translation we receive and publish (original is at contrainfo [pdf]):
Pachuca, Hidalgo, November 13 2014.
With this statement, some groupuscules of “Wild Reaction” (RS), will respond to the text “Some ideas about the present and the future” from “Ediciones Isumatag” (EI), published on their blog on October 6 of this year .
At the same time, with this writing we demonstrate the existing distinction among critics of the industrial-technological system, specifically among those who are bent on and advocate the creation of an “organized movement capable of contributing to the overthrow of such a system”, and those like we who do not seek that, but rather, to attack the development of the systems progress from the present, tending to destabilize it.
With this text, we do not intend at all to open the sterile and impractical debate on future or present strategies which “have to” be taken while facing the industrial-technological system. Everyone decides their own path. What follows is just a quick exposure of our tendency regarding this topic. The intelligent ones who tend towards the wild will know very well how to analyze and criticize this communique.
In January 2012 Individualists tending towards the wild (ITS) published its sixth communique, which from the start announced itself as a self-critique, in addition to publicly accepting mistakes from past communiques, but more than that, this sixth communique was an indirect response (as some have rightly mentioned before) (1) to criticisms published that same month by Último Reducto (UR) and Anónimos con Cautela (AC) editorial groups.
At the time, ITS welcomed most of UR’s critique, it helped very much for solidifying positions and to push us to let go of some leftist, relativist thematics alien to what we wanted to form.
In fact, all those who have ever read the works of UR, might have noticed that they had a strong influence on the primary formation of our ideas.
UR themselves have written:
“Much of the discourse and terminology used in their communiques is taken from the writings of Kaczynski and UR (although in cases where they’re taking UR as reference, they do not explicitly say so)” (2)
At the time, by strategy and prudence, we never made direct mention of the influence of UR, as not to jeopardize their editorial work, being that we are an underground group with terrorist history, but since we are clearing doubts, and a few years have past since these events, we make it public.
Beyond the term “Revolution”
Ever since signing as ITS, we’ve rejected the term “revolution”. We’ve always criticized and cast aside the term that has been used to name the hypothetical process by which the destruction of the techno-industrial system would “have to” go through to be attained, as some like EI say.
But for now let’s put aside the “revolution” as a term (3), and focus on the problem as a strategy.
Freedom Club (FC) proposed in 1995, a “revolution” to end the techno-industrial system in its essay “Industrial Society and Its Future”. From then on, some people have taken this proposal as the only valid one for this hypothetical triumph in this hypothetical future.
But let’s take it one peice at a time. One of the cornerstones of the “anti-techno-industrial revolution” is the analogy between the French and Russian revolutions with the overthrow of this system. According to this, what preceded the collapse of the above regimes was a web of social, military, political, economic and environmental problems. At the same time, in these societies, values contrary to the traditional ones began to sprout from the common rationalists (in the case of France) and the soviets (for Russia). This is explained in the above mentioned essay by FC:
“French society and Russian society, for several decades prior to their respective revolutions, showed increasing signs of stress and weakness. Meanwhile, ideologies were being developed that offered a new world-view that was quite different from the old one.” (4)
FC, also writes about the model this “revolution” would have to go by:
“It will be objected that the French and Russian Revolutions were failures. But most revolutions have two goals. One is to destroy an old form of society and the other is to set up the new form of society envisioned by the revolutionaries. The French and Russian revolutionaries failed (fortunately!) to create the new kind of society of which they dreamed, but they were quite successful in destroying the old society (…) Our goal is only to destroy the existing form of society.” (5)
In light of these specific annotations RS refutes and believes that:
The preceding conditions to a “revolution” are always crises in the various factors that make up a system. In history there are many examples (not just that pair) of how a small group of intellectuals, philosophers and thinkers, can have a huge influence when the destruction (with or without violence) of existing societies is proposed, as well as in its success (based on the first objective written by FC, with respect to “revolutions”). These examples are, the Cuban, Sandinista, Chinese, Iraqi, Vietnamese, Portuguese “revolutions”, the neo-Nazi “revolution” in Germany, and the Fascist one in Italy, etc…
What characterizes each of these “revolutions” and their victory in destroying (through whatever means) imposed social models in their moment of history, is that they were focused only within their respective territorial limits, and although some conflicts infected other countries (like after the Cuban revolution with the various armed uprisings in Latin America that finally ended in dictatorships and massacres), the overthrow of these regimes always occurred in a specific area and not worldwide, like the global revolution proposed by FC (6).
The internationalist proposal by Ted Kaczynski (formerly FC) and his followers, errs in utopia and fantasy. In a quick but thorough overview of history, never before a “revolution” has had global success, with the exception of the industrial revolution.
Many may find it uncomfortable to accept that the only revolution that has triumphed globally (and beyond, with the first man on the Moon, and on Mars soon) in achieving its task of destroying the values and instincts of wild human nature, and perpetuate a new society based on artificiality, industrialization and advanced technique, has been the industrial one.
Even though, before the industrial revolution, human beings were already somewhat removed from the optimal locations, biologically programmed for living in freedom and autonomy, the present indicates that the progress of this revolution and the complexity of its systems of self-perpetuation have caused a significant turning point towards artificiality and forgetting the natural and the wild.
Neither the most resistant internationalist communist, nor the most totalitarian dictator, were able to expand their “revolutions” internationally, could the “antitech revolutionaries” do otherwise? Could they overthrow the techno-industrial system worldwide, taking advantage of a global crisis?
RS responds: Unlikely, and so far, impossible.
Today, crises come and go, and although in some countries the crisis has persisted for decades, civilization and the system have run their course, so far.
Presently we live in a severe global financial crisis that has been worsening since 2008 (7), unemployment in first world countries like Greece, Spain, France and Australia is serious (8), not to mention in developing countries. Many companies are going bankrupt or have disappeared (9). Countries like Turkey, Ukraine, Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Japan, Mexico, among others, are immersed in political-economic problems and social unrest (10). The stock markets of China, India, Thailand, etc., have fallen and their central banks have experienced alarming reductions in their financial reserves (11). Economies like Brazil, Argentina, United States, and even the vast majority of the nations of the European Union are in recession or at risk of it (12).
On the environmental side, the levels of carbon dioxide are increasing, and affecting greatly across the globe. The changes in temperature are abrupt, droughts have lengthened (13), population growth has reached the point of horribly affecting semi-wild, wild and even “protected” (14) natural environments, species of wild flora and fauna are threatened every day, over-exploitation of wood is deforesting ever-growing areas, the leviathan of Civilization, together with the system, reduce everything natural to mere urbanized waste.
The health crisis is also alarming. Cancer has positioned itself as the disease of the 21st century, along with it, the pharmaceutical industry clog infect bodies with harmful drugs which, instead of healing, kill patients in an extremely painful and humiliating way. (15)
Not to mention Ebola, which has killed hundreds and infected thousands in Africa. The virus threatens to spread through the world if nations do not implement stringent health and safety measures to prevent it. (16)
What is being favored by the growth of the global crisis, is that sooner or later a world war breaks out in which the strongest powers, strategically and militarily speaking, achieve taking the “whole pie” as an exit to the crisis. That, or the same system will be able to repair all its failings and move on to a new financial system where economic differences between the elites and the masses are “leveled” and technological innovations make “natural resources” close to exhaustion, expendable.
In another vein of ideas, FC also writes:
“(…) propaganda of the rabble-rousing type may be necessary when the system is nearing the point of collapse and there is a final struggle between rival ideologies to determine which will become dominant when the old world-view goes under.” (17)
An extreme naivety and a misinterpretation of reality is what is reflected in this paragraph. Perhaps these “revolutionaries” think they’re the only ones who are waiting for the collapse in order to achieve their goals, nothing is further from reality. Nowadays, several groups are waiting for that opportunity, such powerful political and economic groups to which these “revolutionary” cannot compare at all. So the strategy of waiting for “the neighbor (the system) to be sick to kill him”, brings an important problem, because there are many other “neighbors” even other “colonies” waiting for the system to get weak so they can strike it down and put themselves in its place.
As is said in the fourth principle proposed by FC (18), it can not be trusted that the destruction of the system would be as thought by its theorists and critics; maybe even those who improve and develop the techno-industrial system, when the time comes, would realize that a movement is dedicated to destroy it, (if it ever exists, persists and actually becomes a global threat), and decide to dismantle that movement through the thousand and one ways that their secret security apparatus know how to do (infiltration, internal problems, low intensity war, state terrorism, espionage, disruption by controlled divisions, intimidation, etc.), and maybe that revolution which was thought distanced from leftism, gets converted by the system into another of its many mechanisms of self-perpetuation, as to become stronger and continue to exist. Of course, this is only an assumption, but in short we could clarify that it is in that, in assumption, which is based the “anti-techno-industrial revolution” strategy, this we can ensure by reading the following lines from their representatives and most known thinkers:
“Of course, all this is a possibility, a serious crisis may never occur, and if it does occur, may not lead to collapse of the techno-industrial society, and is overcome. Maybe a movement organized and strong enough to wipe out the techno-industrial system when the opportunity comes, is never created. But there is also the possibility that all these things do occur and the techno-industrial system is destroyed on time.” (19)
“The key question here is whether it is possible. And the answer is neither ‘yes’ or ‘no’, but ‘it depends’. It depends on the circumstances. A great many future and present circumstances.” “Is it sure that this happens? No. Is it sure it will not happen? Neither. Like many queations of the future, there are great uncertainties.” (20)
FC also points out, this can be read, in uppercases by RS, in footnote 6 of the present communique, and in this paragraph:
“(…) If experience indicates that some of the recommendations made in the foregoing paragraphs are not going to give good results, then those recommendations should be discarded.” (21)
Although in truth, this method cannot be ruled out yet, because those who work in favor of this “revolution” have not tested it, since for now there is no “strong and organized” movement dedicated to that, or even an attempt of it to give these “revolutionaries” experiences. The question is, will they discard it one day? Not even they know.
Maybe in a decade or more, the global crisis deepens and brings the system to the brink of collapse, but will time suffice for the “revolutionaries” to foster the collapse of the system? Surely they do not know either…
Some of these “revolutionaries” have said that the formation of this movement can last for years or even decades, giving themselves the luxury of waiting for something concrete, as if wild nature will also be waiting for the “intelligent anti-techs” to be prepared and the conditions to be right.
It would be wiser and more attractive that the “revolutionaries” give their intelligent readers, the certainties that they can do what they propose, that they are sure that what they do will give solid results, instead of pure speculation on the formation of a movement and the broadening of it for the subsequent overthrow of the techno-industrial system. But hey, they’ve laid their strategy…
So, in conclusion to this point, the strategic basis for the “great revolution” is supposition, “perhaps”, “hopefully”, “it may be”, “in best of cases”, “it depends”, in other words, nothing concrete, all in the wind. This reminds us of what a popular Mexican comedian said in his shows: “Maybe yes, maybe no, but most likely is, who knows.”
The “revolutionaries” can WAIT while they PREPARE themselves for the huge global crisis! Us, we do not trust futuristic idealizations, we rely on the present, the present which indicates that both our natural human essence, and that of wild nature in general, is being reduced to domestication, obedience and subjugation to the techno-industrial system and the values of its society, in reaction to that, attack and armed resistance is fundamental.
We do not want to remain inert to the great loss of the wild, we have not decided to sit back, some as “Isumatag” have labeled us with the hackneyed and relativistic term “defeatist”, even UR have illustrated this by the following:
“If by ‘defeatist’ we mean the attitude that means abandoning the fight for considering it lost beforehand, ITS is not defeatist, it has not abandoned its struggle. But if by ‘defeatist’ we mean the attitude that denies in advance any possibility of vanquishing when in fact it is not clear that there is any possibility, ITS is defeatist, as indicated by its way of understanding the concept of anti-technological revolution” (19)
It would be pointless and exhausting to think this issue over and over while trying to make the “revolutionaries” see that we are not “defeatists” so we leave this topic as is, since this judgment depends on individual perspectives.
When ITS (at the time), or groupuscules of RS, have stated that they expect nothing of the executed attacks, we are referring to what is strictly attached to the “revolutionary” or “transcendental of the struggle”. We do not expect the “revolution” or the “global crisis” nor “the proper conditions”, all we hope is that after an attack, we leave intact with our individualistic victory, with our hands full of life experiences for the next even more destructive, constant and menacing steps.
Earlier we stated that we did not expect anything positive from our actions, but actions have reactions and these have spread to others creating something positive for the limitless advancement of attack against the techno-industrial system. Thus, we see that on various websites and publications, news and reproductions of our communiques and actions can be read, along with several analyzes of these, this does not happen only with anarchist websites and publications but also with those of scientific, philosophical, academic and other interests (22). We can count translations of our terrorist communiques to about ten different languages (23). There have been several books published containing our words, the most recent entitled “La Naturaleza es el bien, la Civilización es el mal…” [Nature is good, Civilization is evil…] (24) (25). Similarly, a few weeks ago a new group positioning itself against the techno-industrial system with actions has emerged in Argentina, and promises more. (26)
“Ediciones Isumatag” writes in their text that direct confrontation is eventually suicide, and they’re right, except we’ve decided this ourselves, we know that we may have the same future of prison or death as the wild Chichimeca warriors, Tenamaztli and Maxorro, the same that happened to the indomitable Chiricahua, Mangas Coloradas and Cosiche, we know this very well. We have preferred to fight till death with the system, rather than conform and accept the status of hyper-domesticated humans that they want to impose on us, we remember that each individual is different, for some it is quite comfortable to deceive themselves in thinking that someday the great crisis will come and that until then they will act towards this hypothetical collapse of the system, but NOT for us, we are NOT idealists anymore, we see the present as it is, and it pushes us to direct confrontation, assuming its ultimate consequences.
We wrote it in the first RS communique:
“Day after day, we’re headed towards extinction, we’re on the edge of the abyss, we dont have in mind adapting ourselves to the system, nor to its submissive society, nor to its moral values” (27)
It is clear “the shoe fit” when EI read the editorial text of the Regresión publication, (the publishing group has also joined RS with the name of “Grupúsculo Manto de Piel–Coyote” [Coyote-skin Coat Groupuscule] these last weeks), and this is why they’re taking “private conversations” out of their old drawers and attack us with all their “resources”, even as these “resources” are disguised of alleged “serious analysis”. All because we do not share the strategy proposed by FC several years ago.
In a desperate ploy to label us as something we are not, EI asserts that within our tendency there are ideological matters inherited from insurrectionalism. They also write that by “adopting” these ideologies we are leftists, actually they think that of all groups acting and criticizing the techno-industrial system. Strange, because in fact, before “Conductas Incivilisadas” [Uncivilized Conduct] we were the only extremist group within that category, anyway. RS will not extended more focus on the tedious and impractical debate about whether or not we are leftists, because we are not, many have made this obvious, we aren’t trying to convince anyone of anything.
What is important to underline in the text by EI is the pathological type paranoia of leftism by which they’re overcome, saying they see leftism anywhere and categorizing almost everything of leftist except their circle of affinities, of course!
Regarding the critique they make of insurrectionalism, we’ll leave it to those of that ideology to respond, if they see fit, to what is said by “Isumatag“.
What RS indeed recognizes is our eco-anarchist past, (this we do not deny), which is very different from insurrectionary anarchism, you can not expect anything good from a person that cant differentiate these two currents.
RS has completely ruled out the idea of an “anti-technology movement”, not because we base ourselves in insurrectionalist ideas, but for all that we have said before in section I of this written work .
“Ediciones Isumatag” speaks of “serious and honest” analysis, we would like to see how they’ll “agitate” the masses when “it’s time”, will they do it honestly? NO, they’ll perhaps use deceptions and manipulations for the masses to kill each other to, according to this, destroy the system. Of course, with this comment we don’t position ourselves on the side of the masses, for us, societies might as well kill each other, what we are highlighting is the false modesty and misleading discourse writen by EI.
Like FC has said before:
“As for the negative consequences of eliminating industrial society — well, you can’t eat your cake and have it too. To gain one thing you have to sacrifice another.” (28)
EI apparently feels inferior when identified with labels of “café revolutionaries”, “armchair intellectuals”, etc., given that, the only thing left to say is: You feel as you wish! If EI feels put down by these labels employed by the practicals (ie, us) within critiques of the techno-industrial system, that’s not our problem.
In conclusion, we reproduce what we wrote in the sixth ITS communique:
“The struggle against the Techno-industrial System is not a game that we should win or lose, vanquish or be defeated; this is what many have still not understood and it seems that many are still expecting to be ‘rewarded’ in the future for their current actions as ‘revolutionaries’. One must accept that many things in life are not rewarded, 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 is not the time to wait for the imminent collapse, for those who want to take their time as if technological progress wouldn’t be growing by leaps and bounds and gradually devouring our sphere of individual Freedom.“
“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 wagering on a movement that helps to destabilize the system in its totality.” (29)
For the extreme defense of all that we have been losing:
“Matar o Morir“ [Kill or Die]
“Tinta de carbón“ [Carbon ink]
“Manto de piel-Coyote” [Coyote-skin Cloak]
1) This past summer, on a blog called El Tlatol, the details of which we are writing were publicly exposed. Later, the Carbon Ink Groupuscule of Ediciones Aborigen (which in turn has joined RS in recent months), published a printed work emphasizing this, entitled “Respuesta Indirecta” [Indirect Response], which we recommend reading.
2) Point 4 of the text “Algunos comentarios en referencia a los comunicados de Individualidades tendiendo a lo salvaje” [Some comments in reference to the communiques from Individualists Tending toward the Wild] by Último Reducto, January 8, 2012.
3) In ITS’ sixth communique point II, we make it clear by the following:
“Obviously, we continue to defend the criticism of the term ‘revolution-revolutionary’, without a doubt.
-The so called ‘revolution’ which many are waging on, perverts human nature because it always tends to reform the system.
-The ‘revolution’, is a blind faith that many want to see achieved, if they do not succeed in their goals (which they have never reached) their efforts will be in vain, and everything, absolutely everything for which they fought will collapse, such efforts resulting as futile.
-The ‘revolution’ is a leftist concept.
-Many leftists want to make their aims and/or approaches something so profound that they exaggerate, wander 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 these, the so called ‘anti-technological revolution’.“
4) Strategy, paragraph 181, Industrial Society and Its Future by FC, Ediciones Isumatag, 2011.
[transl. all excerpts of ISAIF in the present english translation were taken from Technological Slavery, Feral House, 2012.]
5) Strategy, paragraph 182, Industrial Society and Its Future by FC, Ediciones Isumatag, 2011.
6) “The revolution must be international and worldwide. It cannot be carried out on a nation-by-nation basis. (…) True, THERE IS NO ASSURANCE (uppercase by RS) that the industrial system can be destroyed at approximately the same time all over the world, and it is even conceivable that the attempt to overthrow the system could lead instead to the domination of the system by dictators. That is a risk that has to be taken.” Strategy, paragraph 195, Industrial Society and Its Future by FC. Ediciones Isumatag 2011.
7) “The IMF’s response to the global financial crisis”, official website of the International Monetary Fund (imf.org), September 30, 2014.
8) “The five regions of the European Union with the most unemployment are Spanish”, Diario ABC, April 16, 2014.
9) “SMEs disappear because of family crisis”, El Universal, March 28, 2011.
“Nearly 500,000 companies have disappeared since the crisis began,” Razón, March 30, 2011.
10) “Wars, conflicts, terrorism, political crisis: 70 hot spots on the planet” El confidencial, March 8, 2014.
11) “The stock markets of Southeast Asia down because of China”, América Económica, June 24, 2013.
12) “Lagarde warns risk of recession in Europe”, El Universal, October 9, 2014.
13) “Drought in the Amazon increases fears about global warming”, BBC, February 4, 2011.
14) “Urbanization threaten protected areas”, 24 hours, 4 January 2012.
15) “An increase of 57% of cancer globally announce a humanitarian disaster”, CNN, February 4, 2014.
16) “The fear of the Ebola threat extends throughout America and Europe”, El Tiempo, October 12, 2014.
17) Strategy, paragraph 188 of Industrial Society and Its Future by FC. Ediciones Isumatag, 2011.
18) “A new kind of society cannot be designed on paper. That is, you cannot plan out a new form of society in advance, then set it up and expect it to function as it was designed to do.” Some Principles of History, paragraph 104 “Industrial Society and Its Future” by FC. Ediciones Isumatag 2011.
19) Point 8 of the text “Some comments in reference to the communiques from Individualists Tending toward the Wild” by Último Reducto. January 8, 2012.
20) “Some ideas about the present and the future”, Ediciones Isumatag, October 6, 2014.
21) Strategy, paragraph 206, Industrial Society and Its Future by FC. Ediciones Isumatag 2011.
22) The blogs and magazines best known are: “Nature“, “Vice Magazine“, “Wired“, “The Guardian News“, “Vocativ“, “American Scientist“, “Proceso“, “Carthaginensia” (research publication), among others.
23) In addition to the Spanish language, translations to English, Italian, French, Portuguese, Greek, Catalan, Polish, Turkish and Croatian can be found on the web.
24) The book was edited by Matar o Morir Ediciones and is a compilation of all the communiques of ITS and RS. It was published this year on November 7, and is available on the anarchist blog Contrainfo.
25) Other books that have been released that we are aware: Comunicati Atenttativi published by Verein von Egoisten Ed is a compilation of Italian translations of the communiques of ITS. The Collected Communiqués of Individualists Tending Toward the Wild edited by War on Society, is a compilation of English translations of the communiques of ITS. ¡Que se ilumine la noche! Génesis, desarrollo y auge de la Tendencia Informal Anarquista published by Black International Editions includes an ITS interview.
26) “Conductas Incivilizadas” (CI) is how they sign, in their communique released this year  in November, from Buenos Aires, claiming responsibility for various bomb threats to universities and airports as well as an unsuccesful arson attack on an electrical substation.
27) First communique of Wild Reaction, Point V. August 14, 2014.
28) Strategy, paragraph 185, Industrial Society and Its Future by FC. Ediciones Isumatag 2011.
29) Sixth communique by Individualists Tending towards the Wild. January 28, 2012.