“For now there is no movement that positions itself radically against Technology, neither organized nor solid, if some day there is (if it triumphs and we are alive) then we will accept our mistake, in the meantime we will not accept futurist speculations that bet on a movement that helps to destabilize the system in its totality. Those who believe in the uprising of such an anti-technology movement can keep hoping or can put all their strength into that task. It seems that some have not realized that in speaking of a “sufficiently strong and organized anti-technology movement” they are also entering into the language of leftism.”
____________________________________________________________
from culmine, translated by war on society:
The following text is intended to be a self-critique, in addition to accepting publicly the mistakes that we made in past communiques and in claiming responsibility for some attempts against the Techno-industrial System.
Certainly, ITS will always accept critiques that are based in reason, those that are not founded upon strong and well-cemented criteria will be rejected as has been done before.
I
ITS considers it to have been an error in past communiques to substitute the letters that denote gender with an “x” since we do not focus on things like this, nor do we want to denote a certain inclination to the linguistic postures of the politically correct. And we say that we do not focus on these kinds of grammatical currents because the attack on the system is our view, and no other struggle. Generally, those people who write with these kinds of corrections have roots in their postulated senseless struggles like “equality,” “solidarity,” “egalitarianism” (etc), that is, they defend the ideology of leftism and reductionism, which we do not share. It is for this reason that we reject this kind of “grammatical subculture” (as it is called).
II
Many of the things that we have written in the first as well as the second communique–such as the supposed liberation of animals and the earth, which are based in sentimentalism, insurrectionalism, which in many cases justifies itself with emotions of vengeance, the poor choice that we had with the thing about the earthquakes, the critique that one must see with respect to the poor interpretations of some ideas of Ted Kaczynski (truthfully speaking, very few)–we have discarded and now for us they have no validity. The lack of more printed material that correctly explains, or at least has a certain closeness to, Kaczynski’s ideas does not make the task of understanding them with clarity easy for many.
Obviously, we continue to defend the critique against the terminology “revolution-revolutionary,” without a doubt.
Because:
– The so-called “revolution” that so many bet on perverts the nature of the human being because it always tends to reform the system.
– “Revolution” is a blind hope (faith) that many want to see achieved, if they do not achieve their task (which has never been done) their efforts will be in vain, and everything, absolutely everything for which they fought will sell them short, making such efforts useless.
– “Revolution” is a leftist concept.
– Many leftists want to make from their puposes and/or approaches something so profound that they exaggerate themselves, digress and come to limits outside of reality. There are many examples: “the destruction of capitalism,” “a world without states or borders,” “a planet without animal exploitation,” “world peace,” and among others the so-called “anti-technology revolution.”
The struggle against the Techno-industrial System is not a game which we should win or lose, defeat or be defeated, that is what many have still not understood and it seems that many are still expecting to be “recompensated” in the future for the current actions of “revolutionaries.” One must accept that many things in life are not recompensated, that many tasks and/or ends are never achieved (including Autonomy) and the destruction of the techno-system by the work of the “revolutionaries” is one of them. Now there is not time to wait for the imminent collapse, for those who want to take their time as if technological progress is not growing by leaps and bounds and devouring our sphere of individual Freedom little by little. We are the generation that has seen technological progress grow before our eyes, the specialization of nano-bio-technology in various fields of civilized non-life, the creation and marketing of graphene (a), nuclear disasters such as in Fukushima, accelerated environmental deterioration, the growth of biometrics (b), the qualitative and quantitative expansion of artificial intelligence, bioinformatics, neuroeconomics, etc. That is why ITS sees in terms of what is tangible, palpable and immediate, and that immediate is the attack with all necessary resources, time and intelligence against this system. We are individualities in the process of achieving our Freedom and Autonomy, within an optimal environment, and together with it we attack the system that quite clearly wants us in cages, obeying our wild human instincts. With this we apply ourselves as individuals in affinity to try to keep ourselves as distant as possible from leftist and civilized concepts, practices and ideologizing.
That is our real purpose, what we seek, and not an unreal dream with irrational tintings and full of speculations.
For now there is no movement that positions itself radically against Technology, neither organized nor solid, if some day there is (if it triumphs and we are alive) then we will accept our mistake, in the meantime we will not accept futurist speculations that bet on a movement that helps to destabilize the system in its totality. Those who believe in the uprising of such an anti-technology movement can keep hoping or can put all their strength into that task. It seems that some have not realized that in speaking of a “sufficiently strong and organized anti-technology movement” they are also entering into the language of leftism.
III
Now, we have become aware of an increase of discourse against Civilization in claims of responsibility for actions that are poorly directed and useless with respect to the point of reference (against the Techno-industrial System). One must take into account that the critique in a communique against Civilization or against Technology does not do anything if the action is not effective and well-aimed against these.
This “fashion” (to call it such) has been expanding year after year, we believe because the ideas against civilized progress have spread greatly through the internet and other media.
If we turn to look at history, we would realize that the same thing has happened before and after the arrest of the Unabomber in 1996, we remember the pathetic campaign that was initiated in those years called “Unabomber for president” (c), and the emergence of the Earth Liberation Front in the United States (d), and while the individuals coming together in that group were for years the strongest domestic terrorism threat in that country, nevertheless the majority of their discourses were carried on the path of sentimentalism, irrationalism and biocentrism. In other words the “radical environmentalist” fashion was popular those years, as the “anti-civilization fashion” is now. But it is worth remembering with this that every wave or fashion ends some day, and only those who have well established the critique against the Techno-industrial System will keep the same path, over the years what has to happen will happen, and the things that have to occur will occur.
We are aware that ITS has been responsibile in large part for this “fashion” having grown in great proportion, we accept this mistake, and what we want to do (for now) is only to wait for those individuals who have copied our discourse and have mutated it, to stop doing so, or for them to recognize, accept and take on the critique with these kinds of texts not only because we have made it but also because it is absolutely necessary to reject the deceptive leftism and attack the Techno-industrial System in a congruent and radical manner (if that is what the intended objective is, of course).
IV
We have analyzed these questions to the source and it seems that for the moment there are two important parts within the struggle against the Techno-industrial System.
To summarize we will put it thusly: there are those who question and critique the system and others who not only do this but also attack, like ITS (e).
Faced with this, the critical and not active part (that is to say the part that doesn’t place in its sights the attack against the system by means of violence) will always say that what the ideas against Technology and Civilization need least is to be related with those tactics. Which we do not share. The majority of these people (anti-civilization, primitivists, salon “anti-technology revolutionaries,” etc) speak of destroying the system but feel an apparent fear in seeing that the ideas are related to the attacks on the same system that they want to destroy.
Sooner or later, through ourselves and through others, the ideas against the Techno-industrial System and/or Society will relate themselves with attempts and acts of violence, undoubtedly.
V
With respect to our position that has to do with the war against leftism. We have reevaluated what we said before and we have analyzed that leftism is just a factor that deseves only rejection, critique, and the distancing of those of us who fight against the Industrial Technological System, nothing more. We made the effort to send an incendiary package to Greenpeace Mexico (f), another package of similar characteristics to the leftist director the the Milenio paper in Mexico City in November 2011 (Francisco D. Gonzales), and an explosive package to the leftist director of the same paper in its office in the city of León, Guanajuato in December 2011 (Pablo Cesar Carrillo). But in seeing our mistake, we have ceased these attacks and now focus all our efforts for the frontal attack against the Techno-industrial System.
The leftists can kill one another, or can be “victims” of the state and its apparatuses of control (as has traditionally happened), but not by us anymore. We will not stain our hands with their dirty blood, nor will we persist in attempting against their lives since there are more important and certain targets than their dispicable lives.
We know our tactics, to speak of leftists is one of them, we know what we do and that is all.
VI
ITS’ actions and its discourses are an attack in every sense of the word, and that is why we utilize offensive language against those who make the system keep functioning.
Technologists, leftists and the Techno-industrial Society in general do not deserve flowers nor good treatment, they deserve hard critique; which will be uncomfortable for some (and in truth, we do not consider our language exaggerated, we have never written with high-sounding or highly vulgar words since by our criteria if we utilize them then we discredit our ideas).
We are a group of radical environmentalists who carry out attempts against the physical integrity of persons specializing in developing, maintaining and improving the system that reduces us to artificialization; we are not a group of critics of the cafe who hold themselves solely in theorizations, if we were then we would watch our language a little.
We decided to publish this in order to dispel all doubt with respect to what motivates us to carry out acts of violence against the technologists, since one will surely say that the way we refer to these people shows a supposed lack of self-control in our emotions, or that we are motivated by psychological necessities based in feelings of hostility. Which we do not share in the least. ITS bases its attacks (as we have already stated before [g]) on reason and on instincts.
We critique by reason and we act by instinct, the two go hand-in-hand, one serves us for deeply analyzing and critiquing what is presently happening and the other serves us to attack in a frontal way without any compassion and rejecting any consideration of Civilization’s pseudo-morality.
We said it in our first communique and we repeat it again:
“Because although some elements within Civilization tell us that we have been domesticated for years biologically, we nevertheless continue to have Wild Instincts that we hurl in defense of the whole of which we are a part — the Earth.”
Unlike many others, ITS does not hate this system, nor do we base our actions and discourses on sentiments like vengeance, frustration, hate and/or desperation (even though some want us to accept that), as we have already said, what moves us is reason and instinct, the defense of Wild Nature (including human) and consequently Freedom and Autonomy. Do not dig deeper, because you will not find more than that, since those are our real motivations.
VII
With all that said, ITS makes itself responsible for the following attempts against the Techno-industrial System:
– August 28, 2011: Attempt on CINVESTAV (Center of Research and Advanced Studies [of the National Polytechnic Institute]) in the municipality of Irapuato in Guanajuato. The objective was all of the researchers-biotechnologists who were working and studying in that place, but because the Mexican army intervened, the attempt was frustrated.
– November 2011: Package with incendiary charge addressed to Dr. Pedro Luis Grasa Soler, general director of Monterrey Tec campus in Mexico State.
– November 2011: Threat on Dr. Manuel Torres Labansat director of the Institute of Physics of UNAM (Autonomous National University of Mexico) and on the director of scientific research Carlos Aramburo of HOZ in Mexico City. The package contained a .380 caliber bullet along with a threat from ITS, part of which read:
“[…] As we have shown in our previous communiques, the system would not be the same without mathematicians, physicists, researchers and other technoswill like YOU (and by YOU we refer to you, to the researcher Carlos Aramburo of HOZ and to those who work in the Institute of Physics), that is why when YOU are determined to create nanoscience and carry out technological projects that attempt against Wild Nature (including the human), we place ourselves in its defense and we attack.
“Without any doubt, YOU are a key component for the system, those who have the technical and intellectual knowledge for perverting the ecosystems on this Earth where we try to develop. YOU modify matter for the creation of a life totally dependent on Technology, which will lead us and is leading us to self-destruction. The Reality is this, the more animal and human species that are domesticated, the more disastrous will be the consequences of using all possible means to keep that modern “stability” on its feet.
Planet Earth already has enough with urbanization, deforestation, contamination, wars that affect the natural equilibrium, ecological epidemics, oil spills (and more) for YOU to come and hypocritically try to help it, as if to undo the damage that we have done depends on the pathetic altruistic scientists, as if something is helped by saying that YOU develop nanoscience and advanced technologies for the “well-being” of humanity and of the Earth.
In no way do we pretend to change the way of thinking of a civilized person, an alienated person, one who graduated from the Faculty of Sciences at UNAM and who received a doctorate at the University of Oxford some years ago. Something brought your studies to the maximum point, there is some reason you are where you are, but we have news for you, what you have lived is nothing more than a life absorbed by the system, which will pay you very little.
This is a direct threat against your person and all the researchers and department heads who hide themselves between four walls tending toward the Domination of all that is potentially free. This is only a warning, it will cost us nothing to leave an explosive package in your facilities […]
As you must have realized, Mr. Manuel, this package carries with it a bullet, which can symbolize many things: detonation, explosion, wounds, terror, force, gunpowder, death. But now we use it to symbolize the material that we will use to puncture your head and/or those of your colleagues […]”
– December 8, 2011: Package with incendiary charge for the director of research Marcela Villafaña of the Polytechnic University of Pachuca in the municipality of Zempoala in Hidalgo. In the attempt an academic who opened the package was wounded, a story similar to our first attack in April 2011 at the UPVM (Polytechnic University of the Valley of Mexico) in the State of Mexico.
For the moment that is all that we have to say…
Individualidades tendiendo a lo salvaje
(Individualists tending toward the wild)
Pingback: Seventh communique from Individualists Tending toward the Wild (ITS) » SABOTAGEMEDIA