A short clarification about Individualists Tending toward the Wild (ITS)

In light of a recent piece of shit journalism from Business Insider titled “Mexican Anarchists Are Blowing Up Scientists And The Government Is Freaked,” we make the following clarifications:

1. The group Individualists Tending toward the Wild (ITS) did not claim the Pemex bombing in their 7th communique (or any other), as the journalists in their total lack of comprehension stated. In fact, the group has never mentioned that event even marginally.

The text that the press quoted, which they said was ITS’ claim for the Pemex bombing, titled “On the latest communique from ITS” (here in English) was written about–not by–ITS. It was written by the “Obsidian Point” Circle of Analysis. And it didn’t claim that ITS was behind the Pemex bombing, only that the State and the media are full of shit. A claim which the latest effort of the overtaxed brains of the Business Insider journalists only provides more evidence of.

2. The blog War On Society is not “dedicated to the group” ITS. Notice, for example, that this blog existed months before the group’s first communique was released, and that we have posted hundreds of notices having nothing to do with ITS.

There are some other things they got wrong, but for now that is all the time we will waste trying to correct people’s stupidity. As ITS wrote, “the authorities and the press are always the ones who want to gloss over the information and/or make it seen differently.”

As always, anyone who wants to read ITS’ own words rather than the press filtering and stupidities, can find them here.

War On Society

* * *

the misinformation from the idiotic press:

An Anarchist terror group calling themselves “Individuals Tending Toward Savagery” (ITS) has recently claimed responsibility for a high profile attack on a scientist two years ago, and made several death threats, according to reports.

Dr. Ernesto Méndez Salinas, a biotechnology expert, was shot and killed in 2011, but until this admission his death was largely attributed to the general rise of violence in Mexico, and even later attributed to a rash of car jackings.

The ITS followed its shocking claim of responsibility by issuing threats against any prominent researchers in the field of nano and biotechnology, whom they plan to take out with Ted Kaczynski-like tactics. (A particular hero of theirs.)

The reasons for doing so: Uncontrollable proliferation of nano-particle “goo” that will consume the earth in a man-made, microscopic apocalypse.

The group has claimed bomb attacks in the past, but how many are theirs is unclear. The anarchists say they’ll either take responsibility for attacks months later or not all. For one such unclaimed “attack,” which killed 20 people, they say the government is suppressing information.

From a blog dedicated to the group:

The explosion in the Pemex tower (for example) in January 2013, which left 20 dead and hundreds wounded, shows what “evidence” the government and the media are going to make known. Lies upon lies.

The government reported that the explosion was the result of a broken gas line. ITS has claimed responsibility, though there’s no evidence available to prove their claim.

Nonetheless, until nanotechnology is stopped, they vow to continue.

“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,” they said in a statement after the most recent attack.

This entry was posted in Updates and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to A short clarification about Individualists Tending toward the Wild (ITS)

  1. Pingback: MÉXICO: AMENAZA DE BOMBA: RESPUESTA INMEDIATA A TANTA INFAMIA | Material Anarquista

  2. Heliogeorgos says:

    Admiro los actos del I.T.S que se adjudican en distintos comunicados. He estado leyendo algunas de sus publicaciones en cierta página, y no dejo de afirmar esto: EL NIHILISMO TIENE UNA FUNCIÓN SOCIAL (la misma que asesinara al Zar y precipitara la “revolución” rusa).

    No intentaré sermonearles demasiado, y por ello intentaré ser concreto, dirigiéndome especialmente a Reacción Salvaje:

    1.- ¿No creen necesaria la destrucción, además de la sociedad tecnoindustrial, los supuestos de la sociedad tecnoindustrial? Tales supuestos serían la razones económicas y morales del capitalismo. Pero el capitalismo es, y no es todo. La base fenomenológica del asunto aun queda enterrada por lo que anteriormente el materialismo había entendido como fundamento economicista. Lo que haga la epojé, en efecto, es una reducción “egológica”; pero tampoco podría darse esta reducción sin la generalización de su propio yo, o lo que George Mead llamaría, EL OTRO GENERALIZADO; y esto todavía no sería llegar al verdadero fundamento: LA TEORÍA DEL VALOR QUE MARX Y NIETZSCHE ESTUDIARON EN LO ECONÓMICO Y AXIOLÓGICO, con algunos atinos por parte de los dos.

    2.- La técnica solo es técnica, así como un arma de fuego solo es un arma de fuego. Me gustaría mucho saber a qué llaman “tecnología compleja”. Esto para hacer una importante distinción entre ingeniería y tecnología, y que esto no necesariamente responde a un “grado de civilización” como a la “compleja” evolución del cerebro, en el que están inmicuidas, no propiedades de relación causal, SINO PROPIEDADES DE IMPLICACIÓN, en un orden de superior de lógica y de causación para ser retroactiva entre organismo y entorno.

    3.- Leí algo sobre la “solidaridad promiscua” vs. la “solidaridad selectiva”. Cuando uno observa al niño, que éste ve que algo se le cae a alguien y lo rejunta para regresárselo, se estudia claramente la interacción de un niño con los otros. Y pareciera ser la promiscuidad del niño por explorar su sexualidad no lo es menos por manifestar un grado de socialización que solo tiende a la realización del ser. Lo mismo parece que comparte sin discriminación a grupos diferentes como puede “acaparar” recelosamente (digamos, un niño musulmán que hace amistad con un cristiano). Como este y otros ejemplos, también existen los del egoísmo. Mi pregunta sería en esta dirección: ¿es posible una dualidad entre estos dos apectos de la socialización, la individual y la colectiva en LA NATURALEZA HUMANA, y que solo el contexto histórico y social definiría en la práctica a los individuos, bajo su criterio?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>