received and translated by waronsociety:
“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.”
- 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 (a).
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.
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” (b) 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 (c) 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” (d) 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” (e); 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…”
The response will be expedited, without any compassion.
Because if Technology does not stop, neither will ITS!
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.
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) (f).
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. (g)
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 (h) (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 (i), 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.” (j)
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 (k) hostility manifests itself under the two extreme categories of indulgence (l) 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.” (m)
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 (n) and denying their human nature (ñ).
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. (o)
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) (p) 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.
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 (q), 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 (r) 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” (s) (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. (t)
– The extinction of species in many cases is even natural and is tied to their evolution (even Darwin called it “natural selection” [u]).
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 (v).
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.
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.
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 (w).
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 (x), 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 (y).
For now, that is all there is to say…
Individualists Tending toward the Wild