Mexico: Fourth communique from Individualists Tending toward the Wild

Extensive analysis and claim of responsibility from the Individualists Tending toward the Wild for the incendiary package sent to Dr. Flora Ganem, who is the Head of the Pharmaceutical Technology Section of UNAM, as well as the explosive package sent to Pedro Bajcich who is the general director of the National Institute of Forestry, Agricultural and Fishery Research.
This is the group’s 4th and longest public communique.
#1 can be found here in English (27 April 2011)
#2 can be found here
in Spanish
(22 May 2011) – it has not yet been translated to English
#3 can be found here
in English
(9 August 2011)
#5 can be found here
in English
(18 December 2011)
Also this will be the last vindication communique that ITS will send to be published on the internet.
Finally we should inform interested individuals that there is already a group that will format a collection of the 5 communiques and related texts, when all translations are completed, to be released in booklet form.
from liberaciontotal, translated by war on society:

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 (a) 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:


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. (b)

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. (c)(b)

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: “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.” (d)


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 (e).

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. (f)

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.” (g)


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. (b)

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). (h)

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.


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.” (i)

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. (j)

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.


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.


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. (k)

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.


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 (l) 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 (m), 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).


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 (n), 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.” (i)

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).


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 (o), 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. (p)

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.” (q)


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.


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.


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 (r), 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.


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.

(a) April 14, May 9, and August 9 of this year.
(b) In order to know a little more about this term, read Industrial Society and its Future by Freedom Club.
(c) This term means the individuals within industrial society who are highly attached to the values of the system, who blindly obey the psuedo-morality that has been imposed on them since childhood and who defend it tooth and nail. Or who are oversocialized.
(d) The Antichrist. Friedrich Nietzsche.
(e) To paraphrase what the Incendiary Antagonist Columns (CAI) expressed in their analytic communique claiming the incendiary attack against a BancoEstado in Chile, in June of 2011:
“… the logic of “protest” in the historical/Marxist sense of the term and practice, which claims a posture… In which there simply is not room for the individual conscience, nor much less for collective dissent, since this kind of a posture brings out the “true truths” of a person much more intelligent than the common individual of the poor exploited people, such victims and so stupid that they do not realize what passes before their noses. They say that someone who loves you beats you, but to treat the people as naive, unconscious and even “asleep” is to say that love is like sending someone to the psychiatrist. A condition that can be expected of people who illusorily dream of “popular uprisings” and similar messianic yammering…”
In that communique the CAI critique various topics, including society, Technology, class struggle, populists and the rest, which makes it of vital importance to read it for all those who do not want to remain in the buried traditionalist ideology to which the supposedly radical populist and classist circles have gotten used to.
(f) We as Individualists Tending toward the Wild consider that when some cell or individual (within a strictly radical and anti-industrial aspect of sabotage and/or terrorism) moves to begin an intelligent offensive against the only target which is the Industrial Technological System, they have to keep in mind many things and one of those purely important things is to recognize Reality completely and in its harshness, not to see it as subjective but rather as absolute and objective, to have quite clearly in mind the consequences of the actions and what will happen to them if they fall into the clutches of the dispicable wretches who defend the artificial order which we are attacking. Optimism is an enemy to vanquish, if one gives in to this ingenuous feeling of irrational security they will soon be regretting not having explored all the factors that led to their capture and the direct privation of their free involvement in an optimal environment for achieving their Autonomy. After this there is no turning back.
Either one attacks or one remains immobile. It is all or nothing, that much is clear.
(g) 1984. George Orwell.
(h) Relativism also situates itself in the negation of the absolute truth; ITS observes Wild Nature and Individual Autonomy as an absolute and objective truth, this can often be confused with a dogma, but just because there is a sole truth does not mean that it could not be critiqued; on this point the unique truth distinguishes itself from dogmatism.
(i) The Fountainhead. Ayn Rand.
(j) Here we make a self-criticism, since in the first two communiques transmitted from ITS a certain tendency toward misanthropy was denoted, which we have abandoned. It is illogical to claim hatred toward humanity, being that we are part of this species, to secure ourselves for the preservation of the species including the human species is completely natural, leaving aside the masses and the promiscuous support of them, of course.
Certainly we reject the industrial society that is made up of humans, but this rejection is consolidated when this society becomes a society of masses, overpopulation impedes the full development of the individual toward Freedom and Autonomy.
(k) This capital VI like the two following (VII and VIII) intends to be a response to the only document that has come to us which merits the effort to contest, due to the inconsistencies that appear like the “lick” (no deeper) of information with what pertains to the anti-industrial idea and that tries to wear a mask of clear and rational analysis, but that in reality is pervaded with an imprecise judgment and a crooked interpretation.
The text is titled Neoluddism, Anarcho-primitivism and the Eco-terrorism of ITS” (which is recommended to read in order to be able to understand the context in which the critique develops) and was written by a graduate of the Division of Sciences an Engineering of the University of Guanajuanto in Leon, named Carlos Vaquera, we cannot expect more from a defender of his field (engineering, i.e. Technology) who by having a doctorate believes he has the absolute truth between his fingers.
(l) Intellectuals, theorists, scientists and philosophers who dedicate themselves to increasing and “improving” human capacities by means of science and Technology. One of these futurists’ objectives is to eliminate from Wild Human Nature sickness, old-age, pain and other intrinsic factors in our species, in order to give way to a “better man.”
(m) A great many of the pathetic members of the techno-industrial society had not even heard of nanotechnology before we perforated the bodies of the technophiles of Monterrey Tec in August; even so, they were so ignorant and impotent as to criticize only what they could repudiate at plain sight—our use of violence.
The ETC Group (Group of Action on Erosion, Technology and Concentration), has for years been carrying out investigations that go against nanotechnological development, one of these they published in May of this year which was entitled “What’s going on with nanotechnology? Regulation and geopolitics.”
The reading of that text is recommended, but it’s worth mentioning that ITS are not in agreement with the pussy-footed postulates of this “Anti-nanotechnology Greenpeace,” since their critique is based on purely anthropocentric, legalist and immobilist aspects.
The information is good, the greatest defect is that this group is formed by leftists who oppose the development of nanomaterials in order to “save” their society; we say again, they want to keep everything “in its place” so that the system can be stronger, they take up the flag against climate change so that the system can adjust and advance. Its true name should be the Group of Eco-traitors Tending toward the Civilized (ETC), since they are undoubtedly accomplices of the System of Domination who come with deceptive discourses, who when all is said and done show only to “fight” within legality in order to create stinking reforms.
(n) We have already explained before the true reasons that scientists have for developing in their field in the third ITS communique on August 9 of this year.
(o) Giacomo Rizzonatti during the symposium “The substratum of the society of consciousness: The brain. Recent advances in neuroscience.” El País, October 2005.
(p) “Reading the mind. The brain and the art of fiction.” Jorge Volpi.
(q) Long Live the Natural World! Libertarian writings against Civilization, progress and science (1894-1930) selection of texts of Josep Maria Rosello.
Some of the first groups who deeply questioned and criticized Civilization and who also shared a closer vision toward life in Nature were the naturians.
At the end of the 1800s in France, Henri Beylie, Henri Zisly and Emile Gravelle were the first individuals who analyzed the consequences that Technology and modern practices of western agriculture could carry, but the naturians did not merely remain in the spreading of pamphlets that contained their ideas, but in fact lived according to those ideas in a natural way, which directly shows the ideological significance of these individuals.
While we ITS are in agreement with some of their postures, there are also parts that we criticize. Such as that the naturians in some of their texts present life in Nature as perfection, coming to a point of considering it as something almost sacred, close to romanticism and idealization. As we have said before, Nature is savage, painful and violent, it is not a paradise where you can spend all day lying in the undergrowth and eating what you gather; a truly strong effort is required to survive among trees, the night and wild animals who might attack you, wound you, or kill you.
(r) Principle of causality, in an easy literal equation from first grade this is reflected as:
(x+a) (x-b) – (x+b) (x-2a) = b (a-2) + 3a = 1
Various actions have as a result one or various alternate consequences which may be consecutive or not.

*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. The 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!

This entry was posted in Actions, Communiques, Favorites and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.