kind of activity to make people aware about caring for the environment, or your actions only thought to spread terror, hurt or kill as the press say?

To be honest, we are not interested in create “conscience” among people, we are not revolutionaries, nor do we care that people “wake up” from their slumbering dream, the mass likes to live among their own crap and well, may you ask, and for what then to get communications, propaganda and answer interviews if you do not seek to raise awareness in others? And the answer is easy, we know that there are individualists like us somewhere in this beautiful Earth, and we know that they are very few, these acts are an echo that comes to them, which perhaps inspires them to carry out attacks like us. We communicate what we do not to gain adherents, or to call attention to pollution (for example), but to egoistically claim that these acts are ours, ITS will not allow others to adjudicate what we have done, or that the authorities award it to the common crime, NO, the acts we do are only ours and we chose an acronym in the Union of Egoists to generate a wound in our victims, we want to terrorize because this does not respond to any political demand, is to follow the impulse Animal-primitive and impose it on the civilized.

7.- In what way do you choose your victims, do you have contact with them previously or is it just random?

It depends, with the biotechnology expert, Ernesto Méndez Salinas of Cuernavaca, we followed him for weeks, until we put a bullet in his head on November 8, 2011, while driving his truck by one of the most famous roads in the city. With the vice-rector of Tec de Monterrey was the same, someone told us that he would travel from Monterrey to Chihuahua for a family affair, and when he was leaving a church, we hunted him and killed him in February of this year, although we must say that because of a fail in the gun used we could not shoot his wife so we decided to just take her handbag so she would not call the police, but otherwise if the gun would have worked, his wife would have had the same fate as her husband. That’s why the Chihuahua authorities said it was a robbery, but they know it’s not.

Concerning the couple we killed on Mount Tlaloc, we only killed them because they crossed our way, originally we went for the lumbermen, which never appeared, just those two “nature lovers” walkers, we do not want to see humans in the enviroments threatened by them, so lumbermen, campers, scouts and others are also on the list. The same happened with the murdered woman in University City, as we said in the interview with Radio Fórmula why we kill it, it is not necessary to repeat it here.

What if we want to be clear is that we do not have a specific way to attack, we can put a bomb in a shopping center in order to wound anyone who is near the device, as we can kill a specialized scientist, we can attack everywhere, finding a great pleasure in the attack, enjoying the moment and generating nervousness, chaos and destabilization.

8.- Why act within the UNAM there is some connection with some other group, for example the one that has taken the auditorium Che Guevara?

The UNAM is the cradle of progress, from there the minds of the future are born, always thinking of improving this garbage, UNAM, Tec de Monterrey, any university public or private, any educational center tends to artificiality, that’s why they deserve parcel-bombs, arson, knives, bullets, terror and death.

About the Che Guevara auditorium, we want to make it very clear that we despise this place as much as we despise progressivism, inside that squat hide a lot of stinking revolutionary hippies, who fill their syphilitic mouths with alcohol, inhale and smoke drugs while saying that they are “free”, while they are pretending that they are not also puppets, these people are the worst garbage. They are those people who are in favor of human progress but in a different way, they do not realize that they are still more deluded but they feel the most radical.

Years ago the university community has “invited” them to get away from UC, those fags students are marching and among all their reasons to expel them from there they say that it is because they give “bad image to the UNAM”, that “when you walk over there smells like marijuana “, Do you know what we see there? At first we see the eternal struggle between “moderates” against “radicals” since the strike of ’99 (with a lot of differences of course), and in the second we see hypocrisy come true, on the one hand the “squatters” making themselves look like the innocent ones, on the other hand students judging their very reflection as if they were abstemious. In short … We do not have relations with them or with any squat, organization, or anarchist group, Marxist, “porril”*, nationalist, or any kind, since what we defend is against what they believe.

9 .- Inevitably we are in an election year, and almost a year after there is a change in the presidential command, is there any connection of your actions with this?

I repeat, we do not have political ideologies, what we defend goes beyond politics, so to think that what we do has a political background is to repeat the same conspiratorial story from 50 years ago.

10.- Anything else you think is important to highlight in the interview?

Nothing else, just add that we are going to continue with our activities, nothing of this is over, the authorities and certain press can become crazy saying that what we do is false, or that we have not done it, we do not care, we just want to emphasize one thing, the lies always have short legs…

Individualists Tending Towards the Wild (ITS)

* “Porril” is the denomination for some sort of gangs who operate within the Mexican universities.

8^th Interview (2017)

1. The “fight against technology” is clear, but: why specifically against universities and not, for example, against corporations, etc.?

Okay, this thing you mention was more than a fluke. The war against civilization is in its entirety, we demonstrated this last year (2016) with the explosive that was abandoned near a specialized Nano-technology center, or when we poisoned soda bottles and placed them in two random supermarkets to that anyone who took them would be affected. ITS can attack at any time and to anyone, with package bombs, fires, shots, threats, poisoning, stabbing or any homicidal and/or destructive practice, whether renowned scientists or insignificant citizens, the hyper-civilized as a whole are participants in the offense committed against the earth, we came to show you that every action has its consequences.

In any case, universities are a nest of progressives par excellence, there are from important researchers who directly contribute to progress with their specialized knowledge to leftists who with their romantic ideas work for the construction of the values that will reign in the humanitarian world and hyper-technological they dream of. The attacks that we carry out in universities are not random but it is not that we specifically focus on those objectives.

2. Do they respond to any political party according to the country?

We do not belong to any political party, nor are we anarchists. ITS is part of the eco-extremist trend, which is based on the rejection of the prevailing humanism and the attack on civilization in the present. We do not seek to generate changes in society or for people to accept our ideas, we rely on indiscriminate and selective terrorism to strike back at a system that tries to tame and subjugate us like pets. The proposal of civilization is basically that we stand idly by while it annihilates wild nature, that we incorporate the modern lifestyle that is imposed on us and abide by the laws. On the contrary, we remain close to our primitive roots as natural humans, we do not respond to any law or authority within civilization, but to our pagan deities and the memory of our brave ancestors who call us to conflict. They ended up falling to the invader, and it is certain that we eco-extremists will also fall, but proud to fulfill our ancestral duty, the continuation of the war that began centuries ago with the arrival of the civilized on our shores.

3. Are you an international group based in Argentina? Or a horizontal movement? (eg anonymous to cite a case, people from a single group with members from different places)

The cut of our organization is rather like that of a mafia. In a sense it can be said that it is horizontal since there is no group that is ahead of another. We do not have a headquarters nor do we have a “line of command”. But we are not horizontal like the anarchists, who are against “all authority”. An ITS group can have its leader if its members so decide. Our networks so far extend from Mexico to Chile, Argentina and Brazil. All this began back in 2011 in Mexico, with the old ITS (Individuality Tending to the Wild), in 2014 Wild Reaction emerged after the union between several groups in the Mexican geography, which dissolved in 2015 giving way to the current stage. In 2016, ITS resurfaced, only instead of “Individuality”, it is now “Individuality Tending Toward the Wild”. And there in 2016 is when all this international project started. Each group within ITS takes its own name to differentiate itself, for example we take the name of “Wild Constellations”, while one of our most renowned groups in Chile, who in January injured the president of the Codelco mining company; Oscar Landerretche with his spectacular package-bomb attack, took the name of “Mystic Horde of the Forest”. In Brazil, the only active group that we have so far calls itself the “Silver Secret Society”, in Mexico, as in Chile, there are several eco-extremist groups, in this last year the “Wild Serial Killers” were the protagonists, who in May, together with another group (Grupo Indiscriminado Tendiendo a lo Salvaje) murdered two hikers at the foot of Mount Tlaloc, and hanged a woman inside Ciudad Universitaria in the State of Mexico, and that in November, they shot two pilgrims, leaving without life to one of them, this in Querétaro. In total ITS has 6 murders, all in the Mexican geography, here in the south it is only a matter of time...

We would also like to mention that ITS is not the only group that exists with an affinity for these positions. Terrorist nihilists have a presence in Europe, mainly in Italy where they have been carrying out their indiscriminate and selective attacks for a long time, we also have the example of the “Wildfire Cell” that do not call themselves eco-extremists for what that we understand, but they affirm without harshness their complicity with our project.

4. Different sources say that the explosives themselves did not have much to do with their form and materials; Some even suggest that they have nothing to do with the mail with the university, but they take credit, what do you say?

We attach both links of the claims so you can see that the bombs are almost the same. A galvanized nipple connected to a battery, both have a cut on one side through which we remove the cables, interrupting the electrical circuit so that there is no risk of the pump exploding when we close the box after its assembly. In both boxes we wrote the acronyms for ITS and CS, only in the second one it was not possible to see it because it was destroyed. They may say that all package bombs are alike, but look at the package bomb they used to attack INDRA’s offices. The box is made of wood, the metal tube looked much more handcrafted, they used a delay system with a mousetrap, you can tell from a league that the assembly is different, and it should be emphasized that we had nothing to do with the attack on INDRA . We began to photograph our packages to give true proof of our authorship, the materials are the same, the assembly is the same, the only visible difference is the positioning of the nipple, this is because the box we used in our last attack was smaller , the rest matches piece by piece. The evidence is in the facts.

5. How do you keep in touch, if it is transnational? (The question refers to the fact that if they are against technology, today the traditional means would be through the Internet) in case of using the Internet: do they use secure means?
Despite the fact that we eco-extremists reject the technological system, we have no problem using technology to claim responsibility for our attacks or for some other purpose. As we said, we are NOT aiming for a return to a wild state. The war against civilization is the only goal that currently interests us and for this we must obviously use technology. In the past, it would have been absurd for a Selknam to think of arming a bomb to defend themselves from the invasion, they used what they used to, arrows, spears, etc. Just as it is now absurd to think of an eco-extremist who defends nature bare-chested and with arrows. Currently, the way to attack civilization is terrorism. Look at the anarchists, some of them consider attacking the system or even civilization, but they mix small and large-scale sabotage with popular demonstrations, street battles, assemblies, fairs, diffusion and other obsolete techniques in offensive terms, although some anarchists do use terrorism, which today are the fewest. It is no coincidence then that it is customary to see anarchists imprisoned or dead (like the famous case of Maldonado here in Argentina). His way of confronting the system does not work today. Why do you think that to date there is no imprisoned eco-extremist, since we have been involved in terrorist activities for more than 6 years? The answer is clear, our method works. We do not mean to say that it is impossible that they will ever find us, but we see it as unlikely.

6. Where did you learn about explosives? (Internet? referring to technology... or some type of military training that allowed knowledge to be extrapolated?)

As you know, being an international initiative we could not respond on behalf of all groups, some clans within ITS may have military training, it may no. We have taken our knowledge from the Internet, you would be surprised how many guides there are out there for making explosive mixtures or poisons.

Individualists Tending to the Wild-Argentina
-Wild Constellations

9^th Interview (Jan, 2019, Chile)

Hello, I introduce myself. I am “Tanu”*, chief editor of “Revista Ajajema”** and an active member of ITS-Chile. I proceed to answer your questions.

– Where and when did the ITS group emerge in the world?

The ITS group emerged in 2011 in Mexico. In those years the group was strongly influenced by the ideas and postulates of the anti-civilization terrorist Theodore John Kaczynski (Unabomber). For a long time they focused their attacks against researchers and universities. Using packages and envelope bombs, they seriously injured several professors.

– Since when do you operate in Chile and how is it articulated internationally?

In Chile, the extremist ITS initials officially appear in 2016, specifically on February 16. On that occasion, the group “Uncivilized Sureños” perpetrated an accurate arson attack against a transantiago bus.

At the time, this attack caused a strong controversy in anarchic environments, since it was carried out while the bus was with passengers inside. Demonstrating with the act and the subsequent words of the statement that they did not care about hurting innocent civilians at the time of attack.

Since the arrival of ITS in Chile in 2016, the groups have issued 20 statements, of which 13 have been to claim attacks and 7 that have only been public pronouncements regarding situations.

In total there are 3 different groups here. There are the “Uncivilized Southerners” (SI), the “Mystic Forest Horde” (HMB) and the “Vengeful Inquisitor Gang” (BIV). These have claimed fires, bombings and threats.

The count of attacks for the statistics is as follows.

-IF have performed 5 actions; the burning of a bus in 2016 [47]. The fire on the roof of Mall Vivo in the center [48] and three foiled incendiary devices [49][50][51].

-HMB has performed 8 actions. Bomb against the FCFM [52]. Packet bomb against Landerretche [53]. Two incendiary devices against buses [54]. Package-bomb against the Raúl Silva Henríquez University [55]. Package-bomb against the Faculty of Agronomy of the U of Chile [56]. Over-pump in Vicuña Mackenna [57]. Bomb threats {1}.

-BIV has carried out 2 actions. Fire against a transantiago bus [58]. And a frustrated incendiary device [59].

This is how the wave of attacks by the “Eco-extremist Mafia” is evident, the vast majority of these attacks have even had repercussions in the press. So for those who believe that we are a conspiracy of aliens or an invention of the state, the data and facts are there, in the actions, in the fire, in the detonations, in the GOPE operations, in the notes of the press, in the millionaire damages and in the wounded.

Regarding how we articulate ourselves internationally, an important event that took place at the end of 2018 was the detachment of a part of the mystical Horde of the Forest. A couple of members of this group emigrated from Chile to Argentina in order to take the knowledge learned here to the other side of the mountain range. In a statement they make this split public and form a new group in Argentina called the “Red Blood Sect” [60]. This is an example of how our joint works. Although to a great extent the advance of the eco-extremist tendency has been done through the diffusion of our ideas. With the help of our propaganda we have managed to attract accomplices from different parts of the world and make them converge in one acronym.

We have spread the eco-extremist germ thanks to the communications of the modern era (internet) but we have also visited places, we have moved by land in order to take actions to other territories.

– What are the objectives of the organization, specifically in Chile?

The objectives could be said to be the same in all the countries in which the acronym operates. Our greatest goal is to avenge the devastation of the earth, to repay even minimally the damage that modern humans have done to natural environments. We do not defend wild nature, we avenge it. We are not environmental heroes, we are indiscriminate terrorists.

We do not intend or want to change the course of civilization, the truth is that even if we wanted to, we could not. We would be deluded if we tried to destroy civilization. The mega-machine of human progress is unstoppable by the human hand, the only one capable of seriously collapsing civilized life and all its progress is wild nature itself. Only the earth with all its ancestral strength could bring about the human debacle.

Among our postulates are the enhancement of misanthropy, the exaltation of our wild ancestors along with their worldview of life. We rescue from the most forgotten the existence of the tribes of wild humans that lived in these lands for centuries, such as the Mapuche warriors and the ancestral Fueguinos.

– What is the number of members that make up the organization and how many are Chilean? (can be a reference number)

At the international level, a dozen groups operate in different countries, in Mexico is where most of the groups are, about ten. There are groups in Argentina, Brazil, Greece, Scotland and Spain. Here in Chile, as we said, there are three active groups, each of them is made up of 3 to 6 members and they do not necessarily have a physical relationship with each other.

– What was the motivation for the latest incident at a Vicuña Mackenna bus stop in Santiago?

Our motivation arose from seeing how modern humans have pushed aside other animal species, from seeing how mountains are destroyed to build houses, from seeing how they bury the earth under concrete, from seeing how rivers and oceans are polluted due to human behaviors. Seeing all this gave rise to our motivation. Savage revenge on behalf of the earth is our greatest motivation

But also our motivation was terror and Chaos. With our super-bomb we wanted to kill some human or leave him severely injured. We wanted to show this omnipotent being standing on two legs that their aberrant behaviors will not go unnoticed and will be severely punished by our explosives.

But, why don’t they attack the elites that own polluting companies? The foolish sheep must be wondering. And the answer is because we have freed ourselves from the morality of attack. We found no difference between the owner of the mining company and the workers who work there. The common citizen or the oppressed people are not innocent, no. They, with their subordination and their delegation of will, are the ones who build the structures that tear up the forests and destroy the rivers, they are the ones who transport the goods in their scrap steel, etc. They are, in short, a central part of the functioning of human progress, or do you believe that airplanes handle themselves? buildings built on mountains are built by the holy spirit, no! The modern human, the ordinary citizen, the defenseless people is what is there, so any attack against the human mass is more than valid and necessary.

Of course, there is also a spiritual issue involved, by attacking humans we are trying to violate the supreme value imposed by Western morality that places human beings on a sacred pedestal, which justifies all misfortunes in pursuit of their existence and safety. In a double intention, we literally destroy the value of human life by tearing flesh and in the same blow we deny our condition as civilized humans, acting like wild animals is that we shed a little of our own humanity.

For all this is that we are not careful with ordinary people, this time it’s their turn, tomorrow it will be the wealthy class or some high command of a company, who knows...

The truth is that our artifacts will tell, our gunpowder and its shrapnel will tell. Our small explosive gifts have caused real terror, real panic and collective psychosis, if not because of the fear generated after our attack. All those false bomb alarms, people are now afraid of any dropped envelope, and that is irrefutable proof of the terror and panic that we have generated. Most likely, after a few weeks, everything returns to normal, but the damage has already been done, the terror has been achieved. And everything will be repeated when we return….

Let it be known, our little explosive gifts in three years have generated more terror than 20 years of anarchist bombings. And no giant fire extinguishers, no gas cylinders, just two pieces of iron arranged and a lot of ingenuity are the recipes for terror.

– Was there a specific target for the attack?

The specific target was modern humanity. The unlucky ones this time were an immigrant couple. We wanted to take advantage of thanking the man for his curiosity, since we enjoyed the attack in ecstasy because of it. He should take advantage of playing a lotto or something, because that was luck, having come out alive after opening our gift is to cross himself.

– Does the fact that it was at a Transantiago bus stop have any particular reason?

Well, no, there is no particular reason against the whereabouts. The only reason has been because of the characteristics of the place. The one that has been in the heart of the capital, why? Well, because it is the heart of Chile, the place where the human mass converges. And also because that place was the result of our previous study, we were able to verify in advance that precisely that block has interesting blind spots in the security cameras. So yeah, we managed to dodge every single one of their cameras. We could have left the envelope in the Alameda, but certainly the risk is greater there, we only got quite close to its main avenue.

We are not teenagers, we do not kick a paco hoping that the cameras will not focus on our faces. We studied the place and we always had in mind how to carry out an attack in the center of the capital. In order to generate the maximum media spectacle.

– Was the explosive device made by Chileans from ITS?

Yes, and in fact I made it, I am the one who recorded the video. My gloved hands are the ones that come out explaining how the envelope is activated. In principle, this video is part of a series of images that I record to make the manuals on how to make bombs, but because the attack had media coverage, the brothers decided to put that extract (in fact, very soon the related editors will be publishing that manual)

I am the craftsman mentioned by the brothers of the Mystic Forest Horde in their statement. That’s right, I’m the one in charge of making the gadgets. Then my executor brothers are the ones who are in charge of abandoning the load. And it is that since I was a child I was very good in manual arts… (in the photograph that we attach, I am the one with the white hood).

– The government of Sebastián Piñera sued for the Antiterrorist Law. How do they take that?

Well, we thank Mr. Piñera for this recognition of his career. The truth is that we are proud to be called terrorists, because that is what we are. We yearn for bloody and swiftly deadly terror. We are not scared or anything, we are aware that an event in this category deserves the highest categorization.

We are not like modern anarchists. They put their big bombs at dawn and only to burst the concrete, they must think that for this reason the state will not call them terrorists. We must already imagine the cry in the sky that all the revolutionary prisoners and careful anarchists are making for our indiscriminate attack.

– Do you expect to carry out new actions of this type during the next time? When?

Of course! When? Only the spirits know that, only the unknown forces of the earth know it. When they tell us it will be. Tomorrow, this other month, next year, it doesn’t matter, how important and be certain that it will be. And again you will remember these acronyms: ITS.

For now, we continue to increase citizen panic, we have been behind a series of false bomb warning calls and we have also abandoned some suspicious packages. Not all, of course, but the will of those who take advantage of the chaos and leave empty boxes is appreciated.

– Are they linked to any political or business organization in Chile? Which?

No no and no. We are a tight-knit group of individuals. But we more or less managed to understand where your question is going. Many in their dementia have said that we are an organization of the same state to justify their repression against the people. Others have said that we are policemen or a Pinochet group, and that is not the case.

Generally, those who raise these absurd theories are people who are to the left of politics, they cannot get it into their heads that a group as heartless as ours is operating in their territory.

Much less is there economic financing for our activities by any business organization. Everything we have achieved we have achieved based on effort, at the cost of transactions in the underworld. Our only monetary financing arises from the adventures of our accomplices. Money is something of vital importance in these matters. We don’t get caught up in that absurd hippie morality of rejecting money.

Recently, some brothers raised the initiative to be able to receive contributions in virtual money, the famous Bitcoins. There is this financing project that consists of related anonymous people around the world sending us monetary contributions in virtual money [61].

– Beyond this, do you feel identified with any political tendency?

No. We are anti-political. We are not interested in political struggle or social struggles or anything like that. We are not the FARC, nor the ETA, nor the EPP. We are ITS, the invisible threat that can strike when you least expect it. We are free and wild with a desire for more Chaos and more terror.

We are a complex structure of thought and action, they will not be able to identify or pigeonhole us. We do not fit within its parameters and we are made up of valuable individualists, accomplices who are willing to die for the extremist attack in the name of wild nature.

Our war is the disinterested attack against civilization, we expect nothing more in return than revenge and the ecstatic enjoyment of our Egos when the bomb is detonated.

– Previously they claimed an attack with the former president of Codelco, Óscar Landerretche. Why was that action taken?

That’s right, we are the same ones who broke that miner’s hands. By the way, we’ll take advantage of sending a message to Landerretche, since I’m more careful on the street, when you stop at a traffic light above your little car, you’d better look around you. Be careful with whoever is cleaning windows or with the juggler or with the street vendor, they may be an STI informant. We only remind you, we are still free and we do not forget what you do or did, are you still with that escort you had?, for your sake we hope that yes...

The attempt. Well, the truth is that we are proud to be the first to dare with a package bomb in the history of Chile. The truth is that this explosive attack took us a long time to carry out. We visited various post offices until we found one that it had no beds inside. If it had been otherwise, they would already have the silhouette of the terrorists who paid for the shipment and who knows where we would be.

That was an unprecedented attack, like the bombing in Vicuña Mackenna. The operation against Landerretche saw a resounding Horde effort. Two brothers went to the Landerretche address to see if it was their house or not. We were right there and you never noticed us asshole.

The central idea of the attack was the death of the target or serious disfigurement. Because the? Well, because he was in charge of the largest mining company in the world, can there be any other reason?

As we said in our last statement, great executives, politicians, students and ordinary citizens are in our sights. We have the addresses and names of high-ranking officials, scientists and students, but all in good time, we want to try with bullets and knives, as the brothers have done in Mexico. We have many plans in mind, we have the tools but we have to be cautious and patient. Yes, we are patient and persevering, we managed to polish these ancestral qualities of the ancients. We are patients in the age of immediacy and hypercivilized speed.

final words

Thus, this is how eco-extremist history is written. With murders, indiscriminate/selective bombs and fierce fires. We write this story, it is written by our brothers around the world. They write it with courage and will, with courage and decision.

The extremist and incorrect initials of ITS here in Chile have shed blood, have caused national alarm and all the police experts are currently looking for the terrorists. We from this tribune take advantage of telling them; search, check the hundreds of cameras or try to search for DNA, YOU WILL FIND NOTHING! They won’t find anything because we are ghosts.

We are the spirit of the wind, the memory of the water and the wisdom of the mountains.

We plan what we do very well and we are sure that they do not have a trace of us, we have made a fool of them for three years and we are going for more. Our attacks will continue until the last consequences.

Many have called us crazy and insane, and the truth is that we do not care what the foolish sheep think. If being crazy is seeing the devastation of modern humans against wild nature and acting accordingly, then let us tell you that we are very crazy.

We are very sick. Their civilization made us sick, their progress made us sick, their toxic cities made us sick. We are sick of modernity and our attacks are the answer for having made us and the earth sick.

Just like that, we continue conspiring in the mountains, accompanied by the sound of crickets and the dark night. See you later, the explosion is patient like earthquakes and she will let you know when we’re back...

Death to modern human and filthy progress!

Long live the chaotic wild nature and its terrible manifestations against civilization!

Individualists Tending to the Wild-Chile

-Mystic Forest Horde

Grades

* Tanu, the name refers to one of the spirits of the worldview of the wild Selk’nam tribe.

** The Ajajema Magazine is our dissemination platform, so far five editions have been published. And soon number six will be published. The name Ajajema refers to a deity from the worldview of the wild Kawesqar people. This deity was the bearer of misfortune that burned everything with fire: http://regresando.altervista.org/ajajema-editorial/

https://www.eldinamo.cl/reportajes/2019/01/11/terrorista-que-se-adjudica-fabricacion-de-bomba-en-vicuna-mackenna-cualquier-atentado-contra-el-pueblo-es- valid-and-necessary/

10^th Interview (Feb 27, 2019, Mexico)

Source

ITS (Individualists Tending to the Wild) eco-terrorists are ecological extremists for whom “all civilized beings deserve to die.” At least five attacks have been claimed in four countries, including Greece, since December 2018. His creed? Nihilism. His fight? The return to nature, convinced of the inescapable destruction of the world. We present an exclusive interview with a member of this terrorist cell, present in Latin America and Europe.

Whoever says terrorism thinks of the jihadists of al-Qaeda or ISIS. But they do not imagine people who can plant bombs in the name of ecology. It is a practice of the Individualists Tending to the Wild (ITS), an eco-terrorist group created in 2011 in Mexico, and which again spread terror in Chile on January 4, 2019, after detonating a bomb at a bus stop. In the very center of the capital city, leaving five injured. Its members seem to be taken from a science fiction novel. They move clandestinely on the Internet, and in the video sent to TV5MONDE they appear hooded and dressed in black. The member of the organization who speaks in this video describes himself as the “head of ITS in Mexico”. TV5MONDE has managed to get in touch with this group through a blog run by another Spanish-speaking eco-extremist group, “Maldición Écoextrémiste” (Spanish Ecoextremist Curse). This blog is hosted on the Italian server Altervista, officiating as the “official media” of ITS. All the group’s press releases (so far 75, the last published on February 22, 2019), are published there. The blog content is in seven languages – Turkish, English, Italian, Portuguese, Greek, Czech and Romanian. “No member of the ITS speaks French”, indicates a member of the “Curse Ecoextrémiste” during our investigation.

For an interview with a member of ITS, we exchanged emails with the “Curse Écoextrémiste” who asked us to create an account with a secure messaging service, based in Switzerland. The resulting interview is the sixth since the creation of ITS, and the first given to a French-language media outlet. ITS gave three interviews to the Mexican media, then to the Argentine press and then to the Chilean press. TV5MONDE sent ITS questions by email. Xale, a pseudonym behind which one of the founding members of ITS and the head of the organization in Mexico hides, answered some of our questions in a seven-minute video, made available through a server based in New Zealand.

Nothing and no one
“ITS was created spontaneously”, says Xale in the video we received. “In April 2011,” he continues, “we committed our first bomb attack, seriously injuring a university employee in Mexico. We wanted to stop there, but seeing that we could use that modus operandi, we started doing dozens of attacks with package bombs.” For ITS, one motto sums it all up: “all civilized human beings deserve to die”. In January 2019, while ITS planted an explosive device in front of a university in Santiago, the capital city, the group said they “regret” that it did not explode and that it did not kill anyone, “whoever”, they say in a statement. Attacks, but for what purpose? None. The group stated in 2016 to a Mexican newspaper: “we do not ask for anything, we do not have any requirements (...) we do not want to resolve anything, we do not propose anything to anyone.” A nihilism in its purest aspect, with this nuance that Xale brings in the video: “We want to participate in the destabilization of the established order, and in collective paranoia, to terrorize the good habits of a society corrupted by its hypocrisy.” “Everyone civilized human beings deserve to die.” Excerpt from an ITS statement. Beyond destabilizing the established order, ITS nihilists fiercely desire a return to nature. A Rousseau-like vision, with frequent references to the indigenous peoples of Latin America, both in digital magazines and in video staging, with a jug used by the Chichimeca (guaje) people. The staging is adorned with a sheep’s skull and the roots of a Mexican plant: the mesquite, all illuminated with “the wax of a natural candle,” Xale tells us.

Mysticism and ecoterrorism.
The names of the different branches of ITS also refer to their proximity to nature: the “Mystical Horde of the Forest” in Chile, the “Wild Constellations” in Argentina or the “Pagan Sect of the Mountain” in Mexico. Its members believe in nothing but themselves, their “wild nature” and their “primitive roots.” “Hope is dead here. Does not exist. There will be no change or revolution that will turn shit into gold. We are lost! And we accept our twilight, while we look at the real problem: human progress and modern civilization,” said Xale, a founding member of ITS. “We do not ask for anything, we do not have any requirements (...) we do not want to solve anything, we do not propose anything to anyone ..”
Excerpt from an ITS interview given to a Mexican newspaper in 2016. The group is inspired by anarcho-primitivism, an “anti-civilization anarchy”. “I deepened the Earth Liberation Front theories and gave them a different tone,” says Xale. “I was interested in the issues facing the American continent, the native cultures that opposed civilization,” says the Mexican member of ITS in the video. However, ITS wants to get rid of the borders of any ideology and indicated, in 2016, in the digital magazine “Regression – Notebooks against progress”: “we are not revolutionaries or anarchists, we do not represent the radical left. We are NOT primitives. Zerzan’s naive romantic (editor’s note EDITOR’S NOTE: philosopher of primitivism) DOES NOT REPRESENT US, nor does Kaczynski’s naïve radical (editor’s note: American eco-terrorist) or any other Greek, Spanish, Italian, Brazilian, or nobody.” According to a Latin American researcher who prefers to remain anonymous for security reasons, ITS is a “group of young people, poorly prepared, both intellectually and materially. The group is based on weak arguments”, continues the researcher, “what makes them even more dangerous is that their discourse evolves over time”. For this researcher, ITS members have more “mental problems than political beliefs”, which is a “double danger”.

Individuals tending to the wild, anti-civilization.
ITS is present in seven countries: three in Europe (Spain, Greece and the United Kingdom (Scotland)) and four in Latin America, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico. On June 27, 2016, the group claimed responsibility for the murder of Jaime Barrera Moreno, an employee of the Faculty of Chemistry of the University of Mexico, UNAM. On the Curse Ecoextremist blog, other murders have been claimed since 2011, also in relation to scientific research centers. For ITS, “humanity is lost”. Not hostile to the working class in particular, nor to the powerful, the group declares itself against “modern humanity”. Class war? “It is unnecessary stupidity.” “Why attack the oppressed?” he asks in a statement in January 2019. “Because we don’t care about social status. Rich, poor, needy. Any human being deserves to die”, says the group with a cynicism that it does not hide after an attack committed in the Chilean capital.

Bombs in the name of ecology.
On January 4, 2019, a bomb explodes at a bus stop in downtown Santiago. The balance: 5 wounded. The people of Santiago were scared to see any forgotten bag or package in the city in the days after the attack, the media were perplexed. “Chile is not used to this type of action, and even less so when there is no strong ideology behind it. him”, says the Latin American researcher contacted by TV5MONDE. But, he added, “as in any Western society with a hectic pace of life, this latest attack is almost forgotten by everyone.” A bomb at a bus stop and an attempt to set a bus on fire was what happened in Chile in December 2018, left explosives outside churches in Mexico and Greece on Christmas Eve 2018, each injuring multiple people. Bombs were also left outside a church in the Brazil of Jair Bolsonaro, the recently elected far-right president.
The attacks by ITS, a group opposed to Catholicism, occur in “small, isolated, and easy to attack” places, analyzes the Latin American researcher. “Far from an attack in a shopping center, surrounded by security cameras, where social pressure to find the perpetrators would increase,” observes the researcher.

The investigations do not advance
Due to lack of evidence, the acquittals of ITS are erected as victories. After the attack in Chile on January 4, 2019, no one has been arrested so far. According to a source close to the investigation, the Chilean police have “few leads”, and none of them “are clear”. It must be said that the Chilean intelligence services were dismantled after the Pinochet dictatorship (1973–1990) and “are not effective,” said the Latin American investigator contacted by TV5MONDE. This explains his “clumsiness,” adds the latter, and partly explains “Chile’s main problems in confronting and anticipating cases of terrorism.” In an interview with the Andean newspaper La Tercera in January 2019, Raúl Guzmán, prosecutor at charge of the investigation of the attack of January 4, 2019 in Santiago, goes in the same direction: “I would like the Chilean Intelligence Agency (the ANI) to play a more operational role in the discovery of information.” In other words, the prosecutor asks for greater efficiency from this agency. This Chilean prosecutor adds that these terrorist actions “do not obey any political ideology.” Nihilism, therefore, linked to the desire for freedom to animals.

Guerrillas of the animal cause.
ITS opposes the domestication of animals. With the scandals of spoiled Polish meat, or lasagna with horse meat (*), one could believe that these eco-terrorists are part of the anti-speciesist line like the L214 association, but this is not the case. In a text entitled “The myth of the veganism”, criticizes the “irrationality of the ideas and values of vegan philosophy”, called “modern civilized regime that feeds the progressive dreams of shitty humanists”. Ecoterrorism has no faith in man, nor in his future. “In the long term, all we want is to survive, continue waging our war, expand to other nations, and succeed in all our attacks,” Xale said in the video sent. to TV5MONDE. Regarding the risk of attacks in France, according to our sources, ITS “does not constitute an immediate and priority threat in the national territory and is not considered capable enough to attack the fundamental interests of the Nation” *Refers to scandals related to the agri-food industry in France such as Polish meat found in poor condition and the fraudulent sale of horse lasagna.

11^th Interview (Sept 20, 2019, Chile)

– What are your motivations?

We have already explained the reasons many times. And so as not to be repetitive, we will only say that by attacking we become part of the revenge of wild nature against humanity, for all the devastation it has generated. This revenge is seen in the majestic “natural disasters” that hit cities but also in the “deviant” behavior of terrorists like us. It may be due to an intellectual inclination or a more spiritual sensitivity, but the important thing is that we are able to listen to the cries of agony of the earth with each new mega-project destined for progress, or with the simple constant presence of tons of concrete suffocating the land, and the expansion of the urban sprawl destroying the ecosystems. In the dark we hear the cries of felled trees, the screams of the mountains split in the middle. That is unbearable for us and that is why we prefer to die in war rather than accept all this passively.

– Why is violence a form of response?

The earth does not take revenge asking for mercy or trying to conscientize the mindless mass. Humanity invades, tears apart, mutates, erodes, extinguishes and degrades. We use what we have at hand to respond, explosives, firearms, knives, etc. We have already got rid of western morals and values derived from the enlightenment, our visions are developed by learning from the old. Why learn from a doctrine that has been in existence for 200 years and has led to the self-destruction of the species in that short time when you can learn about the cosmos and its processes that exist before our minds could imagine? The root of our thinking comes from that primordial source, which teaches us, among other things, that violence is never something bad or good, but rather is an integral part of everything, a manifestation that occurs in certain circumstances, and it turns out that we had to live in the era of total war of a single species against the entire biosphere; the anthropocene. When, if not now, is violence an appropriate form of response?

– What do you think about what the media have written about you?

It is a broad question since the media has talked a lot about us. For the most part we can say that it is clear that they do not understand what our thing is about and consequently they speak pure garbage. There are some who have hit the nail on the head, or have come close. But what matters to us is that they highlight our dangerousness and the reality of the threat we represent, and they have done that in abundance. After being called inconsequential, fascist, inventions of the right or the left, or any other of those accusations, we don’t care, and at the time we have discredited each one of them.

– Are they an organized and coordinated group or are they just individual actions?

In the first place we are an organized crime group, where of course there is room for individual actions, each individualist or group of individualists acts as they see fit. Some groups kill, others send bombs and others occupy industrial explosives to blow up infrastructure and cause tragedies, some claim the facts and others do not, ITS is about satisfying the savage impulses of individualists, and we do that to spare.

– What is your relationship with anarchism, misanthropy and nihilism?

1. With anarchism, the relationship at the moment is one of rupture, although there is no dishonor in accepting that many eco-extremists and some members of ITS come from anarchism, mostly from insurrectionist and eco-anarchist tendencies. Although at the time there were some ties, today the vast majority of anarchists hate ours and do well, since their Western and enlightened education tells them that everything that deviates from the rails of Christian morality is a sin with another name, we can call it counter-revolutionary, aberrant, vile or whatever you prefer. The majority of anarchists believe they are fighting the system, but all they do is reinforce certain values such as egalitarianism or solidarity and take them to radical extremes, it is a disappointment that is generated when the system does not strictly comply with the values it promotes. We see it represented on television with the superhero movies. The system promotes racial or gender equality with different degrees of subtlety, but then you can see the police beating blacks or some criminals trying to rape a woman, the anarchist cannot stand that, just as batman or superman decides to jump the barriers of the law to reinforce those values that they have been taught, thus generating a clash with the forces of order that they interpret as turning them into antagonists in some way, when it is clear that they are not. The same applies to economic or environmental injustices, or any problem generated by the system that is approached using the same values that it promotes.
   We eco-extremists, on the other hand, take the anti-values of the system such as selfishness, indiscriminate violence, contempt for human life, and adopt them for our path of real antagonism and confrontation against the progress of the civilized world and all its concepts. Some have mistakenly said that we mirror civilization by falling into “religious thinking” or by believing in an authority such as wild nature is for us. This is completely incorrect since we recover our paganism from our oldest ancestors and accept authority as an undeniable reality when we face forces that go beyond our understanding. Or is it not the most civilized thing in the world to play at knowing everything (to believe that the confines of reality correspond to the limited scope of our knowledge)? Doesn’t one fall into the scientific and artificializing mentality when one wants to play the social engineer who strips the being of its attributes, whether gender or species, to create a “clean slate” where to trace the destiny of the future human being, one that will live in supposedly pacified societies, and that they will be able to choose at any time in life what their sexual orientation, their relationships, their way of eating, etc. will be. etc. etc. That is only possible by living in a controlled and artificial environment, which in turn is only possible at the cost of the annihilation of wild nature. It is the snake eating its own tail.
   We say it without mincing words and to be clear, we SHIT on those progressive dreams. For us, a person who is born with a dysfunctional brain or with an atrophied body must be abandoned in the forest to become dinner for some animal. For us, a person who is born with a dick but thinks he is female or vice versa is nothing more than a weak-minded person too confused by the labels and roles of civilization. In real life, in the harshness of wild nature, there is no time for such modernist fagots.

2. About misanthropy we could say that it is something very important within eco-extremist thought, although it is a dysfunctional approach in a more global framework, to address this modern era it is very accurate. We are constantly surrounded by humanoids, our environment is shaped by human intervention, and that has only brought misery and devastation. How not to hate the human?

3. Nihilism is one more weapon in this war, it cuts off the hope of future changes or revolutions that never come, but it also tears apart the entire framework of moral evaluations that covers the prevailing thought of the time. Leaving us with nothing but Nothing. Some throw themselves into that abyss of denial and total rejection, which is perfectly valid, we eco-extremists who write these words, put the acceptance of a limited and defective mind before, and the place of Nothing we fill with the worship of the Unknown, the Hidden and the Unspeakable, the primitive, unknowable forces that underlie the Whole and move the strings of our existence. On some occasions they take the name of Ajajema, Anhangá, Gualichu, Mictlantecuhtli or even Satan, and on others they manifest simply as Wild Nature.

– What does the wild mean to you?

For us Wild Nature as a concept is somewhat contradictory. On the one hand we have Nature, which currently functions as an image of the spectacular type created by civilization to sustain domestication, that is, it is a reflection or a ghost and not a “material reality”, and acts by establishing a separation between us (humans) and the wild. The wild are impulses or instincts that live inside us. Nature does not exist or is dead (or rather, it was killed), now only civilization and its backyard remain, the forests, rivers, mountains and as a whole all the ecosystems that remain are “reserves”, “ecological parks” and in short, spaces that were subjected to the control of territorialization. That they are still green and not gray is something circumstantial and responds only to the purposes of civilization. This reality hit us like a ton of bricks. That is why when we eco-extremists fight for wild nature we do it in a double sense, on the one hand claiming revenge for all that civilization buried or tamed for its petty purposes and on the other clinging to the internal savagery that separates us from the total submission, that part of us that remains human and therefore wild and animal and therefore is neither civilized nor artificial, we all carry it inside, the difference is that we listen to it and give it free rein.

– Who is Kevin Garrido for you?

Kevin Garrido was for us an unbreakable warrior, one of those who no longer remain. Endowed with the same strength that Cuautemokzin had when being tortured by the Spanish lackeys of Cortez, inflicting burns on his feet so that he would reveal the location of the Mexica gold, he remained stoic and only said while looking at his ally: “ Am I in a flower bed?

– What do you think of the attack on the police station in Huechuraba?

That was very cool po ‘, waajajaja. We enjoyed knowing that many cops had been injured, when events like this occur the intentions behind do not matter, it would have been the same thing that an earthquake shook the police station, the unpredictable violence of Chaos fell once again, breaking with peace civilized, that’s always cause for celebration for eco-extremists.

– Do you consider that the burning of Cerro San Cristóbal was an eco-extremist action?

Of course not, and you know it well. Whether it was some harmful humans or the supreme will of wild nature, it is clear that we eco-extremists were not responsible, nor can the action be categorized as eco-extremist if the meaning that we give to the term is used.

– Investigating the subject, we discovered that the University of Chile spent many millions of pesos on security measures recommended by the ANI (such as iris recognition cameras and turnstiles) after the attack on the Faculty of Physical and Mathematical Sciences of the University of Chile in 2016. Although the device did not detonate, do you consider this attack successful?

We also knew about those expenses in security measures. The attack was undoubtedly a resounding success, since in each eco-extremist boldness not only destruction is sought but also terror and destabilization, the latter two were undoubtedly generated. And if the faculty was armored, sharp. New and better targets are always found.

– Why did they mention Dr. Javier Ruiz del Solar, Dr. Paulo Araya, Dr. María Elena Lienqueo, Dr. Guido Garay and Luz Martínez in the statement after the Beauchef bombing? Is it because of their investigations?

Progressive individuals who are dedicated to the improvement of civilization will always be among the possible targets of eco-extremist action.

– What is your relationship with the Eco-extremists of Mexico or Argentina?

Of pure affinity and complicity po’. With the eco-extremists in Argentina it is more direct because, as is known, there are some members of the HMB who broke away from the original group to move to those lands and start a new terrorist project with the name of Red Blood Sect, always under the acronym of STIs. Don’t forget that there are also eco-extremists in Brazil, Greece, Spain and the UK. The ITS Mafia is expanding in all latitudes and shows no signs of stopping. It should not be ruled out that in the not so distant future there will be coordinated actions of a higher caliber, such as simultaneous indiscriminate assassinations.

– Who is Camilo Gajardo Escalona?

As was already said in communique 86, we do not know who Camilo Gajardo Escalona is, but we assume that he is nothing more than a scapegoat used by the cops to hide his incompetence, which is otherwise visible to all. If they believe that they have stopped ITS, their illusions will not go very far.

– Will the activity of eco-extremists continue?

Have no doubt, in the South, in the North and in Europe, it will continue hand in hand with natural disasters and all forms of crime.
*The world is like an hourglass, on the upper side is civilization, with all its rigid structures that seek to ensure law and order, sustained by the weight of its legal and moral frameworks that work to keep the whole cohesive. The lower side is Chaos, and little by little, the sand is falling. With it fall all illusions of progress, all dreams of worlds of comfort and security. Nowadays, the upper side is still quite full, but little by little, Chaos is taking shape. It is only a matter of time before the world of human superiority dissolves into the eternal waves of Chaos and Savagery. Meanwhile, we prefer to enjoy the fall,

– Do you want these answers to be published?

Of more than if po’, the ideal thing would be that they leave stamped in some medium with a great reach for these soils. And if not, surely the Eco-extremist Curse kids will make room for them.

Hail Wild Nature, Chaos and Misanthropy!

Let the War Against Human Progress continue!

Individualists Tending to the Wild – Chile

Mystic Horde of the Forest

12^th Interview (March 12, 2021, Mexico)

Source

---

Why and when did you get involved in radical green politics?

For about 10 years I have been involved with the issue of radical environmentalism, along with neo-Luddism, anti-civilization, etc., back then I was young and positive, then seeing all the crudity of this world, these thoughts seemed to me like reformists and I considered that no organization of that kind gave accurate blows to the central problem that is civilization.

So, I directed my way towards something more violent, something that caused an impact not only in the media aspect but in the chosen target, I decided to revive along with other accomplices the modus operandi of Mr. Kaczinski, but in the same way it seemed to me that it was falling In the same way, having an optimistic look towards his anti-industrial revolution, all his postulates fell by its own weight, because he was fighting for something that I do not know if it would one day be valid if it materialized, I was fighting blindly as the did communists who never saw their long-awaited revolution triumph, or like the anarchists who never saw their anarchist revolution triumph as they expected. So I rejected this idea and undertook a trip to the Ancient Great Chichimeca, without money or anything, I visited mountains in thick forests where the secrets of the ancients dwell, I hunted, I gathered, I made fire with my hands, I felt the peace and conflict of the wild and saw beautiful things, and things that filled me with hatred towards modern humanity. I made this trip to find vision and during my stay I met several people, all inhabitants of the hills and forests, mostly natives who filled me with wisdom, they told me the feats of the warriors killed by the invaders, and they confined me a mission, to relive the conflict that was pending, but not only against the invader 500 years ago, but now against everything else, against everything that has been ending the wilderness. I promised myself and I swore to my ancestors that I would be one of the factors that would throw this artificial reality into the abyss, I became part of the Chaos and declared War on Human Progress.

Of course, this does not fit within the “radical green politics” since it goes beyond ecologism, that is why I baptized this trend as eco-extremism, since this version is much more committed, it implies a blood pact, a cult towards the Occult and cries out for revenge, the one that is never forgotten and that is paid for with death and injuries.

You are one of the first members of ITS, How was it formed?

I had already mentioned it before, ITS was born from spontaneity. It has been a long process of criticism, analysis, of opening our eyes to make the entire panorama visible and not just a part of it, of throwing away the humanism, progressivism and idealism that infected our thinking, thinking that was coming from the left and that now we turned our backs and criticized harshly. In fact, in fact we have rejected any political position and we only focus on ours.

Not everyone understands the reason for our actions, many even doubt that we exist, look at us, we are here, since 2011 we have been moving forward and we have not stopped, we have not been stopped and we will continue, there are plans for the near future and we are putting them in practice, you will see on the news …

What are the beliefs of ITS?

This is somewhat difficult to answer since ITS is a network of individualists who have different positions, there are some eco-extremists who have a vision closer to the wild nature to which we worship and venerate our ancestors with each attack that we carry out. In ITS there are also accomplices who are closer to nihilistic terrorism who magnify the Ego in each attack and their position is related to anti-cosmic Satanism. But each of us is united by Chaos, Misanthropy and the Wild.

There is no central creed for ITS members, each one has its own particularity, an ITS member in Brazil cannot believe in the same thing that one from Greece believes, to give an example, since that creed is the result of the social interaction at that the individualist is submitted.

What is the ultimate goal of ITS?

Chaos, destabilization, terror, contributing to social decomposition, throwing the values and moral beliefs of civilization into the abyss, confusion. We wake up from the charm of political idealism, there is no better tomorrow, there are no reforms or revolutions that make this putrid reality improve, on the contrary, everything tends to break down, to something worse, we are here to remind all those delusional people who dream of the earthly paradise that everything is lost, that there is nothing to fight for and that the only thing we have left is the survival of the fittest, everything is full of obloquy, calamities, misery, deceit, and gnashing of teeth. ITS is the result of all rancor towards ourselves as a species.

Why do you think it is okay to kill civilians?

Killing civilians is only a consequence of the war we wage, we don’t see it as a good thing, but neither as a bad thing, it just happens and that’s it. We decided to attack civilians as a sign of our misanthropic hatred, as the translation of the disgust we have for the modern human being with everything it represents for this era. It must be remembered here that we not only kill civilians, we have also killed certain leaders of important universities, or who are leading important scientific projects, we have targeted presidents, ministers, businessmen and other similar crap.

How big is ITS?

Bigger than a single group, smaller than an army.

Is it correct to say that you are now less devoted/dedicated to eco-extremism and more to militant nihilism?

Nihilism itself is a complement to eco-extremism, the one is closely linked to the other so we are not turning to pure nihilism since the two are on par and have a common goal that is the destruction of everything and the exaltation of Nothingness, of the Occult, of the Wild. It is true that lately we have been setting our sights on the in-depth study of Nihilistic Terrorism but this is only the continuity of the theory within eco-extremism.

Within this trend there are parts, cycles, moments in which our thinking is focused on a topic that derives from others and that we strive for its understanding and analysis, in this case, pure and simple Nihilism. And as I mentioned above, ITS is full of individualists who consider themselves eco-extremists and others who consider themselves Nihilists, we are what Stirner had said at the time, a Union of Egoists who share the goal of Destruction. So if for the moment you realize that we are more Nihilists than Eco-extremists, notice that later you will be considering us more Extinctionists and Misanthropes than Nihilists or Eco-extremists, but in the end, they are thoughts that intertwine with each other and of which we extract something.

Why have you begun to recognize fascists as your allies (Tempel ov Blood, O9A)?

ITS never recognized that, although it is true we have taken some organizational experiences of these groups without caring much about their political orientation, not because we write or quote the TOB we are right-wing Satanists, at some point we have also taken experiences from the Paraguayan People’s Army, or from the Mapuche, and that does not mean that we are leftist or indigenists, the same thing happens when we quote the First Capital Command of Brazil, or the Magliana Band of Italy, not because we mention them we are part of those mafias , NO.

ITS takes the best of each criminal group and puts it into practice, we also see their mistakes so that we do not commit them, this is how ITS is nurtured and takes experience from that inherited empirical knowledge.

If you are so upset and disillusioned with the world, to the point where you want to destroy everything, why not just kill yourself instead of hurting others?

It would be too easy, the members of ITS are meticulous, creative to destroy, we want to perform our skills on the terrorist grounds, and not simply cease to exist from one moment to the next, of course, at some point we are going to do it, we are going to immolate ourselves, But before we want to leave a trail of violence, manuals to make explosives that are referring to whoever intends to initiate criminal actions of any kind, we want to leave a mark.

When we decide to destroy our bodies with explosives or perish in a confrontation, we are going to do it, but we are not going to go alone, we will make sure to take to death a considerable number of people with us, indiscriminately.

Is ITS a cult?

It is a cult of Chaos, the Occult and the Wild.

Some say ITS doesn’t even really exist as it only has four or five members with a large online presence. What would you say to this?

To that bunch of fools I would tell them to think whatever they want, then do not scream when we murder, put bombs and leave people mutilated. And even if ITS was a single bastard who travels to different countries to carry out terrorist acts, the danger would continue to exist, we are not an army and we do not need to be, ITS groups have demonstrated that the power of the individual, the Ego and the work in solitary are more than enough to put an entire intelligence apparatus of various countries upside down.

Have you personally carried out any attack?

Of course, I am responsible for several murders claimed or not by ITS, I have placed bombs in public places that have left wounded and I have sent bomb packages in mailboxes addressed to the heads of corporations, I have set fire to telecommunications antennas and to motor vehicles with their drivers inside, I have sabotaged heavy machinery in forests under the light of the moon, I have made bomb threats, I have participated in armed robberies in shops and banks, I have been in massive looting and home theft, I have pelted with stones and shot patrols, I participated in riots during demonstrations, and other criminal acts, I am not a man of words, but of deeds, that is why I, XALE, am the leader of ITS in Mexico.

People consider you the leader of ITS. Why?

First, because I named it ITS, because I gave the bases that now support it, because I insisted that the project must continue and not stagnate, because I proposed internationalization and because I carried out the first attacks since 2011 in Mexico with which ITS had international relevance and concern for the institutions in charge of national security.

Because my advice has guided others to cross the line from words to actions, which I have encouraged and been a reference for this trend. Only for that.

How often do you carry out attacks?

It does not appear that many have occurred in Mexico for some time.

Everything has its time dear friend, just as the flower has its time to bloom, so we have our time to carry out public terrorist activities.

Although, not because we have not claimed acts lately it means that we have stopped. There has to be a lapse of time for the improvement of acts, caution and planning, do not despair that we will soon return…

You and Ted Kaczynksi had a public discussion via letters on the internet. Could you please explain what that was about?

That was undoubtedly a somewhat indirect discussion, since Ted never explicitly referred to us except in a text that criticized our old speech that dated from 2011, however, the criticism he had was correct because ITS no longer thinks like in 2011.

With whom we did have more direct discussions was with their acolytes, their Spanish followers of Último Reducto, who have published several criticisms that we have responded promptly, however, it became clear that neither they nor we are going towards the same objective, ITS It focuses on the destabilization of the techno-industrial system now, and Ted’s followers are betting on a fanciful revolution against the same system but in the future, something that we do not see as viable and that we firmly reject.

We have always recognized that Ted has been a source of inspiration since our inception, and that we learned many things from him, but we have chosen our path outside of his standards and we have criticized him because it has been fair and necessary, however we have started something and We will follow up even if many are upset because we leave the Kazcynskian, anarchic herd, etc.

— Attack Claims & Ramblings —

Source: Archive.org

ITS claimed more fake attacks than real ones as part of their attempt at ‘psychological warfare’. Also, references to cells and groups will often be one person who they know through a messenger app like Telegram.

‘Earth Liberation Front’ (2008–2011?)

Mexico Government and New School of Tech. Targeted with Butane Gas Bomb (Sept 24, 2010)

Source

Early this morning, September 21, our cell placed a bomb made of butane gas at the gates of the headquarters of Nueva Escuela Tecnológica [New School of Technology] in the municipality of Coacalco, Mexico State. The authorities in that municipality had previously implemented security systems that belong in the worst nightmares of Orwell. Security cameras, artificial eyes guarding their damned social peace, throughout the major avenues in Coacalco.

In the commercial area, the police presence is evident, state police and the mediocre municipal police pass through the streets and on Lopez Portillo Avenue. Guarding the centers of domination and domestication that are also protected by surveillance cameras and the idiot guardians of the imposed order. Facing this situation of high surveillance, it seemed impossible to strike, but rebellious creativity is greater than the highest degree of ‘security’ that the state implements.

The Coacalco commercial area had been previously visited by eco-anarchist cells who conducted significant strikes right in front of the police, who were flabbergasted by an arson, a butane explosion, graffiti and paint spilled in anthropocentric business.

Our action was censured both by the directors of the Nueva Escuela Tecnológica and the Mexico State authorities. They hid the damage that we caused and concealed the evidence of our presence at night. This is not unusual; it happened after the ‘celebrations’ of the ephemeral bicentennial celebration which were held in ‘total’ peace.

The Agencia de Seguridad Estatal [state security agency] as well as detectives from the Mexico City police department are aware of our actions and our presence; they know that we were there and that we detonated our explosive charge as the lackeys on patrol passed by unable to stop us.

We chose to attack the NET because it represents the new era of these centers of domestication called schools, where they learn things that are useless for a free life, but necessary for a life of slavery and alienation. They create beings that depend on technology in order to live in these concrete nests called cities, but more closely resemble large prisons. They train malleable minds to be used for entrepreneurship and to expand civilization over wild nature. We will not permit this.

Once again we say: not with their cameras, nor their police officers, nor with their investigators, nor their prisons, will they be able to stop us; we once again skinned the rotten bastards, godammit!

This action is dedicated to the Chilean anarchist prisoners, captured after the wave of repression in that country on August 14; we send much strength, from mexico we remember them in every direct action.

We did not want to wait until the 24^th to show our solidarity. Support is not only for one day, it is in our everyday actions!

Direct solidarity for the eco prisoners Abraham López and Adrian Magdaleno, for the eco revolutionaries on hunger strike in Switzerland, for the animal liberation prisoner Walter Bond in the U.S., and the vegan warriors imprisoned in Italy!

Keep running Diego, you’re fucking awesome!

Frente de Liberación de la Tierra/México

ITS The First Go Round (2011–2014)

Message One (27 April 2011)

If you think that I am a pessimist, then you have not understood anything

Nanotechnology is one of the many branches of the Domination System. In recent years there has been significant progress in American countries like the United States, Canada, Brazil and also Mexico, where there has been an accumulation of domestic and foreign capital for the creation of nano-scale technology.

Nanotechnology is the furthest advancement that may yet exist in the history of anthropocentric progress. It consists in the total study, the scrutiny into the manipulation and domination of all the smallest elements, invisible to human eyes. With this humans have managed to control everything, absolutely everything, from changes in the climate to the smallest atomic molecule. Civilization, aside from threatening our freedom as Individuals, the freedom of the Animals and of the Earth, now passes its threat even to the scale of less than a micrometer.

National institutions and corporations that conduct rigorous studies and research for the commercial development of Nano-bio-science are varied; they range from the Instituto Mexicano del Petroleo (IMP) with the help of Pemex and CFE, the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM), Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana (UAM), Universidad Iberoamericana, the Instituto Potosino de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica (among others) with its Environmental Nanotechnology University Project; Glaxo SmithKline, Unilever, Syngenta, among others.

This type of technology is growing, the branches that it has encompassed can scarcely be counted (medicine, military, cosmetology, petrochemistry, nuclear, electro-informatics) but these are just the beginnings of what it can encompass. Before this growing “evolution,” there have been many grandiloquencies made to Nanotechnology, technologists have declared that it will be good for the environment, that it will solve the problem of contamination by means of nanocatalysts to clean the water and the air, they claim that it will bring an end to many diseases that for now are incurable or only treatable, they declare that there will be new applications that can be given to petroleum by-products to create new sources of energy, they declare that food will be more nutritious and infused with antibodies to make people stronger and healthier, in short, an innumerable list of “wonders” has been thought up by those who persist in nanometrically developing another “superior way of life.” Their promises resemble those they said at the beginnings of the industrial revolution. They said that we would live better, that they would solve the problems that were facing humanity in those years. What was the reality? This synthetic, dull, concrete and metal world. What can we expect from the new scientists who repeat the same promises?

But the side that the scientists do not show is that for now nanotechnology has tortured millions of animals kidnapped directly from the wilderness in their laboratories to test their new products, experiments so aberrant that we cannot imagine them.

World powers are getting ready for biochemical and nuclear wars. To finish completely with their politico-diplomatic enemies they have made available new technology with the ability to become intelligent and cause irreparable damage to the human body and the environment. Nanoparticles travel at a very high speed inside the body, they can invade the bloodstream and penetrate organs like the heart, liver, brain, spleen and lungs where they destroy cell membranes, where they can spray toxic material and create a reaction much more agonizing and lethal than nuclear contamination. These manipulated particles can be inhaled by humans, plants and animals alike, which would cause an ecological imbalance of large-scale concern, breathing will cause illness or death, there will be new allergies, outbreaks and plagues all with a diagnosis impossible to decipher, drug companies will make their grand entrance (creating accidents as they have done before) for the “welfare” of humanity, until all the available money they can take with their business runs out, and it is like this that the puzzle of Civilization is completed, it is in this way that the cycle never ends. Tomorrow we will live in a world already sick in itself because of technological advancement and the expansion of Civilization.

The nanomotors are now one of the newer developments, with these it is intended to give nanocyborgs life at low levels of energy consumption. With this, robotics and nanotechnology together have put on the table the creation of artificial intelligence (which many thought would be just science fiction), machines will be producing machines, self-repairing and self-replicating without a hitch. Total domination will have reached its peak when human clones are created, when they design through nanotechnology the totally manipulated model, without any Wild impulse or instinct, molded by repetition of daily submission, they will create this and more but the consequences will be high. The looming threat of an explosion of manufactured nanoparticle pollution blown into the air, water and land is very real if this technology continues. Chemical reactions will be serious tomorrow and the nanocatastrophe will be a daily reminder to humanity of what has been lost by trying to be more civilized and modern.

Undoubtedly, Civilization (a human invention) has taken over all aspects of non-life, has created this and more to the point that computerized biochemical weapons with intelligence-devices are already tested in the Middle East conflict, with an excellent pretext to seize the black gold (oil) from Arab nations.

Day by day, we see the eyes terrorized by the irresponsible attitude of humanity toward the wilderness, we realize that we live in a technological nightmare, birth-consumption-death is the torturous cycle within the cities, the last reserves of wild environment are converted into “protected ecological zones” and the destruction advances moment by moment, this can be seen in oil spills in the Amazon in South America and the Gulf of Mexico, in the radioactive water in the Sea of Japan, the devastation of entire forests in Russia, the super-exploitation of minerals in Africa, the large-scale production of cars in Europe, the extinction of thousands of animals per year, the construction of super-highways, subways and residential complexes through rough woodland, technological progress is bringing an end to the world in which we subsist for now, which is always decaying.

In Mexico, as mentioned, nanoscale technology continues to grow, the government of the Mexican State wants to keep abreast of progress and modernity (also by the morbid and mediocre goal of reaching the national presidency) and therefore has built the Universidad Politécnica del Valle de Mexico, where the Nanotechnology degree is one of several courses complicit in technological development. The reasons to attack all types of growth in nanoscience are quite strong and therefore we have sent a parcel bomb to that institution on April 14^th of this year, specifically to the head of the Engineering Division in Nanotechnology, Prof. Oscar Alberto Camacho Olguin. We have no hesitation in attacking those people who are key to the climax that technology wants to achieve. We prefer to see them dead or mutilated rather than continuing to contribute with their scientific knowledge to all this shit, to continue feeding the Domination System.

We do not see through the lens of “humanity,” (that huge and twisted mass of the disposed swarming every which way), we see through Wild Nature, and reason has led us to radical action, to make it clear, we will not shake their hands but will attack with all our means this imposed reality and those who support and defend it.

With this action we conducted, we have not struck powerfully at the Megamachine and we are aware that with this we have not changed anything (maybe the state or federal police now protect the University community, maybe nanotechnologists will realize that we see them as enemies, perhaps the State of Mexico will begin more in-depth investigations, but nothing more), and we say this because we know that all the efforts we make against the Techno-Industrial System are useless, we have seen the immensity of this great mass of metal and concrete, and we realized that all we ever do at one time or another will not stop progress and less so if there are still false-radicals and leftist struggles that aim at the destruction of a target, but have not yet noticed, have not viewed beyond, that all this does not do anything; some think that this is pessimistic, think that we have fallen into defeatism — but no, if we had fallen into these traps of civilization would not be making explosives for technology staff — we say this rather because it is the reality and the reality we know that hurts. What is needed to hit hard (within a Unabomberist idea) at the System? To put nano-bio-technology, telecommunication industry, electricity, computers, oil in our sights? And if we beat them unanimously with others in different countries, all that, what would happen? Would we deter anything? 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.

Because although some elements within Civilization tell us that we have been domesticated for years biologically, we nevertheless continue to have Wild Instincts that we hurl in defense of the whole of which we are a part — the Earth.

This does not end here…

Total support with the Anti-civilization prisoners in Mexico, with the Chilean comrades and with the furious Italians and Swiss.

…I have lived my life without ever giving up and I enter into the shadows without complaints nor regrets…

- Individualidades Tendiendo a lo Salvaje (Individualists Tending Toward Savagery)

Message Two (22 May 2011)

On May 25, 1978 a package bomb is left in the campus of Northwestern University in Illinois; a security guard opens it and is wounded. This was the first attempt of the Freedom Club against direct persons who contributed to technological development with their consciousness in this epoch.

By means of various newspaper reports, we have learned that our first explosive, which was directed to the head of the Division of Nanotechnology Engineering at UPVM in the month of April functioned but did not reach its initial objective. A curious individual who works for the university opened it, causing him to be wounded in the face and leaving his right eye seriously injured. The press has said that a curious person moved the package with a stick and it exploded, which is completely false, since the package was (obviously as the press said) inside a black bag, wrapped in white paper with various warnings and security stamps, so it was practically impossible that with a mere movement the electrical system would active. Faced with this occasion we want to declare that we do not have any kind of remorse, our objective was precisely for the security guards to take the package to the addressed professor, but due to the policing impulses of this person, and due to his inspecting the package, this person took the wounds that were for the head of the aforementioned division. We will see if the professor Camacho can carry in his conscience that an “innocent” was wounded in an attempt that was intended for him. Without a doubt, curiosity killed the human.

“This is not a joke: last month we made an attempt on the life of Oscar Camacho, today against the institution, tomorrow who knows? Fire to nano-technological development along with those who sustain it!!” – That was the message that we left written on a small sheet of paper with the explosive device left in the campus of the Polytechnic University of the Valle de Mexico on May 9^th, the very day of the start of the new semester. This time the device detonated not by means of a timer system nor by ignition, but manually. The device appeared inoffensive from the outside (according to the police who know already), but inside was composed of a galvanized nipple tightly packed with black powder, various cables and a square battery. The device was activated upon turning the lid of the tin bottle (which only served as a container) since the negative and positive cables of the electrical circuit touched, producing a spark. The same day we sent various e-mails to IT directors (who are constantly on the computer and likewise their e-mail) and secretaries of the university, indicating the exact place where the black bag that contained the homemade bomb could be found, with this action we intended to cause physical harm to some police officers, who would come and try to open the container, leaving the university marked with two attacks; we wanted to make it clear that as we have said before, our hands do not tremble at carrying out our action, against the branches of the System of Domination and against those who sustain and protect it. However, it seems that with every passing day the system absorbs every trace of the free ecosystems that remain, a very clear example being the forest fires in the north of the country: enormous, majestic and almost virgin forests in which a great variety of flora and fauna develop without any direct human impediment have been reduced to ashes, greenhouse gases have made the land heat up to abnormal levels, which generate droughts and fires, like those that swept more than 200,000 acres in the Coahuila forest alone, animals such as whitetail deer, various birds such as eagles, hawks and wild turkeys, rabbits, wild cats, wild boar, black bears, cougars and other species were also affected in their environment, which causes these to migrate to other territories and cause ecological imbalance. These fires have spread over part of Zacatecas, San Luis Potosi, Quintana Roo, Veracruz, Oaxaca, Yucatan, and all this caused by the consumption of the sedentary masses (over-population) and the large-scale production of materials “necessary” for civilized life. We are condemning ourselves to our own extermination, if a person is dying in this moment in whatever part of the world, at the same time, hundreds of new beings are being born to extend this complex system of devastation and thus upset the balance of biodiversity.

The Earth feels the repercussions of this, another example was the earthquake in Spain, which left several dead and wounded, cities as fragile as Murcia will soon fall into pieces with any minor 6-point aftershock, leaving a devastating climate, but nothing, nothing comparable with what we have done to this world. In the United States the floods in Mississippi cover everything in their path, something never before seen in that part of the globe, even the specialists could not prevent this “environmental catastrophe” so called by the mindless fools who do not realize that we and only we are the ones responsible for all our (coming) misfortunes and thus, the polar glaciers melt imminently, global warming is becoming ever more aggressive, wild environments are occupied for urbanization displacing animal species into extinction or to occupy environments alien from their own or to live a stay-at-home-domesticated life, the cities expand without caring what they cut down, dig out, or destroy, the petroleum industries tunnel hundreds of kilometers under sea level and and impose their platforms, extracting the Earth and irreparably damaging the marine environment; birds fall from the sky and cover highways on the outskirts of the cities, likewise the hundreds of dead fish that cover the coasts of the sea, tomorrow the only green zones will be those protected by the State and industries in order to maintain their abject lie of “ecologically-responsible businesses,” soon there will not be (semi) wild environments; these will be consumed by progress. And in spite of all this we have not learned the lesson, we continue supporting the torturous hedonist path that civilization has taken towards total domestication, daily more new technology, more consumption, more ecological devastation, more animal species that only remain as references in science books, more people with gas masks and face masks walking in the streets and public transport, more machines constructing enormous skyscrapers and skybridges, metal and concrete, more biocidal projects on their way to construction (e.g. high-velocity trains in France and Spain, the HidroAysén project in Chile, etc.), more alienation toward this non-life, more children developing artificially, more nuclear missiles with nano-bacteriological cargo falling from the sky, more war that only causes damage and perverts the fragile natural cycle, and with all this comes nanotechnology, its use to subjugate everything that is not plainly visible is a reminder that the civilized human will not stop until having achieved the unthinkable. In Mexico alone, before 2009 the teaching of nano-science would only be imparted in a few private universities, now its field spans the public universities, and it is attractive to all the moldable minds that dream of a comfortable life of money that falls to them from the sky being specialists or key components in nano-progress. We have read in the newspapers and seen in the news this year that, according to UPVM’s reports the educational offering in the degree of Nanotechnology Engineering is widening. Such that, as one can see, more imbeciles who are fascinated with technological development are counted by the hundreds in various universities in this very moment, hundreds who go into this kind of degree in order to become like human machines for protecting and widening Techno-industrial progress. Hundreds who we know due to socio-economic possibilities (as is traditional in Mexico) will abandon those studies [62], but the minimal part who finish their degree will be the vanguard in nanoscience — and that, that is what we are putting in our sights. Nanotechnology is going to gain territory with this, not to put aside the wide economic support that it is receiving from the State and public industries, private industries (complicit in the same way in the System of Domination) and federal institutions such as CONACYT (National Counsel of Science and Technology), which has various branches and centers of investigation (biotechnology, nanotechnology, infrastructure, urbanization, among others) for the increase of the domination of the Earth and is the central responsible for elaborating the politics that allow the modification of the downed natural equilibrium. To tell the truth, UPVM within its dozen personnel has three professors who are accredited as members of the National System of Researchers and another three in the Conacyt Register of Accredited Evaluators, which are branches of the federal institution.

Throughout last year and for part of this one, the UPVM has signed agreements with General Electric, Ford Motors, and the business associations of Tlalnepantla and Tultitlan, thus making visible the vampiric circle of collaborators who drive the domination and destruction of everything potentially free.

And we, what can we do in the face of the devastation that the Earth suffers by the techno-industrial system? Nothing, it does not depend on us. Then are we going to remain immobile before all this? Never!

We make a clarification here: Perhaps it is time for the university authorities and police to put themselves to analyzing things very well, we have much information with respect to the attacked university. Do they think we don’t know there are a little over 70 students within the Nanotechnology course within the classrooms? (This number does not compare with the students of the other courses, who number more than 150.) We know about the other distinguished figures, the responsible professors, so it would be best for them to walk carefully within and outside of the university, that they take warning of every suspicious shape in rooms, buildings, parking areas and campus, because one of these days we are going to make them pay for everything that they want to do to the Earth with these kinds of nano-scale technologies. We will repeat, this is not a joke and we have made that quite clear.

One more time: Direct and total support with the anti-civilization prisoners of Mexico, with those eco-anarchists of Switzerland, to the affinities in Argentina, Spain, Italy, Chile and Russia. Remembering the savage individualist Mauricio Morales.

the majority of people move because they are ordered to do so, there is no will in their actions, they are all robots of flesh. The remainder live, sleep and die, nevertheless there are still some who dream and who laugh.

Taking advantage of this virtual space in which we disseminate our ideas/actions [63], we want to push a constant truly radical critique, it becomes important for us to analyze to the source some questions that are in the air and even can be or are in the habit of being untouchable for many. For some certain time there have been a quantity of groups of action and/or propaganda with ideas against Civilization and technology. Of these groups, one can detach various branches — there are those who believe that with actions of sabotage we can end the Techno-industrial System, others equally illusioned believe that when Civilization falls everything will be rosy and a new world will flourish without social inequality, hunger, repression, etc, etc, etc. Others tend to educate the masses so that they and their children will be more careful with nature. Others romanticize Wild Nature (calling it mother, home, etc) without realizing that to live in a wild environment is really hard and violent. Others still think that the collapse of Civilization has to be the work of “revolutionaries” and critique everything that is for them “deviant” and “pseudo-revolutionary” within their conceptions.

We do not mention ourselves within these branches because our ideas are far from the approaches put out. What we try to cover here are the old leftist terms that they continue to use even in some anti-civilization and anti-technology circles (which precisely critique leftism) at the international level and which must urgently be abandoned in order to give way to a radical critique and to go beyond in our positionings against the Mega-machine.

One of the first concepts is that of “revolution,” this concept so used by all the anti-civilization persons and primitivists who say they are the ones who have the absolute truth in their hands. The Unabomber, now known as Ted Kaczynski, started to use the term in various texts that (now) circulate in the Spanish language. In one of those he mentions an anti-technological “revolution” far from the values of the system, but isn’t the term “revolution” part of the values of the same system? We remember that all the revolts that ended in popular uprisings and later in “revolutions” throughout history have ended in domination. They have only reformed the system making it stronger, even though often having certain aspects antagonistic with the strategies of the prevailing market, it was and is the case with the socialist countries that although their financial structure was supported on an (according) economic-political-social-cultural basis different than that of the capitalist countries, they continued and continue being part of the system. Here we are not supporting what Kaczysnki said at one time [64] when he made the example of the so-called French or Russian “revolution,” in order to give space to the context which, according to his and many others’ belief, will give way to a supposed “anti-technology revolution.” Basing ourselves once again in Ted’s explanations, he has said in his other texts that now many people are questioning the use of technology, that that they are thinking seriously about abandoning it. We remember that Kaczynski is in a maximum security prison, isolated from the world that surrounds him since 1996; surely if he left the prison in this very moment, he would realize that everything is worse (much worse) than when he saw it last century, he would realize how much science and technology have advanced and how much they have devastated and perverted. He would realize that now people are alienated more with the use of technology and that they have even put it on an alter as their deity, their sustenance, their own life. As such, the concept of “revolution” is completely antiquated, sterile and outdated with the anti-civilization ideas that one would want to express. A word that itself has been used by different groups and individuals in history in order to arrive at power, in order to once again dominate and be the center of the universe. A word that has served as the longed-for dream for all the leftists who have faith that some day it will come to liberate them from their chains. Psychologically, in order to compensate their efforts with the “glorious day in which the revolution triumphs.” “Revolution” tends toward new arrangements, insurrection leads us to not let ourselves be arranged, but to organize ourselves and does not set its hopes on future arrangements — words of Max Stirner [65]. The meaning of “revolution” has always been the violent change of the economic, political and social structures of whatever system, a change that would be reached (we repeat) violently, a change for which men and women struggle (in mass society) for a determined time even years, the struggle that liberated them is in order to obtain “something better” than what the old regime has given them, and in order that after the “revolution” has ended they work to obtain what they longed for, in order to satisfy that ideal for which they sacrificed and even gave their lives.

These are the steps that for centuries the old “revolutionaries” have repeated, but now, we place in our minds a supposed anti-technology “revolution,” it is said that the collapse of Civilization will be the work of the “revolutionaries” themselves (a phrase with much similarity what the socialists and other sorts employ: “’the revolution’ will be the work of the people itself”). But how do they know this? How do they propose such a thing when now the system is inventing new forms to self-repair automatically within the hand of the human being? They also say that education should be an important point, the work for which that we should occupy ourselves with, those of us who have these kinds of ideas, but educate who? We would be falling into an error to make a case of what Kaczynski said, “educating” the people that technology will bring us to our destruction — that is obvious, no doubt, but to “educate” the people, the masses, a society that lives for the new video game and virtual music on their music players, their automobiles that they park alone and their portable computers, their cellular telephones with new and improved modalities and their social networks? We do not see possible a change of structures at a major scale without the masses, therefore neither do we see possible a whole sea of people sick of the consequences of a western life, of sedentarism and the advance of the Techno-industrial System destroying it violently, we do not believe it possible. They also say that a change of values must come from an education taught from now on; Kaczynski has based his ideas on the French “Revolution” in order to make the example of that during the Renaissance many values began to flourish in Europe in many people’s minds and just then the uprising in France arose. On plain sight the approach is acceptable, but at the bottom we can see that it has expired, the same conditions no longer exist, technological advance and alienation born from this are significant and have devastated in modernity any desire of liberating oneself from what keeps us tied. Moreover, to compare the ancient Russian and French “revolutions” with the fictitious anti-technology “revolution” is a serious error because these have tremendous, clearly marked antagonisms, also because we suppose that the “revolution” that Kaczynski proposes is radically different from any other, either one renames this concept (for those who believe in radical change by the “revolutionaries”) or we accept the reality that the “revolution” never existed nor will it ever exist. If a socialist “revolution” (situated in Mexico) has not been able to be seen, much less an anarchist “revolution” and even less an anti-technology one. This critique, precisely, in time and space, is for those who believe that the collapse of Civilization will be the work of the “revolutionaries.” Then, if they believe in a “revolution” should there automatically exist a possible anti-technology utopia?

A world without domestication, with a system stopped by the work of the “revolutionaries,” with Wild Nature born from the ashes of the old technological regime and the human species (what remains) returned to the wild, is completely illusory and dreamy. Even if by a coordinated action of sabotage by the “revolutionaries” (for example, the spreading of a fatal virus that would do away with half or a little more of the global population) the system would collapse, domestication would keep existing, the Techno-industrial System would remain latent although with very few people who would sustain it (if this is a future in which it is not self-sustaining by itself). Nature would flourish there is no doubt of that (within this example), but the thousands of survivors who are used to the comfort and artificial happiness of the old system would try to raise and reconstruct it [66]. But that is another topic.

By putting names on the war against civilization like those of “revolution,” “revolutionaries,” “pseudo-revolutionaries,” we are falling in the same thing that the Marxists preach when they brand some as counterrevolutionaries, furthermore we would be falling into a religious dogmatism like the leftists’ schemas.

In which the god is Wild Nature, the messiah is Ted Kaczynski, the bible is the Unabomber manifesto, the apostles are Zerzan, Feral Faun, Jesús Sepúlveda, and others, the longed-for paradise is the collapse of Civilization, the enlightened or the preachers are the “revolutionaries,” maintained by the faith which would be the blind confidence they have that someday the “revolution” will come, the disciples would be the “potential revolutionaries,” the crusades and missions would be carrying the word to the circles of people involved in green or anarchist struggles (where they would find the “potential revolutionaries”) and the atheists or sects are those who do not believe in their dogmas nor accept their ideas as being coherent with reality.

This is what they have fallen into, and what anti-civilization ideas can fall into, except that we began to analyze not only all that surrounds us (as we have done before) but also what is in our heads as well, a self-critique and a revalorization become indispensable in the face of the changes that the System of Domination presents.

The second concept, which is not only a concept but is a strategy, is that of the “new urban guerrilla,” this not right now within anti-civilization ideas, it is something a bit more general in the sphere of sabotage and direct action. Many groups have been seen to claim responsibility with these words, the term if we remember correctly began to be used with the most importance by the group of the Conspiracy of Cells of Fire in Greece a few years ago. The central argument of this concept resides in that the strategy continues to be that of an urban guerrilla but with new forms. That is to say, the actions continue to be the same, robberies for financing, falsification of documents, bombings with sophisticated explosives or lacking these with a large quantity of explosives, armaments, munitions, transport, safe houses and the rest. But what was considered as “new” was that it does not have leaders nor commands, the cells enjoy total autonomy in the attack, seeing their members as individuals and not as militiamen or subordinates of the general command or of the central nucleus. Even so, and although they say that there is a “new urban guerrilla,” they committed the same errors as the old urban guerrilla, we do not think to understand a judgement like the RAF guerrillas had in the 70s, repeating again but in the 2000s with the members of the CCF. It would not take us by surprise if some other group from whatever part of the world that will name itself as “new urban guerrilla” will fall in the hands of the State-capital for basing itself on these kinds of experiments that have only left prisoners. The best option to slip away from the system continues to be informal organization, meeting as individuals in affinity or alone, betting on insurrectionalist immediatism and the quality of sabotage, rejecting formal organization and indiscriminate recruiting.

The third aspect that we want to cover is the obscene handling that has been given to the name of Mauricio Morales lately, although clearly we never knew him, we have read what he left expressed with paper and ink; we find a very strong and sharp affinity with what he expressed and with what he did, if we did not feel it we would not even name him. Why? Because we are not participants in indiscriminate solidarity, we vindicate only our own, nothing more. Today marks two years from the death of an individualist who tended toward the wild, but it appears that many are the leftists who remember him as a “social fighter,” a “politically correct” person, all to the contrary of what he thought, deviating from what he truly was. Not only we say this, those who knew him to the bottom and who were with him will verify this, the Limited Group of Savage Individuals (as his compas signed) [67] showed their anger shortly after Mauricio had died. It is painful that his name has been converted into a slogan and that his name is simply attached to another text on the anniversary of his death. But although his name and his acts are almost completely deformed, there are some affinities who understand the real value that his words and actions had.

— Individualidades tendiendo a lo salvaje (Individualists Tending toward the Wild)

Message Three (9 August 2011)

The continual advancement of technology will worsen the situation. The more the system grows, the more disastrous will be the consequences of its failure.

Revenue directly attributable to nanotechnology has been growing at levels of 42% between 2006 and 2011, and by the end of 2011 is estimated to generate revenues of more than US$19 billion [68].

This is only one fact that demonstrates that they are prostrating themselves to the gaze of the devastating nanotechnological progress with more emphasis on Mexico.

As has been mentioned before, [69] [70] this country positions itself together with Brazil as one of the two most viable options for investing in nanoscience within Latin America. For this, they have put in the university engineering classes and courses whose end is the professional preparation of moldable minds that not only want to acquire a paper to accredit their studies, but also truly desire to contribute with their scientific studies to the development and rise of nanobiotechnology, to acquire what the system wants: The total Domination of all that is potentially free.

But let’s stop a little and think, What are the true motives that lead scientists to get involved in this new technological nanorevolution [71]?

Many of the scientists will say it has been to “help humanity.” But deeper within these simplistic excuses are hidden psychological needs that are called surrogate activities. Surrogate activities [72] refer to all those acts or tasks that aim to reach an artificial end and not a real one.

The scientists say that they create carbon nanotubes, for example, to make life more comfortable for humanity, but the true reason that most of them [73] do this is because they feel a strong emotional commitment to the branch in which they develop; that is, they do not do it so humanity lives “better” as they have always claimed, but rather for a vague personal and psychological realization, so that, with this, we arrive at a swift and irrefutable conclusion, most scientists base their research on their twisted psychological needs, on their surrogate activities.

Continuing with the theme, in Mexico there are 650 nanotechnologists and the figure rises [74], in addition to the the growing interest of young people to go into that area. Several factors (which we have explained in the above paragraph and in footnote f) drive more “new” minds to have the commitment to sustain this type of technology while today the fatal and desolate outcome that it will have in the future has not been publicly discerned.

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry Harold Kroto said that “The Governments of Europe and the United States devote large sums of money to nanotechnology to investigate, for example, how to make their planes invisible,” and, “If we could go back to 1910, we could avoid having researched chemistry in the twentieth century and could have avoided napalm or the atomic bomb” [75].

Here, Harold knows and clearly states that an environmental or human catastrophe will be presenting itself, as happened in the 1900′s after having researched chemistry.

And who knows what failures nanometric technology will have when it covers every corner of this artificialized life?

Some scientists have already realized the catastrophic consequences that could result from the aberrant fusion of nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, molecular electronics and robotics.

The ever-increasingly acceleration of Technology will lead to the creation of nanocyborgs that can self-replicate automatically without human intervention; this is obviously a worrying fact for these scientists who for years have given their entire life to the creation of human self-destruction.

One such scientist is the American Eric Drexler, one of the best molecular engineers in his country and promoter of nanotechnology in the international world.

He has mentioned, highly shaken, the possible spread of a gray plague (gray goo in English) [76] caused by billions of nanoparticles self-replicating themselves voluntarily and uncontrollably throughout the world, destroying the biosphere and completely eliminating all animal, plant, and human life on this planet. The conclusion of technological advancement will be pathetic, Earth and all those on it will have become a large gray mass, where intelligent nanomachines reign.

This realistic scenario was not invented by we who are opposed to technological progress, surprisingly, it has been raised by one of the best scientists in the history of the United States.

Let’s read from his own words:

“… [Nano] self-assembly based on early replicators (…) may out-compete plants, filling the biosphere inedible foliage. Omnivorous resistant [nano] “bacteria” could compete with the real bacteria: They could spread like blowing pollen, replicate swiftly, and reduce the biosphere to dust in a matter of days … ”

“… [Thus] the first [nano] replicator assembles a copy of itself in a thousand seconds, then both [nano] replicators assemble two more in the next thousand seconds (…) After ten hours, there are not 36 new [nano] replicators but more than 68,000 million. In less than a day, they would weigh a ton; in less than two days, they would exceed the weight of the Earth; in another four hours, would exceed the combined mass of the Sun and all the planets…” [77].

Another one of the scientists who has realized that he is an engineer of the destruction of Wild Nature (including human) promoting the Technology boom, is the computer scientist Bill Joy. He has said:

“…robotics, genetic engineering and nanotechnologies pose a different threat than previous technologies.

“Specifically, robots, genetically modified organisms and ‘nanorobots’ have in common a multiplicative factor: they can reproduce themselves. A bomb explodes only once; a robot, on the other hand, can proliferate and quickly escape all control…

“To end swallowed in a gray and viscous mass would be without a doubt a depressing end for our adventure on earth, much worse than simple fire or ice. Also, it could happen after a simple ‘oops!’ laboratory incident…” [78].

Intelligent readers will ask themselves, How is it that a scientist has realized what he is producing with his knowledge within the Technological-Industrial System to such a degree? What was it that drove him to thoroughly analyze these types of questions, the co-founder of Sun Microsystems and co-creator of Java and the JINI protocol?

The answer he himself has written:

“Theodore Kaczynski, alias Unabomber: In seventeen years of his terrorist campaign, his bombs killed three people and injured many others. One of the seriously injured was my friend David Gelenter, one of the brightest computer researchers of our time, a true visionary. Moreover, like many of my colleagues, I felt I could be the next victim.

Kaczynski’s actions are criminal and, in my eyes, the mark of a murderous madness. We are clearly in the presence of a “Luddite” [79]. However, this simple observation does not invalidate his argument. I find it hard, but I must admit, his reasoning is worthy of attention. ”

Whatever else may be said, Kaczynski, Unabomber, Freedom Club (or whatever you want to call it) is has Reason.

To continue, what Bill proposed to avoid (according to him) the planetary destruction and the extinction of human and animal species by techno-advance is “…to renounce them, restricting research in the technological domains that are too dangerous, putting limits on our research of certain knowledge.” But what is not analyzed is that Technology never stops, always tending toward the Domination on greater and smaller scales.

Perhaps there are some scientists who believe that continuation in the study of nanotechnology would be an immoral error, and therefore leave their work and academic positions, but there will be others continuing as couriers of civilized progress who do not stop for, nor at, anything.

Nanotechnology focuses on and situates itself in strategic areas for the continuation of Domination, which is why universities create and design nanomaterials and investigate nanosystems (nanobiotechnology). But all this not only has a medicinal goal or one of genomic modification, but one of its strong motives is to use this type of nanoknowledge, initially in the field of war. Hence, millions of sums of money are invested for those to take one step further into the nanomilitary field.

The creation of nanorobots or nanocyborgs is the order of the day. Not only to destroy their enemies–programmed so that when they are within the body of a human (or nonhuman) opponent they program and self-destruct within the brain (or any other organ)–but to prevent attacks with biological, explosive, chemical, nuclear and radioactive weapons, and also so that military equipment would be much lighter, and of course other reasons as well.

Many scientists are still working by trial and error, just morbidly awaiting the effects that millions of nanoparticles ingested aerobically could have for humanity, and also on the environment in which we intend to develop.

Genes and particles do not work in isolation but depend on and interact within an extremely complex system that is the result of millions of years of evolution.

To alter it and change it at the whim of Technology alone would bring new problems and the self-perpetuation of the system.

Companies such as those that have Mexican state in the hand of foreign investment are the ones who drive the domestication of Wild Human Nature and who push forward the destruction of Wild Nature as such, submissively obeying the sick idea of progress of Civilization.

Government institutions like CONACYT (National Council of Science and Technology) and SNI (National System of Researchers) are for now the two most important federal institutions with regard to the evolution of Technology in Mexico, their accreditors have been for a long time conducting lines of research agenda within university classrooms and pushing them on all, the techno-industrial non-life that they are pushing on us.

One of the major universities that has staked everything on the development of nanotechnology (and others) in this country is the Technological Institute of Higher Studies of Monterrey, colloquially known as Monterrey Tec.

Within its teaching staff is an incredible gamut of sick scientists who contributed to this breakthrough that Technology wants to achieve; as an example we have one Laura Palomares, an engineer in Biochemistry for this private university campus, she was honored in 2009 with an award from the Mexican Academy of Sciences for the development of nanomaterials based on virus proteins and metallic particles [80], that is, by means of Bionanotechnology, Palomares created artificial viruses that can fight diseases such as bovine rotavirus.

It has been said that this nanovaccine is one hundred percent safe, but of how many drugs have they not said the same thing and later it is proven that more sicknesses are created by reactions of these substances?

A vaccine injected into the human body that can instantly heal a broken for example (of course, this by means of modified particles), sounds very well, but what is it that will linger after they generate certain reactions in the organism (or perhaps the environment) for these new artificial viruses whose whole complex nanoscale structure can hardly be comprehended?

We make a parentheses here: many might say that Technology has helped medicine be more effective, and they dub us as inhumans for saying that we firmly oppose a vaccine that cures diabetes (for example), but there is falling in one of the many pitfalls of the system.

The Techno-industrial System has always led one to believe that they invent this kind of cure for mankind to live better by being effective and fast in the health field, but what many do not realize is that the system does this so that people are much more dependent on it, for everyone to be healthy [81] and continue greasing the screws of the Megamachine, to continue working, producing and consuming, in short, for the System of Domination to continue to stand.

And so, as the most ingenious trick of the system [82] is solidified, reaping (even more) the vision of those who cower against those who radically reject Technology [83].

The use of modified viruses is not new in nanotechnology, scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) together with others at Harvard have created cells that provide solar energy based on of the photosynthesis process of plants. Remember that for this process to be accomplished, several factors are needed such as the use of water, carbon dioxide and sunlight. With this, scientists have achieved through nanotechnology the separation of oxygen from water to produce hydrogen, and this in turn to be stored for later use to produce energy, modifying their genes by means of a virus so that they absorb it and generate the production of solar cells.

This is the dream of total-technology, but, in the end, the Reality.

But what’s wrong with creating solar energy through modified nanoparticles? some will say. ITS answer: When these modified viruses affect the way we develop as the result of a nanobacteriological war, by some laboratory error, or by the explosion of nanocontamination that compromises the air, food, transportation, water, in short, the entire world, then they will realize, all those who defend nanotechnology and cannot find an apparent threat, that it was a grave mistake to leave it to grow at their leisure.

Like this conscienceless researcher (Laura Palomares) are also others within Monterrey Tec.

We will mention some more:

• Dr. Serguei Kanaoun of SNI with his project of composite material mechanics (nanotubes).

• Dr. Alex Elías Zúñiga with his project of nanomaterials for medical devices.

• Dr. Marcelo Fernando Videa Vargas with his chair in Synthesis of nanostructured materials.

• Dr. Joaquín Esteban Oseguera Peña with his thermochemical Treatments assisted by plasma, etcétera, etcétera.

The degrees that this private and nationally prestigious university imparts and that undoubtedly are directly complicit in the destruction, manipulation and domestication of the Earth, are the following:

• Biotechnology-nanotechnology engineering.

• Mechatronics engineering.

• Industrial physics engineering.

• Electrical mechanical engineering.

• Digital systems and robotics engineering.

• Electronic technology engineering.

• Master in Computer Science.

• Engineering in information and communications technologies.

Among the projects at the mentioned university campus are the Center for Business Development and Transference of Technology, CEDETEC, which is part of a futuristic philosophy called Mission 2015, which is committed to developing research and technology relevant to nanobioindustrial progress for the country in different areas.

In order to accomplish this, the university authorities have created the Congress of Research and Development, which offers work for the alumni and professors of Tec in areas prioritized for this technological invasion, such as Biotechnology and Food, Mechatronics, Nanotechnology, Information and Communications Technology, Sustainable Development, Entrepreneurship, Social Development and Education, among others.

CEDETEC is a place where the efforts of companies, the State, and the university merge, and which aims to promote job creation, attraction of capital, and growth of technology companies and to increase value for the academy.

Tec belongs to another project, promoter of the nightmare technology, called Cluster. [84]

Cluster, which is located in Nuevo León, aims to develop human capital, financing and implementation of new business projects involving applications of nanotechnology. [85]

Among its partners are Cemex (Cementos Mexicanos), the Autonomous University of Nuevo León, Sigma (a leading company in the production and distribution of animal products), CIQA (a major company specializing in the development of new materials), Viakable (strategic company serving major markets at the international level), VAGO Industries (company using carbon nanotubes made by Tec), Arizona State University (with its Arizona Institute for Nano Electrics), Nemak (global company in production of aluminum-technological components for the automotive industry), I2T2 (Institute for Innovation and Technological Transference), Whirlpool, Cimav (Conacyt Center for Research of Advanced Materials) and many others.

All of these institutions, universities and anexes, are still within a much more massive project. We are speaking of PIIT (Technological Research and Innovation Park) located in Apodaca, where a major part of the industrial zone of Monterrey is concentrated.

According to their data: PIIT facilities cover 70 hectares, where the projects of 11 research centers in seven universities converge: the Autonomous University of Nuevo León, Technological Institute of Higher Studies in Monterrey, the Autonomous National University of Mexico, University of Arizona, University of Monterrey, Texas A&M and the University of Texas. At the Park there converge centers of research, development and technology of private companies such as Motorola, Pepsico, Sigma Foods, Viakable, Qualita, Prolec-GE, Cydsa, Metalsa, Furniture Manufacturers Association, Association of Plastic and MTY IT ClusterLania [86].

As could be read above, Monterrey Tec is not only focused on the area of nano technology, but also has its sights on informatics.

That entire world behind the computer that are creating monstrous global corporations, is obviously another of the gears of the System of Domination.

Every day we realize that human beings are moving away more dangerously from their natural instincts, that they are immersed in a false reality constructed by social networks and the obsessive idea of online updating in virtual spaces.

We live in the digital age, the system is always in constant dynamism and not only have that everyone alienated themselves through television or the vices that civilized life contracts, but also, a giant computer network has been made for the daily superproduction of more automatons who serve it blindly to maintain the prevailing order.

The American neuroscientist Gary Small [87] has said that excessive Internet use causes damage to brain functioning, in addition to altering neuronal stimuli that causes people to reduce their ability to strike up a conversation face to face.

This means that information technology in large quantities is isolating the individual and he or she is becoming a humanoid who prefers to entire spend hours or days at a computer rather than live with his small circle of lovers and/or friends.

In addition this, the daily and/or excessive use of computers and internet causes to diminish the natural capacity we have to capture details in a direct exchange of words with others, for small or developing children, the consequences could be highly dangerous if this way of life of addiction to the computer continues, they could develop attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in an extreme form.

The lifestyle in which certain individuals develop within techno-industrial society does not help at all, but rather pushing them to live in a state of crisis, change and necessary integration into the technological medium, this medium being the social networks.

While more “friends” or visits taken into this Big Brother trap make them feel totally realized, they want to acquire more new contacts and continue contributing to consumerism, and thus, the destruction of Wild Nature (including that of humans).

But Gary Small has not mentioned the consequences of the use of computers to alert people, he has not said this to disapprove of Technology, he has said it so that such problems are resolved in order to achieve science fiction.

Gary and other scientists are already, by means of lasers, stimulating and monitoring neural circuits so that, in the future, many brain functions can be manipulated by means of a remote control. As if this were not enough, they are designing, even now, small implants in the head of a human being that they will be connecting to computers so that the machines understand better than medicine the complexity of the brain [88].

Continuing the theme of information technology, the famous social networks–especially Facebook–have become the center of attention of techno-industrial society, for in this the system sees an important ally for the total control of human behavior, which is itself, an extremely threatening factor to the established order within Civilization.

One of the three leaders of Facebook is Peter Thiel, an American businessman who has proposed the total elimination of the real or natural world and the imposition of the digital world, he has said this.

Analyzing this, we can see that Facebook is not just a harmless communication network, but a social experiment in mind control which the Technological Industrial System is using with great effectiveness to exclude the Naturalness of human contact, that is, to develop in grand form the total alienation of individuals to Technology.

But this perverted businessman has not stood still, in addition to being one of the main contributors to that mind-control tool, he has invested millions in profits into artificial intelligence research and new technologies to extend the life of man through science. In this he has as an ally the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence and to the English biomedical gerontologist Aubrey de Grey, who is specifically in charge of developing, by means of a highly advanced technology, the indefinite lengthening of the lifetime of a human being, and like this, the man made machine has been created!

The huge popularity of Thiel’s virtual world is made possible because people get carried away by their peers, like sheep following the herd without thinking about why they do. They are being led blindly by the attractive world of technological progress and its small but important ramifications for exacerbated, useless, and unreal entertainment.

The characteristics that distinguish these people addicted to using the Internet to interact “socially” are their highly marked feelings of inferiority, plus, the insecurity they show living with others is visible, but having a person “connected” behind a computer makes them feel able to tell them things they did not dare to during a conversation.

This is how Technology is, little by little, finishing with social interaction that is a purely natural impulse; we are not talking here about building relationships of friendship indiscriminately with all people (ITS rejects hypocritical buddy-ism and oversocialization) but within small groups of loved ones or affinities; Technology is separating that natural interconnection, reducing it to emails and digital comments.

Seeing this, we would believe that we are reading a science fiction novel, but it is not so. This is what is happening in reality and to not confront it makes us cowards, softies and accomplices of the system.

There are more and more inventions that are created for the human being to be converted in the literal sense into a machine, an example of this are the microchips embedded under the skin that have been used in first world countries, the consequences of which already begin to show.

The scientist Mark Gasson, member of the School of Systems Engineering, University of Reading in England, has been the first case, which was only in 2010, of the failure of these microchips that had embedded in his body [89].

So we can read that Gasson is the first human infected with a computer virus, surprisingly we are not speaking of a machine is infected by a virus, but of a human being sick with a computer virus! and nevertheless, this idiot scientist feels flattered. Another one of his own already said it: human stupidity has no limits [90].

The push that this type of subject is giving to Technology is alarming, they are testing on themselves their techniques of control and manipulation and then, seeing their faults, improving and adapting them to the majority of the population, who will surely, however, look favorably upon such abjections.

As you can read in this criticism of nanotechnology, information technology, their effects and consequences, there are many truly strong reasons that we have to have carried out the attack on the Monterrey Tec – Mexico State Campus on Monday morning, August 8^th of this year.

Individualists Tending toward the Wild (ITS) has left a package of simulated mail within the campus, which contained an explosive device filled with dynamite, ammonium sulfate (which acted as a poison), a galvanized nipple eight and three quarters inches long, red wires, a small bulb and a battery.

The device was intended for the coordinator of the aforementioned CEDETEC, Dr. Armando Herrera Corral, but it seems that this attack has affected two tecnonerds of one stone, namely the Director of the Doctorate of Engineering Sciences, and a specialist in the construction of robots, Alejandro Aceves López, was also injured by the explosion of our parcel bomb which also caused material damages in one of the buildings inside the Tec.

Indeed as mentioned by the press [91], within the small cardboard box (containing the explosive) we have left a message that the explosion will have fragmented, this message containing a threat signed by ITS. It is useless for experts to reconstruct since they already know what it contains and we are saying it by means of this text.

Certainly, an attack of this nature has not happened in previous years within the premises of this university, but this does not mean that the act is isolated. We have already struck at another university in the past, now at this one, which had a grand public commotion since the wounded are “respectable teachers” (for society), experts in their fields (in addition to that we carried out the attack on just the day the students go on vacation and the authorities inaugrated the Innovation and Technological Transference Park of Monterrey Tec, León Campus, Guanajuato), and so the first attack left one (for society) “insignificant” UPVM guard wounded [92] so there was no such reaction.

As we have already said before, ITS acts without compassion and without mercy, accepting our responsibilities in each act that transfers explosions against those immediately and intellectually responsible for the devastation of the Earth.

It is worth noting that ITS is not a group of saboteurs (we do not share the strategy of sabotage or damage or destruction of property).

Until we are satisfied, we have taken the firm decision to strike at those directly responsible for pressing the natural environment into artificial life, not at the institutions but at the actual individuals.

The condemnations have not done the expected [93], they call us terrorists, those useless members of industrial society, who know that we take this term as a compliment; we repeat, we are not some simple saboteurs placing bombs, we are more than that and if they categorize us as terrorists, they are right, because our goal is to mutilate and even kill these scientists, researchers, professors and other scum who are reducing the Earth to mere urbanized waste.

Within the investigation work is mentioned the participation of the Department of Defense, the PGR, the Interior Ministry (federal), PGJEM, ASE and other corporations engaged in security, from this communication we say: Search what they will, they’ll once again be a joke!

The leader of the design project of a humanoid robot (Alejandro Aceves López) and one of the two leaders of the Technology Park (Armando Herrera Corral) have tattoos on their bodies (with their wounds) starting from now, the symbols of the anti-industrial group ITS [Individualists Tending toward the Wild].

It is logical, we will continue with these acts, and other scientists and the rest of technoswillology [the original tecnobazofia more seamlessly combines two words meaning ‘technology’ and ‘pigswill’ or ‘hogwash’ — transl.] must pay the consequences of their actions, and better for it to be by some wild terrorists like ourselves.

Nature is good, Civilization is evil…

Individualists tending toward the wild.

Message Four (21 September 2011)

Violence is disapproved of by the system because it upsets its normal functioning.

As can be read in the previous communiques of Individualists Tending toward the Wild [94] it has been explained (although not very concretely, since the theme is too extensive and complex) that technological advance is growing by gigantic steps; those communiques dealt with its causes and its consequences in the near future or perhaps over the course of many generations, one also saw that progress does not give signs of stopping for anything or anyone but that it rather tends toward more artificialization, more domination and more domestication of all the living organisms and natural happenings in the terrestrial biosphere.

It is worth mentioning that ITS do not expect to destroy the Industrial-Technological System as such (although we would want to, it would be a very utopian vision and outside of reality), but rather to try to destabilize and discredit the advance of the technological nightmare as much as possible, an objective we believe to be achievable due to the conditions which Mexico is experiencing as a semi-industrial country in the process of development. Many ask themselves, “Why attack in a country with these characteristics? Why is it more likely that our objective will be reached due to these local particularities?” In this, ITS are aware that we are being reductionist in a certain aspect, but this is what it is, it’s more that we want to launch a campaign with others in affinity in the whole world who sever in a single stroke with violent actions the minds that create and modify nanoscience with their advanced research laboratories, but while this happens (although we have no certainty that it will) we will continue to directly attack the professionals who are experts in technological subjects.

To attack the Techno-industrial System is a natural instinct of survival (as is living an anti-industrial way of life in small community); as rational beings we understand that this reality that the system has created is contrary to Nature, and her savage defense is what moves us as uncivilized individuals, thus ITS make use of direct confrontation in order to pursue these ends; there is nothing more repugnant and reprehensible to society, the authorities and the same system than the use of violence.

The system is always the one that calls for dialogue, for the use of words, for fixing problems like “civilized people,” because it fears instability and the possible collapse of its social peace by the excessive use of confrontation on the part of awake individuals.

The human species is conflictual by nature and to reject this intrinsic value is an antagonism with what we really are, or (for modern civilized subjects) were.

Of course, ITS do not put violence on an altar, we see it simply as a means.

As we said above, in the past three communiques we have developed a critique of nanotechnology and information technology, of industrial society and have set forth an analysis of the ecological consequences of greater demands for contributions in the field of science and Technology; now we turn to break down the consequences of all this within the human mind, our approach as ITS, and the rejection of some terms that do not appear to identify us, simply in order to clarify our position.

Here it is worth noting that ITS do not publish this type of communique so that the people will “free” themselves or “become aware” of the situation that is affecting the Earth with technological development and will thus “change” their habits or their way of vegetating, certainly not (we would be very stupid if we thought that); we are not, we do not want to be, and we are not interested in being the “well-intentioned saviors,” we leave this to the leftist vanguards who vaguely think that with a violent action and a public communique they might change the putrefied mentality of civil society. This kind of message is directed solely and exclusively to those individuals or groups in affinity or in the process of ideas, so that they will decide to take the critique of the Industrial Technological System to a higher level, and then, with concrete bases and away from civilized signs, from their own means, separate, will try to be a sincere and important contribution to this qualitative struggle against Civilization and its pseudo-stability. But then if the message is directed to pure affinities, why is it made known in this highly visible way? These texts are a critique in action, within a dynamism against concrete targets. ITS understand that industrial society is part of the system; for that reason we publish this kind of text and vindication in this form, in order to critique also the people complicit in the devastation of Wild Nature.

Having said this, we begin with the analysis:

I

The exponential and large-scale growth of Technology within cultural, political, economic, psychological, social factors, around and within human behavior is reducing the sphere of Freedom to a minimum, which is why the majority of members of techno-industrial society feel frustrated and show various symptoms resulting from the frustration caused by the absence of Autonomy and the overvaluation of alienation in their everyday non-lives.

These symptoms are: Depression, boredom, excessive pleasure-seeking (hedonism), sexual deviations, eating and sleeping disorders, anger, defeatism, and feelings of inferiority, among others.

All these symptoms are also caused by the lack of activities that require serious effort (since Technology has made life in most of its aspects more comfortable and easy); that effort to achieve real goals is called the power process. [95]

The essence of the power process has four parts: setting out of the goal, effort, attainment of the goal, and Autonomy, although most only complete the first three points and only very few reach the fourth.

We take an example to better explain the term. A man who can have everything simply by demanding it will always be highly hedonistic and develop serious psychological problems since he does not have to apply himself for anything, as a result demoralization and boredom arise, so when this man tries to make some effort and does not attain it because it is obviously useless, this brings depressive frustration, defeatism, feelings of inferiority, etc. Here we are not only speaking of a man with a well-off economic stability but of any pusillanimous person who feeds the alienation of the system with their absurd existence.

Faced with this frustration they invent a huge quantity of the aforementioned (in the last communique) surrogate activities that aim at tasks that are artificial and not real in order to cover the emptiness that is generated by non-life within Civilization.

In life, a serious effort is certainly natural and highly necessary to be able to feel good about oneself and not fall into the traps of the System of Domination. Meeting physical and biological needs, such as the search and acquisition of food, the construction of shelter, the care between members of a community of affinities and the learning of survival are all foundational in Savage Human Nature, it is only in cities that such real activities are seen as unnecessary or are just not even considered.

In order to live within Civilization one only needs a small effort to cover the necessities that are demanded to obtain in one’s head that false idea of stability (in any of its aspects), the sole requirement that one must fulfill for the system is total obedience, which is the only thing that is needed to guard the established order that rules today.

Many are the automatons who say that with their surrogate activities such as science, physical activity, etc, they feel pleasure and they find in these autonomy and freedom while they develop; if they say these kinds of things it is because they have completely lost sense of what is good and what is bad; they are completely alienated and their thoughts are already produced by artificialization and over-socialization. [96]

Thus, ITS do not find it strange that the reaction of the submissive Mexican industrial society was, like that of the authorities, so condemnatory when we carried out the attack against those two despicable technophiles of Monterrey Tec. Why? Because we knew that many of these people with visible psychological disorders would read our communique and that we would earn a whole list of words that were not taken into account upon seeing that they lacked a critical, analytic and rational validation. But this will we discuss later on.

Continuing with the theme: The deduction of all this shows us that within Civilization we are exposed to these kinds of symptoms if we are not strong enough to discard them and overcome them, removing ourselves from Technology, rejecting Domination as much as possible and drawing near to the natural and wild environment to which we belong as part of a whole, as one more wild species.

As one Germany philosopher said: <em>“We suffer the sickness of modernism, of that insane peace, of that cowardly transaction of all that virtuous garbage of the modern yes and no.” [97]

II

Technology makes it so that at every turn more individuals become dependent on the system, the control to which they are rooted makes them accept the social norms of subsistence, and this results in the disappearance of the individual’s identity and the artificial-cultural need for integration within the masses or large social groups.

So, an immense majority of people tie themselves to social movements due to the frustration of not feeling able to achieve Autonomy and/or Freedom by their own means, and they seek in large organizations what they cannot do by their own hands.

Their feelings of inferiority are highly marked, since within collectivist movements they feel strong, but alone they feel vulnerable. They identify with movements of masses for their psychological needs, since they think that they are losers and they believe that alone they cannot achieve anything.

As a consequence of this, persons emerge who feel so empty that they go to the extreme to give their own life for a social cause, a sub-struggle that only causes the physical and mental exhaustion of those people due to striving illusorily, for example, for a new world to live. They are already calling themselves anarchists, communists, feminists, citizenists, environmentalists, vegans and so much similar messianic chatter [98].

The worst of all this is when these people “radicalize” and start to take arms to defend their supposed struggles that in the eyes of some members of society are “good” (like the struggles for constitutional justice, dignified life, better wages, improved services, etc), the result is expected by all, murders, kidnappings, forced disappearances, dirty war and the same story that we have become accustomed to and that the victims complain about so much the same who perhaps hoped for flowers after a declaration (or act) of war against the government. [99]

In this way, the majority of people who say they have “radical” positions divert themselves from the true problem (the Industrial Technological System) and base their struggles on reductionist aspects that only make the system perfect itself and become stronger.

Example: One can see with the movements for the rights of African Americans who demanded that they not be discriminated against by their race, these concluded (although not completely) and now one can see people with black skin running businesses, working with the same salary as a white man or woman, black scientists, (etc) or whatever, they were given the opportunity of not being discriminated so that they could contribute to the development and sustenance of the system and this is what they are doing. Of course this is not a racial commentary, ITS have simply taken it as an example.

The same has happened with indigenous people, women, homosexuals, environmentalists, and the rest. The system has accommodated them after these have led struggles for “humanitarian” improvements, that is to say, they have made the system become more “just” and more acceptable to plain sight.

So, the hypothesis that the system has to adjust to humanity is eliminated since on the contrary, individuals, the people or the society (however one wants to say it) have to mold themselves to the needs of that very system. That is all.

“The ideal set up by [Civilization] was something huge, terrible, and glittering – a world of steel and concrete, of monstrous machines and terrifying weapons – a nation of warriors and fanatics, marching forward in perfect unity, all thinking the same thoughts and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting – three hundred million people all with the same face.” [100]

III

Only one word can categorize all these people and ideological tendencies that portion out and expend their life within struggles for the “unprotected,” the “vulnerable,” the “oppressed,” the “victims,” defending them and demanding “social justice,” “world peace,” “reforms,” and the rest of their bullshit that simply is making them the biggest chain and that as we have said over and over again, only-helps-the-system-become-better. These individuals are called: leftists. [101]

The pseudo-philosophy of the leftists is what we have already mentioned above, the feelings of inferiority, collectivism and surrogate activities with artificial ends.

But in addition to this, the leftists take on a role of “protectors” and “saviors” of the rest (generally of supposed victims of the system, workers, women, homosexuals, in general of the “exploited people” or going further throwing themselves in defense of the rights of the animals and demanding clauses within the constitution for the care of the environment).

If one analyzes all that and goes to the source, we can consider that not only are the victimist organizations or some concrete individual leftists, but that the whole industrial society is leftist.

The modern society in which we live indicates to us that we should be “friendly,” “passive,” “highly sociable,” “solidarious,” “egalitarian,” “reformist,” etc, all that because the system’s values are highly deep-rooted in it. Values which it reproduces in the massive media of communication, marketing, schooling, governmental support programs and the rest, which in transmitting these kinds of twisted ideas automatically becomes leftism.

One of the factors that identify leftism or leftists is that they always tend to want to have power, like for example the communists, they still want the “dictatorship of the proletariat” to have the power that it identified in their golden age with the socialist bloc in Europe and Asia; the feminists who want women to have power in various aspects of life; the environmentalists who want the power to have control over the laws in order to not damage nature or animals.

All these (and more) ideological aspects have as a common denominator the appropriation of Technology for collectivization, we are not surprised by the commentaries that these grupuscules of persons with serious psychological disequilibrium have made when they hear of the threat against technological entities that we carried out in August.

According to them, Technology is “good when seen from a different point of view;” here is something that has been called relativism, that philosophical posture that proclaims that nothing is good nor bad when seen from some “different” point of reference, or that Reality does not exist or that there are many realities, a completely invalid and irrational argument, since when one says this one does not have the certainty to defend anything, because after all everything is relative (according to the leftists). [102]

Without leaving the theme. The rejection of Technology is contrary to the values of the leftists, since they need it for the collective power that they want to achieve; they say that if all the people control the industries and Technology in the space of some time that they are in power, everything would be different–something truly erroneous, it would only be like changing the dog’s leash, the climatological consequences and the environmental impact of large-scale production will keep damaging the Earth and therefore Domination would keep existing. In reality nothing would change. What these people want to do when they have power is to reform the system so that they complete their psychological necessities of well-being and progress, or perhaps so that they satiate their surrogate activities impregnated with urges of power and totalitarianism exacerbating it even though they deny it.

In this sense, the modern human with leftist tendencies is different also for his high grade of rejection of individualism, for pseudo-moral reasons he is always on the defensive against this term, considering it improper and alien to his over-socialized mentality.

They think that they are in this world in order to serve others, which is something extremely abnormal, no individual should think that their only purpose for being alive is to serve society, that others are over him or her. The individual is an end (within that respect) in itself and not a means for the rest.

Many of these people confound individualism with the anti-social, the human being is sociable by nature, but with this, one does not want to say that to be collectivist in all aspects of one’s stay on Earth, the social becomes something abnormal when the sense of affect and real solidarity is perverted beyond the small limited group of close friends. For this reason one can say that collectivism is a sentiment created by the artificiality that leftism has hooked people on in order to attract more automatons to its gigantic social circles.

IV

Leftists, taking their altruism incarnated by the values of the Techno-industrial System only make visible their alienation and the perversion of their natural instincts through it.

One of those mutated instincts is promiscuous solidarity. Which is very far from reality, since we can observe that when a small group of people live together daily or have a truly close bonds, solidarity is present, as is defense (of itself), appreciation and support, since the members of said group know each other well and share a vision that is related (in whatever aspect), it is there where true instinctive and natural solidarity develops, far away from the compromise with the force, sentimentalism and hypocrisy of leftist society.

This is real solidarity—what individuals share within a natural and immediate group of intimates, and which is not modified with victimist ideologies and practices with unknown persons due to psycho-cultural philosophies.

Likewise, ITS has not misspoken in past communiques in sending out a direct support with affinities (incarcerated or not) in some countries (including Mexico) such as Italy, Chile, Switzerland, Argentina, Russia, Spain and the United States. Although there are also some differences (which we will discuss on some other occasion) between the discourse of the individuals incarcerated for wanting to attack a center of nanotechnology development belonging to IBM in Switzerland or with the individuals who burn machinery in the forests of Moscow (to offer some examples) we always share that vision of affinity (or in the process of it) beyond the words that drove them to attack the System and the Techno-industrial society.

Identification and compassion with unknown persons has its closest historical roots in philanthropy, the love of the neighbor that the first Christian sects reinforced and leftism perpetuates now in the era of technological modernity. With this it’s shown that promiscuous solidarity is completely contrary to the natural development of the human being and that to defend and to be within our natural circle of loved ones is the only thing that should matter to us, but due to the variations that human behavior has had within Civilization, that has deeply changed in many people’s minds.

“Self-sacrifice is the precept that man needs to serve others, in order to justify his existence.” [103]

Here surely the not-very-intelligent readers will label ITS as a group of “misanthropic egoists,” which we do not share, individualism should not be confused with egocentrism nor the rejection of industrial society with misanthropy. [104]

As one can see, promiscuous solidarity enters into the irrational, unnaturalness and the defense of strangers with whom one shares a supposed psycho-emotional bond just for being a person who is in a condition of suffering or pain far from our own.

V

In the same way, within this society of alienated masses, suffering and pain are seen as something “bad” and people try to avoid them by all means, always putting aside all that is natural and from which we can learn, although it may be uncomfortable or undesirable.

Pain itself is not a “bad” thing, rather it is quite necessary to be able to survive and to not lose the wild instincts and impulses that still remain with us. Giving oneself completely to hedonism is what the system wants us to do in order to be able to thus keep contributing to the multiplication of its values.

What’s the point of life without pain? What’s the point in everything we want being quick and easy to achieve without making any serious effort to satisfy it? It makes no sense to live like that, that would already not be life, it would just be milling around and vegetating.

When we take on the theme of pain and suffering here we are not justifying sadism or extreme sensibility, which are more of the mental deviations of civilized life.

Science is what contributes to this dream of progress being made real, stimulating cerebral neurons to inhibit pain and to come to being only some simple humanoids incapable of feeling something like pain, a consequence of being alive.

The same goes for death—there is a special fear of the end of life in this cowardly and lowly society. One does not think that death is a natural process which everyone has to go through some day. The technophiles, businessmen and the rest now spend huge sums of money in the quest for means of scientific and technological development for the life of a human being to be indefinitely prolonged; we have already declared before that although it appears to be science fiction this is what is taking place in the real world, not in the world that all the simplistic critics see differently because of their relativist and weak complexes of not wanting to observe and be attentive to what the system is robbing us of as individuals and as members of a species.

The uncivilized human when he or she develops in a wild state is aware that their life can end in one moment or another, since life in Wild Nature is violent and hard, thus the life expectancy in some wild tribes was of very few years, but the point here is not the quantity of years lived, one can live more than a hundred years and have done absolutely nothing to achieve the desired Autonomy, and on the other hand one can live few years in Freedom and that is already a great profit.

Death, great effort, suffering and pain are not “bad” things in themselves, but rather they are intrinsic in the life of each one of those who inhabit this planet. What is bad and is worth mentioning is Domination and the loss of Autonomy and human dignity.

VI

Nature is the good, Civilization is the bad. This is how we ended the last communique, and one could immediately appreciate that these words hit hard in the minds and analysis of communicators, researchers, police and even some university intellectualoid who deployed an inexact critique that was pseudo-philosophical, supposedly historical and going into the terrain of physics, clothed in technicalities not very usual in the poor common Mexican lexicon before our communique of a little more than five thousand four hundred words. [105]

The members of ITS have a morality which allows us to recognize what is good and what is bad, with respect to that reasoning we could end the last text with that phrase. We are not an amoral group, since that terminology represents the weak minds that are not able of separating the good from the bad.

Obviously we say that Nature is good since for millions of years we developed and evolved together with it, only there was a deviation of habits, values, customs and behaviors aligned to Domination, that is, to the bad, that came to be Civilization and everything it brings with it.

Someone who defends Civilization, Technology, the values of the system, science, civilized Culture, Progress (and other topics not very different to the point of debate) is a person who is highly alienated by a cognitive bias (a distortion that affects one’s way of seeing Reality [psychology]), who has suffered a brainwashing so serious that they do not realize that they pathetically defend their own destruction with semi-reasoned positions.

For millions of years Nature was an absolute principle, a unique thing, absolutely everything was ruled by natural laws, but in the course of the centuries, when the first signs of agriculture began to appear, a counterpart was born—Domination; this counterpart was growing until reaching the development and modernity, which gives way to Civilization and with this, to all the resultant complexes cited here or not.

Now, summarizing it in a rapid and simplistic conclusion, one could say that with this one is speaking of a duality, of two inherently antagonistic principles: Nature and Civilization.

But, going deeper, we see that within the duality exist many branches off of this doctrine, one of these which has had great notoriety is the theological, which would be the good and the evil, god and demon. Its other important aspect is metaphysical duality, the soul and the body, reason and faith, spirit and material.

One cannot position the Nature-Civilization dichotomy within these two aspects, because Nature as much as Civilization have an existent place in Reality. For example, we are certain that the spirit does not exist but that the material does, thus we cannot conclude that Nature-Civilization are concepts that have credibility in time and space. The metaphysical and the theological lack in argumentation, and are other mental positions deviant from what things truly are (cognitive predispositions); we as individuals are physical entities, with physical necessities and ends, within an irrefutably physical world, the metaphysical as we said is only a mental reproduction resulting from the sick psycho-cultural schemes that the system has imposed on us.

The best duality would center itself in morality (not in religion or in the supernatural), what is good and what is bad. ITS explanations do not have anything of magic, fantasy or mysticism, because Wild Nature like Technological Dominating Civilization are two aspects with great prominence today, although they daily enclose Nature, reducing it to nothing and to uncertainty.

For ITS, Nature is not a goddess, it is not our mother, nor anything like this, Nature is what it is, it is an objective and pointed absolute; to qualify it, adore it or idealize it would be to fall into irrational sacredness, which we are completely against.

VII

It has been said that the catastrophic visions that we have dealt with in previous communiques are symptoms of our paranoid, unreal and hyperbolic vision of the actual world. As always, the pseudo-skeptics go out in defense of nervous breakdowns, pacifying the scene; the boat is sinking and they peacefully fill the boat with suave words with lazy critiques.

They take the threat of nanotechnology lightly, as did their European counterparts some decades ago who said that nothing would go wrong with nuclear energy, that the critiques and the warnings of ecologists were highly exaggerated, that they were crazy and that the expansion of that Technology would not bring major problems. What was the reality? Nuclear accidents since 1957 to the beginning of this year, in Russia, England, the United States, Ukraine, Brazil, Spain, Japan and others that that surely been hidden; wide forested regions with great variety of flora and fauna severely devastated, made infertile, and mutated; genetic deformations, new incurable cancers; here is the nuclear holocaust, the historic catastrophe caused by the sick idea of the progress of Civilization, science, and Technology. If nuclear energy brought us to this, where will nanotechnology bring us in the future?

They underestimate economic power, the power of co-efficiency and that of the bad intentions of the transhumanists [106] when they say that what these despicable beings propose to do with human nature and with Wild Nature will not happen.

The “so it goes” ideology remains highly exposed in the empty critiques of those who separate us into technophobes who arm joy and technophiles who dream of utopias.

For decades the scientists dreamed of the experimentation, modification and manipulation at a nanoscale of genes and particles for any particular end; now with nanotechnology, [107] they have fulfilled that dream. Just like those who dreamed that one day their computer the size of a house would be reduced in scale and that it would fit in a pocket and that moreover it would have hundreds of applications, as we see, that is already fulfilled, the dream was made reality. It would not strike us as strange that in a distant future we would be threatened and affected by explosions of nano-contamination, or that the lifespan would be scientifically prolonged of a human being who lets chips be implanted in their body or in their cerebral cortex… but wait! That is already happening.

An endless number of inventions that have developed since there were prefabricated machines and that now rely on modalities never before seen, clearly, consumed in their great measure by the industrial society.

But what is bad about the invention of the telephone, for example, and why do ITS oppose any development of Technology? The telephone in itself, brings many advantages and (apparently) almost no problem, but one must not only see the invention and development of the telephone, but also each one of the modern inventions which all together have woven a false reality (which many find it difficult to realize) in which we are immersed, trapped and in which there are appear serious psychological problems from not developing in a natural way (see section I).

VIII

To a certain extent, technologists are a latent danger and they must resign or disappear, if necessary in a violent way; some people with ideas that are seriously reductionist and far from the root of the problem say that the true problem in Mexico is the narco-traffickers, those bloodthirsty paid persons who only care about the “vida loca” (drugs, money, women) and the “live fast, die young,” they are the direct product of the supposed war (as well as the economic instability and other factors) that supposedly the federal government fights and no one else–are they a danger for individual freedom? No, they are only a secondary problem with which we do not occupy ourselves, we are not interested in the least in the casualties that one cartel can cause to another, to the army and the navy or to some “defenseless” civilian who walked through the street, so many dead also are product of overpopulation, and overpopulation impedes the free development of the individual, in addition to which it is completely abnormal that so many millions of people intend to accommodate themselves in geographical regions large or not. When that population growth reaches considerably high levels and they establish themselves in a place (sedentarism), all tends toward development, the expansion of Civilization and as a result the destruction of Nature, that is what impedes the Freedom of the individual. As one will see, the central problem is the Industrial and Technological System, it is not the politicians, the police, the narcos, the judges and other subjects that, when all is said and done, are all the same. Whoever says that these are the true enemies is practicing reductionism and does not see farther than what they are allowed to see by their own civilized values; furthermore, they are falling into the system’s trap, that of wanting to “rebel” against these secondary problems and not against what is truly damaging the physical and psychological environment in which we intend to develop.

Science, technology, genetic modification, transgenics, global consortia, economics, progress, law, surveillance apparatuses, artificial intelligence, capitalism, globalization, repressive apparatuses, states, dictatorships, armies, nuclear centers, industries, consumerism, businesses, demand, finances, and everything, absolutely everything, depends on the Techno-industrial System and for that reason one should be attacking at the root and not losing time trying to cut the leaves.

On agreement over the methods to attack the system: Is the attempt against the life of a scientist, professor, or researcher an instrument of domination against freedom? Some unbalanced persons energetically affirm this, even brand us (and they did in fact do so) as fascists or something similar. Their unadvanced reasoning proposes that since the scientists who we attack dedicate their lives to the well-being of humanity [108], to attack them would be to intend to dominate and restrict the supposed collective freedom. We regret to inform them that that supposed collective freedom of which they speak is nonexistent, there cannot be collective freedom within the society of masses, the true Freedom is only and exclusively within the Individual and not within the repulsive techno-industrial society. This is confirmed in the human anatomy:

“We can divide food between many men. We cannot digest it in a collective stomach. No man can use his lungs to breathe for another man. No man can use his brain to think for another. All the functions of the body are private, they cannot be transferred.” [109]

The same goes for Freedom, it is always individual, one reaches it personally and it can only be shared with the small group of reference.

When one thinks that freedom is found in the masses or in the totality of people, one falls into leftism, into the impotence of not believing it possible to achieve Freedom and Autonomy for oneself, but believing that it must be reached by or that it must be in everyone.

Furthermore, with this affirmation that ITS intend to dominate the supposed collective freedom with attempts on scientists’ lives, of what kind of freedom does one speak? Surely they speak of the false idea of being free by means of technological development, by means of nano-vaccines or nano-materials that would make life more comfortable or “secure.” If one thinks this, then one’s conceptualization of Freedom is mediocre, invalid, perverted and sinister.

With the acts that we carry out, ITS do not want to improve Civilization, we do not want to live on a happy planet all taking each other by the hands like a disgusting hippie commune, we do not see a utopia or a paradise, we see Reality, we have our feet planted on the earth, we do not share the vision that many social fighters or “antisocial” fighters have that at the end of a struggle they expect a possible “victory” because that is highly illusory, we are mature and not some idealistic infantiles.

Reality is hard and leaves one to see a very pessimist scene of things, but it is what exists, and better to accept the truth if we do not want to position ourselves within the “radical” and optimistic leftism, which falls into faith and into the confidence of the blind in saying that with these acts we collapse the system and that thus we “return” to a savage state.

Clearly, there is some possibility that within millions of years Civilization would be destroyed whether by its own Technology or by some natural event with great consequences (or it could be that in its flaw, the system constructs apparatuses of self-regulation and perpetuates itself indefinitely), but we do not believe it to be possible by the “proliferation” of “revolutionary” actions, as we mentioned in the second ITS communique.

As individuals who are in constant contact with Reality through sensory perception, we acquire cognitive knowledge, that being processed we utilize Reason to tear apart the false artificial reality with a radical critique, this is why ITS reject these kinds of supposedly “real” values that, while only an idealization, are weak and on the trajectory toward making the war against the system sacred (we refer to the concept of “revolution-revolutionary” proposed by Ted Kaczynski).

IX

Have ITS copied Ted Kaczynski? The million-dollar question.

Without a doubt, we see this person an individual who with his profound rational analysis contributed greatly to the advance of anti-technological ideas; his simple way of living in a manner strictly away from Civilization and the persecution of his Freedom in an optimal environment make him a worthy individual who due to a family betrayal is serving multiple life sentences in the United States.

Although there are notable discrepancies with his discourse, ITS do not consider it as very distant from what motivates us to keep attacking those intellectually responsible for the imposition of artificial life.

If we cite Stirner, Rand, Kaczynski, Nietzsche, Orwell, some scientists and other people in our communiques they are only for references, we do not have reason to be in agreement with all their lines and positions.

It has been said that we imitate the Unabomber; perhaps we have seen as strategic the action of the Freedom Club against scientific personalities in the United States in the 70′s, 80′s and 90′s, and we have adopted this, but let it be clear that we have not imitated all his discourse in its totality, since as we said above, there are points that are plainly contrary to the positions of the FC.

Within society they have always, since we were small, told us not to copy others and to be original, but what they have not analyzed is the existence of neuronal activities intrinsic in all of us who reject this mandate.

Within the human brain there are things called mirror neurons, which require one to copy in order to get to be original [110], as we have seen throughout history with painters, musicians, sculptors, philosophers, etc; even in primitive tribes these could also be largely observed with the appearance of fire and with the development of some hunting tools, where tribes learned these kinds of things by copying those who knew them.

These neurons offer the capacity of perception with other beings with individual capacities, a simple example of the mirror neurons is the yawn, which is contagious due to the self-image which one person generates and which another immediately copies.

With this, it remains firmly supported that we all imitate sometimes due to mere neuronal impulses, naturally all human beings tend to copy in order to get to achieve originality (in whatever way), but here also arise psychological problems derived from inhabiting the imposed reality—wanting to copy completely or “come to be” like some person(s) without wanting to be original, losing completely the individual identity, giving in to alienation and sheepishness, remaining stuck in mediocrity and longing—this is another of the psychic deviations that result from Civilization.

Entering into the complex terrain of neuroscience, Volpi mentions that we evolve not only because the brain becomes larger or by the capacity we have to learn faster or from imitating each other, but also by the capacity to imagine. [111]

Certainly the affirmation appears reasonable, since the human being is the only species that up to now has proven its ability to create fictions, to have imagination.

Deepening argumentations, like generating fiction, makes us explore our own self; due to a meticulous observation that we make of other human beings we can learn from their errors or not commit them in daily life or in the future.

Imagination and creativity play a highly important role within aspects of our species that are not only recreational, but in survival. The construction of a shelter that resists rain or icy climates, for example, is an activity which, besides reasoning, requires imagination and creativity, i.e. fiction.

Fiction does not necessarily enter into the category of the unreal as one usually thinks, rather it is has a place within the cerebral functions that are necessary for the development of skills, thought and emotions.

Just because fiction exists does not mean that Reality is discarded.

But there is a problem in all this, since likewise there again emerge civilized psycho-perversions in realizing that the human being occupies most of their time in fiction, imagining and putting themselves in lives other than their own, likewise, instead of using most of one’s time achieving and satisfying real necessities, all one’s attention (unconscious or not) is focused on producing fictions.

Volpi has said as much: “We are all day wanting to confront fictions, we watch television, we play videogames, we go to the theater, we write,” which shows a severe deviation from the obtaining of biological necessities which we naturally have to satisfy by means of a serious effort (power process).

The deformed human species is constantly creating more surrogate activities and letting its mind be clouded with an “overdose” of fictions, putting aside what matters, falling into one of the traps of the System of Domination: distraction.

Distraction has greatly served the system in order to divert the gaze from the central problem, certainly the savage tribes thousands of years ago like the few that remain today also carried out activities like painting, dance, decoration of clothing and creation of charms, but one could not consider that as a surrogate activity, since due to the conditions in which they unfold or unfolded, they satisfied or satisfy their power process, that is, their biological and physical necessities were satisfied and thus they had spare time which they dedicated to doing these kinds of things.

“The word Civilization designates the state of a race departed from purely natural conditions and where the system of existence called society is based on the creation of the artificial.”[112]

X

Is ITS an anarchist group? Another one of the most notorious questions.

We declare that the members of ITS are not anarchists, let it be clear. It is one thing that we have sent our communiques to sites of anarchic tendencies, and another very different matter is what we are.

Why do we not consider ourselves anarchists? Precisely because we do not share the anarchists’ vision about the “destruction” of this world to create a “new,” “self-managed” one within the clichés of mutual aid (to strangers) and (promiscuous) solidarity, which as we stated before is not natural.

And it’s also because over time there have emerged a great variety of anarchist terms and sub-currents so to touch upon its unique and original value becomes extremely complicated and to mention each one of them would take us too much space.

The misrepresentation of the term ‘anarchist’ comes mutated with endless adjectives so that the term in our era lacks validity. This is why ITS does not consider itself an anarchist group, properly speaking.

With that said, we believe in the only true and chaotic concept of Anarchy (which is not the same as anarchism), we believe in illegality for pursuing our ends, and not going around supporting or kissing the feet of the members and leaders of the techno-industrial society. To destabilize the imposed artificial order is one of the objectives; another is to individually achieve absolute respect to natural laws and to reject as much as possible every form of Domination.

We do not consider ourselves a primitivist group, since the same thing happens with this as with the term ‘anarchist.’ This categorization is totally invalid due to the misrepresentation and the handling that people outside of the original ideas have given it.

ITS is an anti-industrial, anti-technological, and anti-civilization group formed by radical environmentalists.

XI

On the sixth day of September, Individualists Tending toward the Wild left a package full of dynamite inside of the School of Higher Studies (of the Autonomous National University of Mexico [UNAM]), Cuautitlán campus (FES-C).

This time, the charge was incendiary, it was inside of a yellow package, that on opening and taking out the contents inside produced a large flame created by the completion of an electrical circuit activating the dynamite and which burned everything within a little less than one and a half meters above.

The package was addressed to Doctor Flora Adriana Ganem Rondero, who is the Head of the Section of Pharmaceutical Technology in the Chemistry laboratory of FES-C, which has its eyes set on the advancement of nanoscale technologies.

The fields in which Dr. Adriana develops her areas of investigation pertain to Pharmaceutical Technology and Nanotechnology. She is a member of the National System of Researchers (SNI) level 1. She has financing from CONACYT (National Counsel of Science and Technology) in the Study of Physical Methods for the administration of substances of therapeutic interest with regard to the skin. She has studied in Mexico, Switzerland, and France.

Graduate of the Faculty of Chemistry at UNAM with a 9.5 average, she is another of the minds of such technonerds who contribute to the domestication of biodiversity and the creation of new techniques for civilizing and therefore domination.

Similarly we have left a package with explosive charge (half-galvanized steel nipple half full of dynamite, red cables, a battery, a small light bulb and a note) around the middle of this month in the National Institute of Forestry, Agricultural and Fishery Research (INIFAP, which is adjunct to the SAGARPA [Secretary of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fishery and Food]) in the Coyoacán neighborhood of Mexico City.

The package was addressed to Pedro Brajcich Gallegos, general director of said institution, graduate with masters and doctorate from the State University of Oregon in plant engineering, he is also a member of the Directive Counsel of CIMMYT, the International Center for the Improvement of Corn and Wheat, responsible for genetic manipulation and the creation of transgenic foods.

Born in 1943, the CMMYT (also allied with Monsanto) is one of the principle organizations that is dedicated to the theme of the production of transgenics, promoter together with the INIFAP of the National Center of Genetic Resources (CNRG) where a great variety of supplies of germinal matter of forest and aquatic species are housed for their experimentation and artificialization—these are seeds, tissues, amniotic and seminal fluids, embryos, somatic cells, and cultures, among others—keeping them in suspension chambers with liquid nitrogen.

For all these reasons and more we decided to make attempts against the life and physical integrity, now, of these two sick technophiles in different parts of the Mexican republic, that is, to the north of the State of Mexico and to the south of Mexico City.

What we have declared in the previous communiques were not mere threats and intimidations without any foundation in deeds, we have made it very clear and we are serious, the attacks will continue, they can deactivate our explosives, censor the information, implement security measures in their staff, alert the disgusting scientific community, the threat will be latent until (before and after) we are flying through the air without the lives of researchers and scientists dedicating themselves to constructing an artificial reality, devastating the natural and perverting the savage.

XII

After what we have done, surely there will be people who classify ITS as a group that vents its frustration in attempts against scientists. We do not share this view, the attack against the system (as we have said) is a survival instinct, since the human is violent by nature and faced with threats to its life and its Freedom it goes on the defensive and defends itself. To renounce this instinct is to fall into one of the traps of the System of Domination, which advises everyone to fight with legal, pacific and inoffensive methods because in this way one does not alter the established artificial order at all. We do not act by sentiments nor by emotionalism (those we locate in other aspects of life), but rather by Reason and instincts.

Every action has a reaction [113], this is elemental, each act that the minds who serve the system carry out will have reactions not only in Nature and in the human species but in uncivilized persons like ourselves, we will not give up this war that we are willing to wage even to the hardest consequences.

XIII

It remains evident that this text and claim of responsibility remain short with all that we would like to lay out, to make known postures and ideas like these is highly difficult to express in some several pages given the extensive complexities of the expounded themes. For which we leave to the reasoning of the few intelligent readers to analyze and (why not?) critique this text (and the others), in order to be able to make really strong conclusions with true sense, critical of what is happening in Reality and not letting oneself be carried by the tide of civilized conformism.

Having said all this, we make public that this is the last communique that we will make known, our attacks will tend to the hallmark characteristic of ITS on which the authorities are right now hanging.

As we said, this is the last public communique, but if the occasion demands it and we have something more to say in the future, we will take these means again to expound ideas, critiques, contributions and vindications.

We hope that the diffusion that we have given to these ideas with the attacks we carried out, grows and diffuses in a future that perhaps we will live to see, or perhaps will not.

Individualidades tendiendo a lo salvaje

(Individualists tending toward the wild.)

PS. In a report from the periodical El Universal at the beginning of this month they have published a supposed interview with a supposed member of ITS, before which we want to declare that that information is completely false. Th e true members of ITS do not lend ourselves to the games of the defamatory and prostituted press.

Strength to the individualist tending toward the wild Luciano Pitronello and fire to the techno-industrial society that feasts on his disgrace; accepting the responsibility of our acts we keep advancing!

Message Five (18 December 2011)

Since the last public communique from ITS (21 September 2011) many things have happened, we have continued with the attacks that characterize us, but within this short text we will not claim responsibility for them (only one). Since the purpose of sitting down to write this and placing our fingers on a machine again is to deny all the mediocre information and disqualification that is emerging from a minority of leftist cells.

While it is certain that ITS is alien to everything that happens in the virtual world, that is, we are not aware of what happens in the full spectrum from anarchists of action to those who defend passive anarchism, the case is simply that some time ago this information has come to us.

We have heard of a commotion that is forming with respect to our ideas and actions within those circles; they accuse us of being a fabrication of the “repressive state” (phrase that the wretched leftists so love to mention), they say that we are the work of a Machiavellian supernatural evil force that controls the minds of the entire world, they call into question our critical words against all the system’s values because they do not appreciate that someone who has Reason to make them see the Truth.

To begin with, on hearing so many atrocities we decided to remain silence, but seeing that the racket continues we decided to write these lines.

ITS may be everything that “important” (and not so “important”) members of the techno-industrial society have repeatedly said we are, but never accomplices of the System of Domination.

We categorically reject all those labels that they have put on us, we are not “eco-anarchists” or “anarcho-environmentalists” as we have made quite clear in our September 21^st communique, if anyone has not understood it, they may read it again.

It is logical that before a discourse and actions like ours there must be reactions from all parties and it seems that the “indignant” wing of anarchism has responded, although not very intelligently. We are against the values that they preach left and right, we are against various concepts that they consider sacred, we are against their strategies because everything that they defend is deposited in the system. Idiots who do not tack the ship and will soon sink, irremediably. Thus they find something (or a lot) “strange” about ITS, they find themselves to be like civilized people within a forest of sylvan vegetation when they read our communiques, they do not know where they are. Confused leftists who perhaps some day will learn or else will remain stopped in the quicksand, immobile and passive, waiting for their environmental conditions to consume them. But that in reality does not concern us in the least.

ITS has seen an analyzed that the leftists are a real threat who only seek to reform the system and create alternatives in order to “fight” against it, but (although they don’t realize it) they are useless, since this only feeds it. The war against academics and technologists is declared (that is more than clear and we have shown it) but also the war against leftism, thus we have sent a package with incendiary cargo to the offices of Greenpeace Mexico (which arrived [according to the authorities] on 25 November of this year).

The package was sent to the activist Alejandro Olivera, who insists on carrying out hypocritical campaigns in “favor” of the environment in order to gain public notoriety, his psychological necessities make his activism a pathetic surrogate activity that sugarcoats artificial necessities like self-realization that he acts like it is his “moral duty” to do the “right thing” in the face of the devastation that ecosystems are undergoing.

Surely Olivera will not realize this (since his reasoning does not allow for more) because of this action, he will not realize that Greenpeace is one of so many highly reformist organizations, that they only want to change the laws for other ones in order to illusorily achieve a supposed rescue of the Earth, and here comes the threat–the change of economic, political, social and cultural aspects so that the system continues on its path. (On this point we will not say more, it will have its time when we write a long communique that brings all the rational explanations to such attacks.)

Before this kind of leftist organization we respond with direct attempts, all those who seek a world that is “more just,” “more humane” and “more green” are on our list, ITS have finished with consideration, have fininished with what they will say, we do not pretend to be “well-intentioned activists” with a moderate and good image, we are a group of radical environmentalists, anti-industrialists of a terrorist stripe (towards society and its defenders).

ITS shows its true face, we go to the central point, the fierce defense of Wild Nature (including human); we do not negotiate, we carry out our task with the necessary materials, without compassion and accepting the responsibility of the act. Our instincts make us do it, since (as we have said before) we are in favor of natural violence against civilized destruction.

All leftists be warned (and by leftists we refer as much to those of the left as to those of the right): ITS does not hesitate to make an attempt on the physical integrity of any one of you, you are our enemies and thus our threats will materialize in bullets and dynamite.

With this said, we declare that we will not make further mention about the attacks of the leftist eunichs for the moment; they do not merit any consideration, since these mediocre people (with much lack of attention) act toward the impossible (and go to ridiculous extremes) in order to gain notoriety within some movement (a completely pathetic deed); as they say: the fish dies by its own mouth.[114]

To the humiliating leftist mythomaniacs who seek to destroy our discourse and attacks with false arguments founded not in Reason but instead in speculation, irrationality and animism, do not expect our attacks to stop, do not expect dialogue with ITS, do not expect any answer to questions you may have; from ITS, only expect the worst…

Individualidades tendiendo a lo salvaje

(Individualists tending toward the wild)

Message Six (28 January 2012)

The following text is intended to be a self-critique, in addition to accepting publicly the mistakes that we made in past communiques and in claiming responsibility for some attempts against the Techno-industrial System.

Certainly, ITS will always accept critiques that are based in reason, those that are not founded upon strong and well-cemented criteria will be rejected as has been done before.

I

ITS considers it to have been an error in past communiques to substitute the letters that denote gender with an “x” since we do not focus on things like this, nor do we want to denote a certain inclination to the linguistic postures of the politically correct. And we say that we do not focus on these kinds of grammatical currents because the attack on the system is our view, and no other struggle. Generally, those people who write with these kinds of corrections have roots in their postulated senseless struggles like “equality,” “solidarity,” “egalitarianism” (etc), that is, they defend the ideology of leftism and reductionism, which we do not share. It is for this reason that we reject this kind of “grammatical subculture” (as it is called).

II

Many of the things that we have written in the first as well as the second communique–such as the supposed liberation of animals and the earth, which are based in sentimentalism, insurrectionalism, which in many cases justifies itself with emotions of vengeance, the poor choice that we had with the thing about the earthquakes, the critique that one must see with respect to the poor interpretations of some ideas of Ted Kaczynski (truthfully speaking, very few)–we have discarded and now for us they have no validity. The lack of more printed material that correctly explains, or at least has a certain closeness to, Kaczynski’s ideas does not make the task of understanding them with clarity easy for many.

Obviously, we continue to defend the critique against the terminology “revolution-revolutionary,” without a doubt.

Because:

• The so-called “revolution” that so many bet on perverts the nature of the human being because it always tends to reform the system.

• “Revolution” is a blind hope (faith) that many want to see achieved, if they do not achieve their task (which has never been done) their efforts will be in vain, and everything, absolutely everything for which they fought will sell them short, making such efforts useless.

• “Revolution” is a leftist concept.

• Many leftists want to make from their puposes and/or approaches something so profound that they exaggerate themselves, digress and come to limits outside of reality. There are many examples: “the destruction of capitalism,” “a world without states or borders,” “a planet without animal exploitation,” “world peace,” and among others the so-called “anti-technology revolution.”

The struggle against the Techno-industrial System is not a game which we should win or lose, defeat or be defeated, that is what many have still not understood and it seems that many are still expecting to be “recompensated” in the future for the current actions of “revolutionaries.” One must accept that many things in life are not recompensated, that many tasks and/or ends are never achieved (including Autonomy) and the destruction of the techno-system by the work of the “revolutionaries” is one of them. Now there is not time to wait for the imminent collapse, for those who want to take their time as if technological progress is not growing by leaps and bounds and devouring our sphere of individual Freedom little by little. We are the generation that has seen technological progress grow before our eyes, the specialization of nano-bio-technology in various fields of civilized non-life, the creation and marketing of graphene [115], nuclear disasters such as in Fukushima, accelerated environmental deterioration, the growth of biometrics [116], the qualitative and quantitative expansion of artificial intelligence, bioinformatics, neuroeconomics, etc. That is why ITS sees in terms of what is tangible, palpable and immediate, and that immediate is the attack with all necessary resources, time and intelligence against this system. We are individualities in the process of achieving our Freedom and Autonomy, within an optimal environment, and together with it we attack the system that quite clearly wants us in cages, obeying our wild human instincts. With this we apply ourselves as individuals in affinity to try to keep ourselves as distant as possible from leftist and civilized concepts, practices and ideologizing.

That is our real purpose, what we seek, and not an unreal dream with irrational tintings and full of speculations.

For now there is no movement that positions itself radically against Technology, neither organized nor solid, if some day there is (if it triumphs and we are alive) then we will accept our mistake, in the meantime we will not accept futurist speculations that bet on a movement that helps to destabilize the system in its totality. Those who believe in the uprising of such an anti-technology movement can keep hoping or can put all their strength into that task. It seems that some have not realized that in speaking of a “sufficiently strong and organized anti-technology movement” they are also entering into the language of leftism.

III

Now, we have become aware of an increase of discourse against Civilization in claims of responsibility for actions that are poorly directed and useless with respect to the point of reference (against the Techno-industrial System). One must take into account that the critique in a communique against Civilization or against Technology does not do anything if the action is not effective and well-aimed against these.

This “fashion” (to call it such) has been expanding year after year, we believe because the ideas against civilized progress have spread greatly through the internet and other media.

If we turn to look at history, we would realize that the same thing has happened before and after the arrest of the Unabomber in 1996, we remember the pathetic campaign that was initiated in those years called “Unabomber for president” [117], and the emergence of the Earth Liberation Front in the United States [118], and while the individuals coming together in that group were for years the strongest domestic terrorism threat in that country, nevertheless the majority of their discourses were carried on the path of sentimentalism, irrationalism and biocentrism. In other words the “radical environmentalist” fashion was popular those years, as the “anti-civilization fashion” is now. But it is worth remembering with this that every wave or fashion ends some day, and only those who have well established the critique against the Techno-industrial System will keep the same path, over the years what has to happen will happen, and the things that have to occur will occur.

We are aware that ITS has been responsibile in large part for this “fashion” having grown in great proportion, we accept this mistake, and what we want to do (for now) is only to wait for those individuals who have copied our discourse and have mutated it, to stop doing so, or for them to recognize, accept and take on the critique with these kinds of texts not only because we have made it but also because it is absolutely necessary to reject the deceptive leftism and attack the Techno-industrial System in a congruent and radical manner (if that is what the intended objective is, of course).

IV

We have analyzed these questions to the source and it seems that for the moment there are two important parts within the struggle against the Techno-industrial System.

To summarize we will put it thusly: there are those who question and critique the system and others who not only do this but also attack, like ITS[119].

Faced with this, the critical and not active part (that is to say the part that doesn’t place in its sights the attack against the system by means of violence) will always say that what the ideas against Technology and Civilization need least is to be related with those tactics. Which we do not share. The majority of these people (anti-civilization, primitivists, salon “anti-technology revolutionaries,” etc) speak of destroying the system but feel an apparent fear in seeing that the ideas are related to the attacks on the same system that they want to destroy.

Sooner or later, through ourselves and through others, the ideas against the Techno-industrial System and/or Society will relate themselves with attempts and acts of violence, undoubtedly.

V

With respect to our position that has to do with the war against leftism. We have reevaluated what we said before and we have analyzed that leftism is just a factor that deseves only rejection, critique, and the distancing of those of us who fight against the Industrial Technological System, nothing more. We made the effort to send an incendiary package to Greenpeace Mexico[120], another package of similar characteristics to the leftist director the the Milenio paper in Mexico City in November 2011 (Francisco D. Gonzales), and an explosive package to the leftist director of the same paper in its office in the city of León, Guanajuato in December 2011 (Pablo Cesar Carrillo). But in seeing our mistake, we have ceased these attacks and now focus all our efforts for the frontal attack against the Techno-industrial System.

The leftists can kill one another, or can be “victims” of the state and its apparatuses of control (as has traditionally happened), but not by us anymore. We will not stain our hands with their dirty blood, nor will we persist in attempting against their lives since there are more important and certain targets than their dispicable lives.

We know our tactics, to speak of leftists is one of them, we know what we do and that is all.

VI

ITS’ actions and its discourses are an attack in every sense of the word, and that is why we utilize offensive language against those who make the system keep functioning.

Technologists, leftists and the Techno-industrial Society in general do not deserve flowers nor good treatment, they deserve hard critique; which will be uncomfortable for some (and in truth, we do not consider our language exaggerated, we have never written with high-sounding or highly vulgar words since by our criteria if we utilize them then we discredit our ideas).

We are a group of radical environmentalists who carry out attempts against the physical integrity of persons specializing in developing, maintaining and improving the system that reduces us to artificialization; we are not a group of critics of the cafe who hold themselves solely in theorizations, if we were then we would watch our language a little.

We decided to publish this in order to dispel all doubt with respect to what motivates us to carry out acts of violence against the technologists, since one will surely say that the way we refer to these people shows a supposed lack of self-control in our emotions, or that we are motivated by psychological necessities based in feelings of hostility. Which we do not share in the least. ITS bases its attacks (as we have already stated before[121]) on reason and on instincts.

We critique by reason and we act by instinct, the two go hand-in-hand, one serves us for deeply analyzing and critiquing what is presently happening and the other serves us to attack in a frontal way without any compassion and rejecting any consideration of Civilization’s pseudo-morality.

We said it in our first communique and we repeat it again:

“Because although some elements within Civilization tell us that we have been domesticated for years biologically, we nevertheless continue to have Wild Instincts that we hurl in defense of the whole of which we are a part — the Earth.”

Unlike many others, ITS does not hate this system, nor do we base our actions and discourses on sentiments like vengeance, frustration, hate and/or desperation (even though some want us to accept that), as we have already said, what moves us is reason and instinct, the defense of Wild Nature (including human) and consequently Freedom and Autonomy. Do not dig deeper, because you will not find more than that, since those are our real motivations.

VII

With all that said, ITS makes itself responsible for the following attempts against the Techno-industrial System:

• August 28, 2011: Attempt on CINVESTAV (Center of Research and Advanced Studies [of the National Polytechnic Institute]) in the municipality of Irapuato in Guanajuato. The objective was all of the researchers-biotechnologists who were working and studying in that place, but because the Mexican army intervened, the attempt was frustrated.

• November 2011: Package with incendiary charge addressed to Dr. Pedro Luis Grasa Soler, general director of Monterrey Tec campus in Mexico State.

• November 2011: Threat on Dr. Manuel Torres Labansat director of the Institute of Physics of UNAM (Autonomous National University of Mexico) and on the director of scientific research Carlos Aramburo of HOZ in Mexico City. The package contained a .380 caliber bullet along with a threat from ITS, part of which read:

“[...] As we have shown in our previous communiques, the system would not be the same without mathematicians, physicists, researchers and other technoswill like YOU (and by YOU we refer to you, to the researcher Carlos Aramburo of HOZ and to those who work in the Institute of Physics), that is why when YOU are determined to create nanoscience and carry out technological projects that attempt against Wild Nature (including the human), we place ourselves in its defense and we attack.

“Without any doubt, YOU are a key component for the system, those who have the technical and intellectual knowledge for perverting the ecosystems on this Earth where we try to develop. YOU modify matter for the creation of a life totally dependent on Technology, which will lead us and is leading us to self-destruction. The Reality is this, the more animal and human species that are domesticated, the more disastrous will be the consequences of using all possible means to keep that modern “stability” on its feet.

Planet Earth already has enough with urbanization, deforestation, contamination, wars that affect the natural equilibrium, ecological epidemics, oil spills (and more) for YOU to come and hypocritically try to help it, as if to undo the damage that we have done depends on the pathetic altruistic scientists, as if something is helped by saying that YOU develop nanoscience and advanced technologies for the “well-being” of humanity and of the Earth.

In no way do we pretend to change the way of thinking of a civilized person, an alienated person, one who graduated from the Faculty of Sciences at UNAM and who received a doctorate at the University of Oxford some years ago. Something brought your studies to the maximum point, there is some reason you are where you are, but we have news for you, what you have lived is nothing more than a life absorbed by the system, which will pay you very little.

This is a direct threat against your person and all the researchers and department heads who hide themselves between four walls tending toward the Domination of all that is potentially free. This is only a warning, it will cost us nothing to leave an explosive package in your facilities [...]

As you must have realized, Mr. Manuel, this package carries with it a bullet, which can symbolize many things: detonation, explosion, wounds, terror, force, gunpowder, death. But now we use it to symbolize the material that we will use to puncture your head and/or those of your colleagues [...]”

— December 8, 2011: Package with incendiary charge for the director of research Marcela Villafaña of the Polytechnic University of Pachuca in the municipality of Zempoala in Hidalgo. In the attempt an academic who opened the package was wounded, a story similar to our first attack in April 2011 at the UPVM (Polytechnic University of the Valley of Mexico) in the State of Mexico.

For the moment that is all that we have to say…

— Individualidades tendiendo a lo salvaje (Individualists tending toward the wild)

Message Seven (18 February 2013)

<em>“When the blood of your veins returns to the sea

and the dust of your bones returns to the ground,

maybe then you will remember that this Earth does not belong to you,

you belong to this Earth.”</em>

– Native American saying

Before beginning this new text signed by ITS, we want to express our enormous gratitude to the anarchist portal “Liberación Total,” since over the years they have disseminated our communiques despite the many uncomfortable circumstances that have presented themselves; in a note attached to a November 27, 2011 text by the “Animal and Earth Liberation Front of Mexico” titled “Conspiracy Theories and the Ridiculous Saboteurs“ [Spanish link*] which we quote, they said, “we will keep disseminating the information which has to do with the ITS” and that is what they have done.

Likewise we thank all the persons and groups (from Mexico as well as Canada, the United States, Chile, Spain, Indonesia, Costa Rica, Italy, Russia, Germany, etc) who have at their own times recognized our work and/or have spread our words in one way or another. These displays of acceptance will always be taken into account as ITS did in our fourth communique (September 21, 2011) in note E; but it is worth mentioning that the displays of rejection do not go unnoticed either, when they have solid foundations that merit the effort of a response.

The aim of this text is to make our stance clear, continuing the work of spreading our ideas, clearing up some apparent doubts and misinterpretations, as well as accepting mistakes and/or errors. In no way do we want to start an endless discussion that only takes up time and energy, nor do we want this text to turn into something other than what it is. Anyone who reads it will be able to interpret correctly (or incorrectly) what they are aiming to read; the intelligent reader will know to reflect and consequently do what seems right to them.

ITS is not going to cover every person or group’s forms of thought, but the ones we respect, that we tolerate, is something else; the ideas, doctrines, stances (etc) that deserve critiques (because we are in disagreement with them [being that they cover discourses that are leftist, progressivist, irrational, religious, etc]) will be mentioned in this way; the ones that don’t, we will let pass or agree with.

All the texts that ITS has made public are not for society to “wake up and decide to attack the system,” they are not to forcibly change what the others think, nothing like this is intended; the lines we write are for the intelligent, strong individuals who decide to see reality in all its rawness, for those few who form, think and carry out the sensible critique of the highest expression of domination–the Techno-industrial System [122].

And so that our words, critiques, clarifications and statements are made known as they have been spread up to now, we have decided (until now) to take the next step, which has been to attack and try to kill the key persons who make the system improve itself.

This is the only viable way for radical critiques to emerge in the public light, making pressure so this discourse comes to the surface. We are extremists and we act as such, without compassion, without remorse, taking any means to reach our objectives.

What’s said is said.

I

The internationally-distributed review Nature, which focuses on scientific and technological topics, has given a global following to the attacks against technologists and institutions that deal with nanotechnology, information technology, biotechnology, nuclear business, etc.

Some weeks after ITS let loose an explosive against Herrera and Aceves (the Monterrey Tec technonerds) the aforementioned review published a short text titled “Stand Up Against the Anti-Technology Terrorists” [123] signed by the brother of one of our aforementioned victims, the physicist Gerardo Herrera Corral.

In the final paragraph of his text Gerardo wrote: “it is not technology that is the problem, but how we use it,” something which ITS considers completely erroneous.

Complex technology is the problem that has afflicted us as a species since the expansion of Civilization. Here it is necessary to say that there are two kinds of technology–complex and simple technology; an example of the latter were (or are) the utensils and tools employed by primitive man during the paleolithic and part of the neolithic, which helped him survive and which some cultures undoubtedly still use to hunter, gather, shelter and defend themselves.

ITS have always positioned ourselves against modern Technology, complex technology, which drives the destruction of Wild (human) Nature.

To return to Herrera’s text, if complex Technology were used for “good” things, what results would it have? The same as always: deforestation to create wind energy fields, large-scale pollution for the manufacture of “vegetarian and ecological” products, destruction of entire ecosystems for the construction of new “renewable energy” plants, the perversion of Wild Human Nature and its artificialization through information technological and social networks of “friendship,” the perversion of Animal Nature with the cloning of species that went extinct thousands of years ago [124] damaging the self-regulating ecological equilibrium, new diseases, supposed nano-cures that mutate into other more infectious and resistant viruses, etc. The absurdity that complex Technology could serve something “good” has already expired and it has been shown that it will always tend to destroy Wild Nature even while absurdly dressed up in philanthropy.

• To continue with the articles from Nature: the writer Leigh Phillips of that periodical wrote an analysis titled “Anarchists Attack Science” [125] which details the attack suffered by the Italian Roberto Adinolfi (executive director of Ansaldo Nuclear) on May 7, 2012 in Genoa by an anarchist group. Phillips, with supposed information from the European police, says the Italian group, as well as one from Switzerland, has ties with us. We belie this. Although we must admit the shots to Adinolfi’s legs were well aimed, the people who carried out the attack had their reasons for not ending Adinolfi’s life and only leaving him wounded ...

Another mistake this text’s author made was to name us as anarchists from the same network as the Italians; as we have mentioned before (and as point IV of this text will explain), ITS is not anarchist, nor do we belong to any network of or with anarchists; our work is separate and the only thing that could relate us (and only in a few cases) would be the targets and materials that are usually wielded.

• In September of last year the same writer referred to us again in another (even more extensive) article titled “Nanotechnology: Armed Resistance” [126]; in the article he makes reference to the repercussions that have been shown more than a year since the August 8, 2011 attack at the Atizapán Campu of Monterrey Tec.

Phillips interviewed Silvia Ribeiro, the head of the Latin American wing of the leftist group ETC (Group of Action on Erosion, Technology and Concentration) who were criticized in our fourth communique in note M. Silvia said, “These kinds of attacks are benefiting the development of nanotechnology,” a view that we do not share.

It was obvious that the more the Techno-industrial System grew, these kinds of branches (such as nanotechnology) would have a greater impact in society, and that, seeing that it is one of the sciences of the “future,” it would adapt, study and improve it. We are sure that if we had not done what we have, nanotechnology would have kept its course and that now (like today) it would be one of the most demanded sciences at the global level.

Mrs. Silvia suffers from naivety to say such things, to say that merely because ITS has struck at nanotechnologists, this science has seen benefits to its development. Perhaps she should ask all the researchers who now live in fear of being ITS next target if they work better scared and hidden as they do now.

In reference to these kinds of questions (about whether the system benefits from these kinds of attacks), ITS has responded to a brief interview dated April 28, 2012 in which that question is addressed (specifically in the sixth question); it is worth mentioning that this is the only interview that we have really given and it was a foreign anarchist editorial which you can read on your own time.

• Concretely and to end this point, Mexican scientists, like scientists of other countries, will continue with their research, they will continue doing studies so the Techno-industrial System becomes stronger and the results of their failure are more obvious and catastrophic–for us that is clear. But what has to also been made clear is that there will be more attacks on these scientists, there will be more attacks on their laboratories and institutions, they must pay for what they are doing to the Earth, they must accept and take responsibility for their actions, and, moments after a bomb explodes in their face (if they survive), they must say “I earned it…”

Simple.

The response will be expedited, without any compassion.

Because if Technology does not stop, neither will ITS

II

We do not at all say that the system benefits from our attacks, we have evidence and we have belied it with actions. Although many armed groups do make the system improve and make it stronger.

There are two kinds of leftists of the extremist kind who we can immediately classify by their bad intentions to employ violence against established regimes.

We will divide them into two groups:

A) The ones that make use of armed struggle in order to rise to power:

These groups are the ones that want to come to power with armed actions in order to then have the possibility of implementing a new regime of “peace,” “solidarity,” “equality,” “humanism,” (etc). But over the years they become more oppressive than the previous regime. It doesn’t matter to them if they do the worst damage in achieving power. Examples are aplenty:

• “Sendero Luminoso,” a Marxist-Maoist group of Peruvian origin

• Guerrillas lead by Ernesto “Che” Guevara de la Serna.

• “ETA” Basque independence movement

• “Combat 18″ right-wing guerrilla

• The Taliban Movement in the Arab countries

• The Marxist-Leninist organization “Red Brigades” in Italy

In reality there are many organizations of this kind that can be considered extremist leftists since their militants and/or leaders do not want the destruction of the entire system, they always seek to end up in power. To substitute one thing for another, which ITS classifies as reformist. And although their actions have very strong repercussions and they destroy monuments, buildings, kidnap officials, assassinate presidents, and so on, these attacks do strengthen the system at the root their discourses.

Moving on to the next group:

B) The groups that employ violence so that the government will in turn resolve their demands:

These groups’ struggle is in reality a “serious” call to the attention of the authorities so that they make them protect their “rights”; weary of not being heard or the legal avenues having run out, they use violence so that their demands are fulfilled. As in the above point, there are plenty of examples, we will only mention three in order to not make this point longer:

• The “Cristero” Movement in Guanajuanto

• The “Animal Rights Militia” in the 80′s

• The revolt led by the supposed “Ned Ludd” in England at the beginning of the industrial revolution

The bottom line is that the two mentioned groups, both A and B, are reformists and leftists because they always tend to want to improve the system; their slogans were (and are) “end inequality,” “stop the war,” “halt imperialism,” “rights” for animals, “improvements in public services,” “teaching of religion” in schools, the “destruction of the machines” for the return to manual labor, “economic independence,” the “implementation of communism,” the “implementation of national socialism,” etc.

III

Some of the slogans (mentioned above), the system agrees to use (or not), since it sees if it is implemented in the daily life of society everything will be at “peace.” For example, it did not agree to halt “globalization” because in this it locates the possibility of having a “free market,” that is, finding a way to over-exploit nature in order to be able to take resources in any part of the world. It did not agree to end the wars (save for calculated exceptions) because that is how they put new technologies in practice so that in the future they can be launched to the market, as happened with the internet, armored vehicles, cell phones, robotics, and more.

Previously in the history of humanity (very similar to the modern era) it was like this:

“War contributes to slavery–slavery fores agriculture, and this in turn contributes and determines sedentary life and ‘peace’” (quote marks added by ITS) [127].

But for example the system does agree that animals have rights, so a more “humane” civilization can give way to new ways of thinking in society, and in this way one of the system’s many most ingenious tricks is plotted. It also agrees to apparently put an end “inequality,” with this it can have the majority without fighting and anyone who discriminates is seen as an inhumane criminal.

It is worth mentioning that for ITS discrimination is not always bad; we will make one simple example for the reader: suppose that you are the head of a tribe who falls sick and someone else has to urgently go for the berries of a shrub that will cure you, and it is far from where the clan finds itself. Who would you send if you know that the forest is full of hungry wild animals that only a group of hunters is able to cross, carrying the berries? You wouldn’t send the women gatherers or the little children, would you? Obviously you would send a group of the most valiant hunters for your remedy. Remember that hunters are also wont to be gatherers and women are very rarely hunters (or occupy themselves with minor hunts) in any tribe.

Then in this example discrimination is not so bad.

Let’s make another example for those political correct people who may feel offended, accusing us of being “machistas” (for the previous example). What person would you make responsible for a work of masonry, if you had a painter of surrealist art and a salesman of good roots?

Obviously you would discriminate against both because neither is suitable, you would have to call a mason to complete the desired work.

As one can read in this point, discrimination is not always bad, it is just that many have accepted it as such due to adaptation to the psychic-cultural schemes established in Civilization, something we call oversocialization. [128]

IV

In this point we will try to distinguish between our stance and anarchist stances.

Since many keep labeling ITS as an anarchist group, we see the need to write what comes, perhaps in this way one will manage to understand (or not) that ITS is something else and cease calling us that. We clarify that we are not offended that they call us anarchists (in case someone might think so), it is simply that things ought to be called by their name.

We will begin by writing something about the old anarchists and only then address topics that have to do with anarcho-nihilism. We put forth that, although within anarchist ideas there are infinite currents, it seems that the majority of individuals with anarchist ideas have ideological schemes and principles that go against “authority,” “property,” “discrimination,” the “law,” the “order,” the “family.” These concepts will be the motive for analysis and comparison with respect to what we think.

What follows does not in any way intend to question anybody, nor to make it seem that ITS has a “secret formula,” it is simply a publicly launched opinion. Everyone acts in consequence with what they live, think and feel.

That said, we begin:

• Within the extremist leftists of point II there are some old anarchists, even though they did not (or do not) want power to build a directive government. They wanted (or still want) a “social revolution,” they want to achieve a “new society” based on “new values,” like “mutual aid,” “solidarity,” “equal rights,” and other utopias. Such values are the representative values of the system, the ones it wants at all costs to manage to–and that it more or less has managed to–consolidate so that Civilization could be “perfect” and there could not be any dissidence.

These old anarchists of Saint-Simon’s kind of “utopian socialism” wanted to eliminate states, basing themselves on the values that the system would impose softly, without one realizing they were falling into its game. Now in the present anyone who speaks of the “emancipation of the proletariat,” of the “class struggle,” “social revolution” and other two-odd-century-old slogans carries a corpse in their mouth, because those arguments are expired and it is useless to try to propel them now because they no longer have any solid validity.

The old anarchists oppose all authority, and some were really consistent with their ideals until death (there is no doubt of this), but the problem here is in those who wanted to build a “new society,” wanted Civilization to remain, production to be self-managed, Technology to be used for something “good,” goals that we completely reject, since Civilization deserves only destruction and/or rejection–trying to exchange society for a “new” one is not viable now, perhaps it would be viable for anarchists to live in a small community but at the general social level it would even be impossible.

ITS thinks that society must not be exchanged for another or convinced that it is heading to the precipice; (techno-industrial) society (as we said of Civilization above) only deserves to be destroyed, messed up, and rejected, just like this whole filthy system.

Clearly on this point we are only referring to the old anarchists (and a few “new” ones with old ideas), since for some time now anarchist ideas have changed. So-called neo-anarchism or anarcho-nihilism has spread at least through Europe, the Americas, Asia and Oceania (if it doesn’t already have a presence in Africa too).

• From what we have read regarding the anarcho-nihilists, some of them do not want to build a new society like their political predecessors, they want its destruction in order to fulfill their commitment which would be the “elimination of all bondage and authority” (in their own terms, of course).

But ITS thinks that authority is not always bad–it is bad when it restricts Freedom, when it limits your capacities to be able to reach your ends. But it is not bad when an authority figure teaches you not to falter, to pick yourself up from some emotional or physical decline, when he gives you wise counsel and when he leads you by good paths.

We think that an example of this non-harmful authority would be the parents and grandparents of primitive man [129] (today, there are very few people remaining who represent non-harmful authority).

On the same topic of authority, the family is related with this thematic. We do not believe that the family would be a problem because it represents a “hierarchical framework” (as some anarchists say); to the contrary, the human being is biologically programmed by nature for being born in community and living together in family. Or perhaps being with family was bad for our hunter-gatherer-nomad ancestors? Not at all. For millions of years primitive man lived happy along with his family, [130] when the tribe grew too large, some consanguineous groups would separate in order to begin a new life, to create a new tribe. When the human being was nomadic, he had respect for the head of the clan, or for parents and authority; how can children now keep respect for parents who are neglectful, paternalistic and bad-intentioned? The family and the Wild Nature of the human being in general was perverted when it started to become civilized. An example of this is the following:

“Crowds become denser, elites became more select, technologies acquired a more technical character. The frustrations and tensions of city life increased in intensity. Inter-tribal clashes became bloodier. There were more people which meant there were more surplus people, people who could be squandered. As human relations, lost in the multitude, became more impersonal, man’s inhumanity increased until reaching horrible proportions.” [131]

This is why ITS says that authority is not always bad, because the rate of familial deterioration (starting with parents and ending with children) depends on various cultural and social facets. Today’s family is oversocialized, it is stuck on hard moralist guidelines, it overprotects children, or, to the contrary, it creates frustrations disregarding or accelerating their development.

For better understanding we transcribe these lines:

“Filicidal [132] hostility manifests itself under the two extreme categories of indulgence [133] and of irrational frustration (in the children). It would seem, moreover, that it obeys basic motivations. On one hand treating them as children even when they are adults, protecting them from mistakes and from “bad steps,” or cynically leaving them to fail in order to thus test their inferiority and impotence and the paternalist sees his perversions realized, confirming his hostile prejudices. On the other hand, [...], a paternalistic attitude is that of “machismo” in which the father, in order to make his son a “man,” humiliates him, stimulates his aggression, wants him to be a premature man, prohibits him from being and recognizing himself as a child. In the first case one perpetuates infantilism in the children, in the second case one mutilates the child from his infancy and inculcates in him a facade of artificial masculinity. In both cases there is hostility with the child, a pathological distortion is perpetuated in him which, like a new link, lengthens the chain of perhaps several generations.” [134]

It is for these reasons that ITS does not defend the slogan “against all authority” that many anarchists express, since this would also include innocuous authority; ITS only rejects the authority that the Techno-industrial System exercises with all its values and civilized pseudomoral schemes.

Family (on the other hand) is not the problem in itself, it is the Civilization that has degraded this natural nucleus, that has contaminated the strong branches of the genealogical tree to turn it into something very different from what it was in a beginning.

• Many anarchists also position themselves against law and order. But, (again) are order and law always bad? ITS (again) thinks not.

In Wild Nature everything has an order, everything is self-regulated, there is a circle that repeats infinite times so that the natural equilibrium keeps its course and is not lost.

An example: The tree grows, the rain gives it strength, the moon makes it so there is humidity in the environment and new plants may germinate; the tree drops fruits that in turn are eaten by the herbivorous animals and their young so they grow in a future, these herbivorous animals are hunted by carnivorous and omnivorous (human) animals, the meat is for them and their young, the surplus is devoured by scavenging animals and brought to their young, the earth is nourished with what is finally left. A bird comes to the aforementioned tree and brings what it needs for its nest, while the bird flies, a seed falls where the earth is fertile and everything begins again.

From the beginning of time everything has been ruled by the natural order, until Civilization came and changed everything. Everything turned into disorder, chaos.

From this idea that everything in Wild Nature has an order, and because we say that we obey this order and these natural laws, those who disobey these natural statutes are confined to obeying the system [135] and denying their human nature [136].

ITS categorically rejects the chaos of Civilization and ferociously defends the order of Wild Nature.

• We also differ with anarchists on the term property. We do not believe that private or personal property are bad in all aspects; Stirner in his book The Ego and Its Own [literally Property — transl.] has made this clear.

Our Freedom is ours alone, our individual property, our individual body, like those material (or non-material) things that we have obtained through a really serious effort and we are not ready to share them with any stranger. [137]

We defend egoism but not egocentrismo (which are very different things) since the human being from his beginnings has always had to see for himself and then for the others. Even the term individualidades, used in our pseudonym, emphasizes more firmly what we are. The idea of sharing everything with everyone, as some anarchists (not all) dream, comes across as abnormal and mistaken to us.

• Perhaps with agree with the anarcho-nihilists on the matter of egoism, since some (few in reality) have openly declared themselves as such, perhaps, also with their discourse about the destruction (and not the reform) of society and of the system; although we don’t know how it is that they want to achieve that… perhaps it would be through an immediate and symbolic destruction of the “established order” (as we have read in their communiques).

ITS has from a beginning said that it does not believe that the destruction of the Techno-industrial System (or Civilization’s collapse) can be propitiated or accelerated by a group of “revolutionaries” or a movement. ITS thinks that this destruction will come from nature or from the system itself. Although we would prefer that it was Wild Nature that drove the system to fall at its feet. Perhaps by means of a global cataclysm, a meteorite from space, a new glacial age, a great solar storm, etc. We would prefer that over the system collapsing under its own weight, because then its fall would be so violent and disastrous that the planet Earth would be left changed, totally polluted and without any remedy to bring itself back and regenerate (or perhaps so, but in millions of years). Whatever will happen will happen, for us it is not too late, we still have instincts (organic impulses or however one wants to call these similarities we still share with wild animals), the human being has lived longer in caves than in great buildings, they have not been able to eradicate our wildness, we are still not machines; we still are and represent nature, and therefore we will defend ourselves from the stranger who comes trying to artificialize us and reduce our sphere of Freedom in the least.

The system is so naive to think that it will eliminate and subjugate every trace of Wild Nature that remains, without thinking that it is not just this planet that represents the Wild Nature it wants to dominate. Other planets with (maybe) subatomic life, other galaxies, star dust, black holes, asteroids, supernovas, suns, stars, natural satellites, dark matter, in sum the entire universe also represents Wild Nature, that infinite proportion that it will never be able to dominate, even though the futuristic visions of some astrophysicists say the contrary.

• Continuing with the themes of an anarchist nature, we publicly admit that we made a mistake in past communiques (specifically in the first, second and fourth) when we mention persons who we do not know personally, but who at that time we considered “afines” [people we have affinity with — transl.] At that time ITS was rather influenced by liberationist currents (animal and earth liberation) [138] and insurrectionalists, now things have changed, we do not deny that these currents were, in a beginning, an integral part of our ideological development, but we have left them behind, and as one can read above, we have turned into something different.

Today, things have changed.

We will not send out “greetings of support and solidarity” with people who are or are not related with our immediate circle of afines, whether they are incarcerated or have died, we do not see it as strategic in any way.

On the other hand, anarchists of the nihilist-insurrectionalist stripe have for some time called through the internet, written propaganda, etc, that they give “direct support” to their compañeros who have fallen into prison, wounded or even dead. This is how these anarchists’ network has become stronger year after year. Although this has repercussions for some anarchists who have prison records or who only disseminate their communiques on blogs (as happened in Italy), it seems they will not stop for anything. ITS thinks that in these anarchist cells there are sincere people who do not feel the need to construct a new society, but rather to destroy the existent, a mission that for us is not leftist. States really are worried by the rise of anarchist sabotages, which show that they have become a threat for the economic-political system of some countries, something that is worthy of recognition.

• To end with this topic and all the subtopics, we hope that it has been made clear that although ITS has a few agreements with the anarchists, we are different things.

V

Perhaps from our first communiques and due to our poor wording in the past, some are confusing our stance with the absurd ideas of the “eco-fascists” who are very popular in Europe.

On this point, we will also differentiate our stance with what these pseudo-ecologists defend, so that no doubt remains that we could ever be the same.

• Pentti Linkola, a philosopher from Finland, is one of the principle ideologues who promote eco-fascism in his country. Among his principle proposals are:

• The implementation of a dictatorship headed by intellectuals in ecological topics.

• Forced sterilizations.

• A lifestyle similar to the middle ages.

• He defends the extinction of foreign animals which according to him “destroy the environment.”

• His perfect society is that people abandon technology and progress but that, on the other hand, leaders have highly technological weapons for their defense.

Although this seems to be a joke, we are forced to ask, do these ideas have similarities with the ones that ITS defends? It is obvious they do not.

• Our stance positions itself against the Techno-industrial System, we defend Wild Nature at all costs trying to achieve true Freedom [139], rejecting the values of the system that are progressivist and leftist. Like the nature that we still are, we defend ourselves against all Civilized aggression, resisting, confronting, criticizing and attacking the researchers who try to push us toward the bottomless hole of artificialization with their advanced sciences.

We do not want a new “alternative” or “greener” regime lead by intellectuals, military officials, or politicians; we want all the regimes that Civilization [140] encompasses to be destroyed. And as we do not want new states, nor do we believe in forced sterilization, since that would entail believing in politics, in rights, in the laws of Civilization, which we reject. It is obvious that overpopulation is a real problem for the free development of the human being, of animals and the Earth; it is totally abnormal to live together with hundreds of strangers around you. But at least ITS does not answer by reducing the global population, positioning ourselves in favor of human sterilization or collective genocide. ITS only answers by rejecting it and hurling radical critique at the Techno-industrial Society and not falling into its game, only this.

• We do not believe that the kind of life of the middle ages would be appropriate to live. And neither do we believe that people in general would want and/or can return to living in that way. The form of life that ITS defends (and the one that the human being is biologically programmed for through evolution) is that of hunter-gatherer-nomad; in many parts of the world people still live in this way (with all of the limitations), which shows that it is still viable to live in this way; we emphasize that this form of life can be carried out only by those few who are decided to break with everything civilized; we are not insinuating that all people should adopt it.

Remember that in past times, “… [The people who formed Civilization] were the discontent, the weak and the disparaged who separated themselves from their more fortunate and dominant companions and made the first attempts to settle and break ground for a way of life” [141] (brackets are from ITS).

Now, in modern times it is for the few strong and decided individuals to abandon Civilization and return to the Nature we are part of.[142]

• The extinction of species in many cases is even natural and is tied to their evolution (even Darwin called it “natural selection” [143]).

Nature knows when and at what moment the time has arrived in which some animal will cease to exist. Extinction forms part of the ecological equilibrium and one must accept this.

Everything is fine until the human being comes with its anthropocentrism and wants to “save” or preserve these kinds of species whose own environment and physiology have brought them to disappearance.

The natural equilibrium is also violated when the anthropocentric human being massively hunts various animals to remove some “prime material” or simply for sport, creating a “civilized extinction” (to call it that).

ITS positions itself against this artificial and irrational extinction. In fact, Nature does not need the civilized human to take charge of intentionally extinguishing species (as Linkola declares), and it remains clear that these kinds of acts are in themselves an attack against Wild Nature [144].

Mr. Pentti Linkola is against “foreign” animals bringing an environment to “imbalance,” but what Linkola hasn’t thought (or seen) is that the same Civilization is what drives those animals to “invade” other foreign environments in the face of that Civilization’s demographic growth. So the problem is not the foreign animals, but the Civilization, it is the true problem.

• The positions of ITS and the positions of the so-called “eco-fascists” are vastly different and completely antagonistic. While they want to regulate overpopulation, the ecological damage of industrialization, and they say they are concerned for the Earth, their pseudo-positions are nothing more than leftist, reductionist and irrational ideologizations. Many of them exalt Nordic and/or Germanic paganism, are vegetarians in the style of Hitler, study botany and biology, live in forests in a rural manner, but they do not have a real critique of the Techno-industrial System and they adopt recycled and useless ideologies (such as national socialism, fascism, monarchical totalitarianism, etc). In brief, “eco-fascism” is the result of minds of little intelligence, adapted to aberrant and reformist political-social-military theories that only want the system to become stronger.

VI

We hope that we have (at least) have made ourselves understood in the majority of the points written so far in this seventh communique.**

ITS thinks that in order to plot an effective struggle against the Techno-industrial System, these kinds of texts have to be made public, as well as analysis and (self) criticism that lead to reflection, rejection and confrontation; it takes experiences, lived experiences, mistakes and failures have to be committed, it also takes time. What is not needed is immobilism, useless confrontation, lack of analysis and/or lack of radicalism. We said in point IV, we do not have the “secret formula,” we act under trial and error, we accept our faults and with this we keep on going.

VII

To end this text, we claim responsibility for sending a letter with explosive-incendiary material to the nanotechnology researcher Sergio Andrés Águila of the Institute of Biotechnology of UNAM in the city of Cuernavaca, Morelos.

ITS wants to emphasize that this action is not a “reaction from organized crime to the implementation of the single police command” as was said by that state’s jumpy governor Graco Ramírez [145].

Our attacks are directed to more concrete targets, the authorities and the press are always the ones who want to gloss over the information and/or make it seen differently.

ITS is not interested in the police’s “single commands,” what’s more we are not interested in politics (we consider ourselves apolitical) since our motivations go beyond the simple politicking that we are accustomed to.

It is worth mentioning that the Institute of Biotechnology of UNAM in Cuernavaca has already been hit before. On November 8, 2011, the biotechnology researcher Ernesto Méndez Salinas was assassinated by a shot to the head on Teopanzaolco Avenue; months later the police reported that they had arrested those responsible [146], which is a lie.

It is not an accident that the same institute has been hit now, in order to make the truth known: the biotechnologist Méndez Salinas, on November 8 (only three months after the explosion in Monterrey Tec) became the first mortal victim of ITS

We have said it before, we act without any compassion in the feral defense of Wild Nature. Did those who modify and destroy the Earth think their actions wouldn’t have repercussions? That they wouldn’t pay a price? If they thought so, they are mistaken.

For the moment we only claim these actions, the Mexican government along with the scientific community know very well what attacks we have not made public, and although they hide the information, there is always space to again read something about the people who oppose in action the progress of the Techno-industrial System [147].

For now, that is all there is to say…

Individualists Tending toward the Wild

A brief note (22 February 2013)

By means of this short message, ITS claims responsibility for the envelope with incendiary contents which detonated on a curious worker of a business linked with the Mexican Postal Service (Sepomex) on the afternoon of February 21 of this year.

The authorities have declared that the parcel was addressed to a woman named Lilia Botello, which is a lie.

As one can see in the photograph from the press, the label that carried the address was burned when the dynamite was activated. This only left the supposed return address, which carried the name of Lilia Botello Ramos, with a residence in the San André Tetepilco neighborhood of the Iztapalapa sector of the Mexican capital.

ITS usually chooses some name and address at random to fill in the return address. Obviously we are not going to put our names in!

For the time being we are not publicizing the name of the real intended recipient, we will keep it secret in order to hinder the police investigations.

We are aware that these kinds of “accidents” may happen to reoccur, but this is only one of the consequences that the war against the Techno-industrial System brings.

As we have said in our seventh communique: If Technology does not stop, neither will ITS

Individualists Tending toward the Wild

Message Eight (March 2014)

After a short period of silence due to recent events (public and not so public), the terrorist group ITS has something to declare:

“What is needed is not to seek negotiations with the system, but a life and death struggle against it” [148] – Theodore John Kaczynski

I

The popular science journal “Nature” published an article (October 2013) criticizing our third statement [149], which we wrote after bursting the meat of technonerds at Monterrey Tech in August 2011. In this text the “nano-anthropologist” Chris Toumey (University of South Carolina) made a very poor attempt to “break” our primary motivation in which we have to attack.

In the article, Mr. Toumey states that our attacks against nanotechnology are basically founded on the supposition of the Grey Goo scenario [150]. Which is a lie.

The Grey Goo is a theory that first began to be popular in scientific environments and then caught the attention of the general public. The Nano-technologist Eric Drexler was the first person to use the term in his book “Engines of Creation” in 1986. In the year 2000, the co-founder of Sun Microsystems, Bill Joy wrote the famous article “Why the future does not need us”, (which we mentioned in our third communiqué), which set forth an apocalyptic vision of the Gray Goo, an article that caught the attention of some pseudo-critics of civilization, like John Zerzan, etc..

Since 2004 (when nanotechnology was more than a reality) the issue became so outrageous that Drexler publicly stated that the Grey Goo was only an illusory idea, and technological conditions were not suitable (at the time) for a catastrophe, as predicted years ago, to arise.

Given this, ITS want to state the following:

1. The hypothetical threat of Grey Goo has NEVER been our main motivation to begin the attack on nanotechnology in Mexico.

2. Since our third statement was published until now, some ideas of members of ITS have CHANGED (as evidenced from the sixth statement to this), and one of them is all that has to do with the alleged Grey Goo.

3. Now, we consider this theory as a simple catastrophic assumption, from a twisted mind hungry for public attention (Drexler).

With this statement we do not intend, in the least, that technologists give us their academic acceptance by rejecting the Grey Goo scenario (because obviously that will never happen, as they will never accept terrorism against them).

We employed direct attacks to damage both physically and psychologically, NOT ONLY experts in nanotechnology, but also scholars in biotechnology, physics, neuroscience, genetic engineering, communication science, computing, robotics, etc.. because we reject technology and civilization, we reject the reality that they are imposing with ALL their advanced science. We deny a life imposed on us by the system that dictates that we must walk mindlessly, obligatorily obeying orders from large organizations (industrial giants that tell you what to eat, what not to do, to say, to wear, where to go, etc..) and people outside our inner circle. We negate the artificiality and we cling to our past as Warriors of the Earth who cling to our darkest instincts of survival, and although we know we are civilized humans, we are awake and we claim ourselves as fierce individualists in TOTAL WAR against all that threatens our nature and Wild Naturethat is left.

“(…) On the altar of technological development, we are sacrificing all areas of our individual freedom and the possibility of living a life really worth living. Now it’s up to each of us to choose to be obedient subjects, or to try to live, here and now, and reject the existent (…)” [151] – Nicola Gai

• We chose to attack from the outset, because nanotechnology is a science that is having a significant growth in the future and will exponentially advance global economic and power OVER all Wild Nature.

Nanotechnology pushes a hyper-technological process and a hyper-artificiality of imposed reality, which in itself is already too absurd for scientists, so they try to make it more miserable and mechanical.

Already Albert Einstein once said: “All our supposed technological advances are like an axe in the hands of a madman.”

• Toumey in his article in “Nature”, has also said that we know nothing about nanotechnology and that it is absurd to attack, knowing so little. ITS members are not going to discuss with experts the pros and cons of nanotechnology, so if we say that we UNDERSTAND loudly, that science (and other things) are a danger to our individuality, and to the natural environment in which we evolved, there is no need to be a genius or have high academic and labour studies, to shred all this garbage of technological progress.

• Taking issue with the arrogant criticism of Toumey, ITS has realized (as FC realized years ago) [152] that scholars, professors, researchers and academics are not always as smart as they claim to be, because if so, Herrera and Aceves of Monterrey Tech would not have been injured by the explosion of a letterbomb (which you could tell was from the apocryphal leagues), the morning of August 8, 2011; if it was like this, the professor of the Polytechnic University of Pachuca would not have suffered various burns after opening a package that was NOT addressed to him, but a nano-technologist, the afternoon of December 8, 2011; if he was smart, the biotechnologist Méndez Salinas of the Institute of Bio-Technology (IBT) of UNAM would have noticed that someone was watching for him for weeks in his footsteps, and he would not have received that shot that killed him instantly, the night of November 8, 2011 [153].

If all these technonerds had had any brains, they would know in advance that there are people who are bitterly opposed to the way they are domesticated, mutating and ending life and wild environments, and would not have committed so much to their daily routines.

Along with these three real examples, we could list other objectives (such as attacks on Olivera, activist of Greenpeace, and the nanotechnologists Galem Rondero and Sergio A. Águila [154] of the UNAM, in 2011 and 2013) that although not injured, left much to be desired regarding their supposed intelligence, being university professors.

At the same time, view the decision of scholars in state, district and / or national security, criminology, ballistics, law, etc.., Hiding our attacks, is not worthy of smart people with advanced degrees, because these people know very well that hiding them while more and more of our attacks happen will mean that we will claim at the same time a list of acts, (as we have done so far), to create a greater impact, and/or highlight the lies and cover-ups by the authorities, making them look like ridiculous idiots.

Anyway, with this ITS wants to make it clear once again that the flaccid reviews of smart academic experts will not stop us, their darkest fears will come true sooner or later.

II

As we continue along the same path of artificial growth, the mentality and conduct of the Technoindustrial Society will be gradually manipulated further. There will come a time in which the Leftist masses will miss attacks on technology, civilization and progress, and blindly believe what is killing them slowly now is good, and all those who dare to contradict their values are crazy or dysfunctional. And while this may be applicable, ITS would like to emphasize that although the official (and unofficial) media disqualify and silence our attacks, these are things that do not interest us, to speak ill of ITS or suspiciously hide information indicates that we have become a latent threat [155] [156] [157] and will continue to be (of course), unless the Technoindustrial system collapses (sarcasm), or before we are caught, although the latter option seems to be far from realization.

III

From the beginning we have claimed our attacks, whether they have worked or not, whether they have come to public light or not, why? Because as individualists we are responsible for our own actions; our packages explode or not; our bullets hit the target or not; this will continue to be included in future adjudications. At this point ITS claim the following acts:

• August 2012: We sent a packet with explosive payload to neurologists of the Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico (ITAM) in Mexico City, which no public notice was learned of; how the package was found or deactivated etc.; a typical act when it comes to direct attack to physically injure the wealthy technonerds of such an institute.

• September 2013: Parcel bomb addressed to Alejandra Lagunes Soto, former director of Google Mexico and current head of the National Digital Strategy Coordination of the Presidency of the Republic.

• September 2013: Explosive package to the Director of modernization and administration of the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) Guillermo Turrent Schnas.

In the latter two cases no public news broke, since then, the DF government was busy enough to contain the demonstrations of teachers and anarchist riots caused by them, leaving aside such acts. The crisis had been made more than obvious, as the authorities had decided to not publish in their media the news of the attacks. However, it is known that these packages are ours.

IV

Finally, as we had already mentioned in past releases, with these attacks we have executed we are not trying to win or lose (because who thinks they will win, since that time, has already lost). Our attacks address the system and that which sustain it, our acts demonstrate that we have NOT submitted, we have NOT accepted their values, we remain human rather than robots, that we have NOT fully domesticated our behaviour, that we are reluctant to join their lies and their negotiations, covenants that we do not want. We do not want something more beneficial or less harmful. We want confrontation, war to the death against this dirty system.

INDIVIDUALISTS TENDING TOWARD THE WILD

Maybe it will call the attention of observers that ITS cite these two anarchists, and we stress that clearly their words and actions coincides with ours even though we don’t entirely agree with all their ideas. We quote them anyway, as we would have done if anarchists Mario Buda, Galliani, Di Giovani, Roscigna, Ravachol, among others, were alive.

Here, we mention that in 2011 the (newly formed) ITS was testing various modus operandi (from known and attempted arson attacks on cars and construction machinery, companies and institutions in Coahuila, Guanajuato, and Veracruz State of Mexico, until we decided to focus on terrorism and not sabotage), some were successful and some not, the most violent cell of ITS in Morelos, being already familiar with the purchase and use of firearms, decided to implement the act by then. It would be the strongest (the murder of Méndez), and in fact was claimed in an indirect and/or symbolic form to achieve on the 8^th November, (as an equal to the day of the attack on Monterrey Tech 8^th August). We also mentioned this in a letter sent to a pair of physicists from the UNAM (read our sixth communiqué) in November of that year (for this, you can read a little more in an interview for an anarchist project ITS answered in April 2012, but published in late January of this year 2014), the act was not the impact we wanted in that year, because there was no DIRECT logical reasons, so waited until 2013 to reorganize another blow at the same institute [letter bomb to Andres Aguila, researcher of UNAM Institute of Biotechnology].

It was like this the ITS cell in Morelos chose Chilean Nanotechnologist Sergio Andrés Águila. It was directed precisely to a Chilean, because we decided to symbolically thank the blog in Chile Liberación Total for spreading our texts (this we already spoke of in our seventh release). The information (full name, address, and other data) of Mr Águila was sent to ingenious cells of ITS in DF [Mexico City Federal District], they are familiar with the manufacture of homemade explosives, sent package bombs, but by a failure of the electrical mechanism, the device did not explode, but because the package was opened by the same Andrés Águila, at least had not missed it’s target. The researcher would have received the same degree of injuries (if not more) that was sustained by a curious man who opened one of our packages in DF (21 February 2013), a few days after what had happened in Morelos