Individualists Tending toward the Wild
Communiques of ITS
Communique One (27 April 2011)
Communique Three (9 August 2011)
Communique Four (21 September 2011)
Communique Five (18 December 2011)
Communique Six (28 January 2012)
Communique Seven (18 February 2013)
A brief note (22 February 2013)
Communique One (27 April 2011)
If you think that I am a pessimist, then you have not understood anything
Nanotechnology is one of the many branches of the Domination System. In recent years there has been significant progress in American countries like the United States, Canada, Brazil and also Mexico, where there has been an accumulation of domestic and foreign capital for the creation of nano-scale technology.
Nanotechnology is the furthest advancement that may yet exist in the history of anthropocentric progress. It consists in the total study, the scrutiny into the manipulation and domination of all the smallest elements, invisible to human eyes. With this humans have managed to control everything, absolutely everything, from changes in the climate to the smallest atomic molecule. Civilization, aside from threatening our freedom as Individuals, the freedom of the Animals and of the Earth, now passes its threat even to the scale of less than a micrometer.
National institutions and corporations that conduct rigorous studies and research for the commercial development of Nano-bio-science are varied; they range from the Instituto Mexicano del Petroleo (IMP) with the help of Pemex and CFE, the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM), Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana (UAM), Universidad Iberoamericana, the Instituto Potosino de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica (among others) with its Environmental Nanotechnology University Project; Glaxo SmithKline, Unilever, Syngenta, among others.
This type of technology is growing, the branches that it has encompassed can scarcely be counted (medicine, military, cosmetology, petrochemistry, nuclear, electro-informatics) but these are just the beginnings of what it can encompass. Before this growing “evolution,” there have been many grandiloquencies made to Nanotechnology, technologists have declared that it will be good for the environment, that it will solve the problem of contamination by means of nanocatalysts to clean the water and the air, they claim that it will bring an end to many diseases that for now are incurable or only treatable, they declare that there will be new applications that can be given to petroleum by-products to create new sources of energy, they declare that food will be more nutritious and infused with antibodies to make people stronger and healthier, in short, an innumerable list of “wonders” has been thought up by those who persist in nanometrically developing another “superior way of life.” Their promises resemble those they said at the beginnings of the industrial revolution. They said that we would live better, that they would solve the problems that were facing humanity in those years. What was the reality? This synthetic, dull, concrete and metal world. What can we expect from the new scientists who repeat the same promises?
But the side that the scientists do not show is that for now nanotechnology has tortured millions of animals kidnapped directly from the wilderness in their laboratories to test their new products, experiments so aberrant that we cannot imagine them.
World powers are getting ready for biochemical and nuclear wars. To finish completely with their politico-diplomatic enemies they have made available new technology with the ability to become intelligent and cause irreparable damage to the human body and the environment. Nanoparticles travel at a very high speed inside the body, they can invade the bloodstream and penetrate organs like the heart, liver, brain, spleen and lungs where they destroy cell membranes, where they can spray toxic material and create a reaction much more agonizing and lethal than nuclear contamination. These manipulated particles can be inhaled by humans, plants and animals alike, which would cause an ecological imbalance of large-scale concern, breathing will cause illness or death, there will be new allergies, outbreaks and plagues all with a diagnosis impossible to decipher, drug companies will make their grand entrance (creating accidents as they have done before) for the “welfare” of humanity, until all the available money they can take with their business runs out, and it is like this that the puzzle of Civilization is completed, it is in this way that the cycle never ends. Tomorrow we will live in a world already sick in itself because of technological advancement and the expansion of Civilization.
The nanomotors are now one of the newer developments, with these it is intended to give nanocyborgs life at low levels of energy consumption. With this, robotics and nanotechnology together have put on the table the creation of artificial intelligence (which many thought would be just science fiction), machines will be producing machines, self-repairing and self-replicating without a hitch. Total domination will have reached its peak when human clones are created, when they design through nanotechnology the totally manipulated model, without any Wild impulse or instinct, molded by repetition of daily submission, they will create this and more but the consequences will be high. The looming threat of an explosion of manufactured nanoparticle pollution blown into the air, water and land is very real if this technology continues. Chemical reactions will be serious tomorrow and the nanocatastrophe will be a daily reminder to humanity of what has been lost by trying to be more civilized and modern.
Undoubtedly, Civilization (a human invention) has taken over all aspects of non-life, has created this and more to the point that computerized biochemical weapons with intelligence-devices are already tested in the Middle East conflict, with an excellent pretext to seize the black gold (oil) from Arab nations.
Day by day, we see the eyes terrorized by the irresponsible attitude of humanity toward the wilderness, we realize that we live in a technological nightmare, birth-consumption-death is the torturous cycle within the cities, the last reserves of wild environment are converted into “protected ecological zones” and the destruction advances moment by moment, this can be seen in oil spills in the Amazon in South America and the Gulf of Mexico, in the radioactive water in the Sea of Japan, the devastation of entire forests in Russia, the super-exploitation of minerals in Africa, the large-scale production of cars in Europe, the extinction of thousands of animals per year, the construction of super-highways, subways and residential complexes through rough woodland, technological progress is bringing an end to the world in which we subsist for now, which is always decaying.
In Mexico, as mentioned, nanoscale technology continues to grow, the government of the Mexican State wants to keep abreast of progress and modernity (also by the morbid and mediocre goal of reaching the national presidency) and therefore has built the Universidad Politécnica del Valle de Mexico, where the Nanotechnology degree is one of several courses complicit in technological development. The reasons to attack all types of growth in nanoscience are quite strong and therefore we have sent a parcel bomb to that institution on April 14th of this year, specifically to the head of the Engineering Division in Nanotechnology, Prof. Oscar Alberto Camacho Olguin. We have no hesitation in attacking those people who are key to the climax that technology wants to achieve. We prefer to see them dead or mutilated rather than continuing to contribute with their scientific knowledge to all this shit, to continue feeding the Domination System.
We do not see through the lens of “humanity,” (that huge and twisted mass of the disposed swarming every which way), we see through Wild Nature, and reason has led us to radical action, to make it clear, we will not shake their hands but will attack with all our means this imposed reality and those who support and defend it.
With this action we conducted, we have not struck powerfully at the Megamachine and we are aware that with this we have not changed anything (maybe the state or federal police now protect the University community, maybe nanotechnologists will realize that we see them as enemies, perhaps the State of Mexico will begin more in-depth investigations, but nothing more), and we say this because we know that all the efforts we make against the Techno-Industrial System are useless, we have seen the immensity of this great mass of metal and concrete, and we realized that all we ever do at one time or another will not stop progress and less so if there are still false-radicals and leftist struggles that aim at the destruction of a target, but have not yet noticed, have not viewed beyond, that all this does not do anything; some think that this is pessimistic, think that we have fallen into defeatism — but no, if we had fallen into these traps of civilization would not be making explosives for technology staff — we say this rather because it is the reality and the reality we know that hurts. What is needed to hit hard (within a Unabomberist idea) at the System? To put nano-bio-technology, telecommunication industry, electricity, computers, oil in our sights? And if we beat them unanimously with others in different countries, all that, what would happen? Would we deter anything? Civilization is collapsing and a new world will be born, through the efforts of anti-civilization warriors? Please! Let us see the truth, plant our feet on the ground and let leftism and illusions fly from our minds. The revolution has never existed, nor have revolutionaries; those who view themselves as “potential revolutionaries” and seek a “radical anti-technology shift” are truly being idealistic and irrational because none of that exists, in this dying world only Individual Autonomy exists and it is for this that we fight. And although all this is useless and futile, we prefer to be defeated in a war against total domination than to remain inert, waiting, passive, or as part of all this. We prefer to position ourselves on the side of Wild Fauna and Flora that remain. We prefer to return to nature, respect her absolutely, and abandon the cities to maintain our claims as Anti-civilization Warriors. We prefer to continue the War that we have declared years ago, knowing that we will lose, but promising ourselves that we will give our greatest effort.
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.
This does not end here…
Total support with the Anti-civilization prisoners in Mexico, with the Chilean comrades and with the furious Italians and Swiss.
…I have lived my life without ever giving up and I enter into the shadows without complaints nor regrets…
- Individualidades Tendiendo a lo Salvaje (Individualists Tending Toward Savagery)
Communique Two (22 May 2011)
On May 25, 1978 a package bomb is left in the campus of Northwestern University in Illinois; a security guard opens it and is wounded. This was the first attempt of the Freedom Club against direct persons who contributed to technological development with their consciousness in this epoch.
By means of various newspaper reports, we have learned that our first explosive, which was directed to the head of the Division of Nanotechnology Engineering at UPVM in the month of April functioned but did not reach its initial objective. A curious individual who works for the university opened it, causing him to be wounded in the face and leaving his right eye seriously injured. The press has said that a curious person moved the package with a stick and it exploded, which is completely false, since the package was (obviously as the press said) inside a black bag, wrapped in white paper with various warnings and security stamps, so it was practically impossible that with a mere movement the electrical system would active. Faced with this occasion we want to declare that we do not have any kind of remorse, our objective was precisely for the security guards to take the package to the addressed professor, but due to the policing impulses of this person, and due to his inspecting the package, this person took the wounds that were for the head of the aforementioned division. We will see if the professor Camacho can carry in his conscience that an “innocent” was wounded in an attempt that was intended for him. Without a doubt, curiosity killed the human.
“This is not a joke: last month we made an attempt on the life of Oscar Camacho, today against the institution, tomorrow who knows? Fire to nano-technological development along with those who sustain it!!” – That was the message that we left written on a small sheet of paper with the explosive device left in the campus of the Polytechnic University of the Valle de Mexico on May 9th, the very day of the start of the new semester. This time the device detonated not by means of a timer system nor by ignition, but manually. The device appeared inoffensive from the outside (according to the police who know already), but inside was composed of a galvanized nipple tightly packed with black powder, various cables and a square battery. The device was activated upon turning the lid of the tin bottle (which only served as a container) since the negative and positive cables of the electrical circuit touched, producing a spark. The same day we sent various e-mails to IT directors (who are constantly on the computer and likewise their e-mail) and secretaries of the university, indicating the exact place where the black bag that contained the homemade bomb could be found, with this action we intended to cause physical harm to some police officers, who would come and try to open the container, leaving the university marked with two attacks; we wanted to make it clear that as we have said before, our hands do not tremble at carrying out our action, against the branches of the System of Domination and against those who sustain and protect it. However, it seems that with every passing day the system absorbs every trace of the free ecosystems that remain, a very clear example being the forest fires in the north of the country: enormous, majestic and almost virgin forests in which a great variety of flora and fauna develop without any direct human impediment have been reduced to ashes, greenhouse gases have made the land heat up to abnormal levels, which generate droughts and fires, like those that swept more than 200,000 acres in the Coahuila forest alone, animals such as whitetail deer, various birds such as eagles, hawks and wild turkeys, rabbits, wild cats, wild boar, black bears, cougars and other species were also affected in their environment, which causes these to migrate to other territories and cause ecological imbalance. These fires have spread over part of Zacatecas, San Luis Potosi, Quintana Roo, Veracruz, Oaxaca, Yucatan, and all this caused by the consumption of the sedentary masses (over-population) and the large-scale production of materials “necessary” for civilized life. We are condemning ourselves to our own extermination, if a person is dying in this moment in whatever part of the world, at the same time, hundreds of new beings are being born to extend this complex system of devastation and thus upset the balance of biodiversity.
The Earth feels the repercussions of this, another example was the earthquake in Spain, which left several dead and wounded, cities as fragile as Murcia will soon fall into pieces with any minor 6-point aftershock, leaving a devastating climate, but nothing, nothing comparable with what we have done to this world. In the United States the floods in Mississippi cover everything in their path, something never before seen in that part of the globe, even the specialists could not prevent this “environmental catastrophe” so called by the mindless fools who do not realize that we and only we are the ones responsible for all our (coming) misfortunes and thus, the polar glaciers melt imminently, global warming is becoming ever more aggressive, wild environments are occupied for urbanization displacing animal species into extinction or to occupy environments alien from their own or to live a stay-at-home-domesticated life, the cities expand without caring what they cut down, dig out, or destroy, the petroleum industries tunnel hundreds of kilometers under sea level and and impose their platforms, extracting the Earth and irreparably damaging the marine environment; birds fall from the sky and cover highways on the outskirts of the cities, likewise the hundreds of dead fish that cover the coasts of the sea, tomorrow the only green zones will be those protected by the State and industries in order to maintain their abject lie of “ecologically-responsible businesses,” soon there will not be (semi) wild environments; these will be consumed by progress. And in spite of all this we have not learned the lesson, we continue supporting the torturous hedonist path that civilization has taken towards total domestication, daily more new technology, more consumption, more ecological devastation, more animal species that only remain as references in science books, more people with gas masks and face masks walking in the streets and public transport, more machines constructing enormous skyscrapers and skybridges, metal and concrete, more biocidal projects on their way to construction (e.g. high-velocity trains in France and Spain, the HidroAysén project in Chile, etc.), more alienation toward this non-life, more children developing artificially, more nuclear missiles with nano-bacteriological cargo falling from the sky, more war that only causes damage and perverts the fragile natural cycle, and with all this comes nanotechnology, its use to subjugate everything that is not plainly visible is a reminder that the civilized human will not stop until having achieved the unthinkable. In Mexico alone, before 2009 the teaching of nano-science would only be imparted in a few private universities, now its field spans the public universities, and it is attractive to all the moldable minds that dream of a comfortable life of money that falls to them from the sky being specialists or key components in nano-progress. We have read in the newspapers and seen in the news this year that, according to UPVM’s reports the educational offering in the degree of Nanotechnology Engineering is widening. Such that, as one can see, more imbeciles who are fascinated with technological development are counted by the hundreds in various universities in this very moment, hundreds who go into this kind of degree in order to become like human machines for protecting and widening Techno-industrial progress. Hundreds who we know due to socio-economic possibilities (as is traditional in Mexico) will abandon those studies , but the minimal part who finish their degree will be the vanguard in nanoscience — and that, that is what we are putting in our sights. Nanotechnology is going to gain territory with this, not to put aside the wide economic support that it is receiving from the State and public industries, private industries (complicit in the same way in the System of Domination) and federal institutions such as CONACYT (National Counsel of Science and Technology), which has various branches and centers of investigation (biotechnology, nanotechnology, infrastructure, urbanization, among others) for the increase of the domination of the Earth and is the central responsible for elaborating the politics that allow the modification of the downed natural equilibrium. To tell the truth, UPVM within its dozen personnel has three professors who are accredited as members of the National System of Researchers and another three in the Conacyt Register of Accredited Evaluators, which are branches of the federal institution.
Throughout last year and for part of this one, the UPVM has signed agreements with General Electric, Ford Motors, and the business associations of Tlalnepantla and Tultitlan, thus making visible the vampiric circle of collaborators who drive the domination and destruction of everything potentially free.
And we, what can we do in the face of the devastation that the Earth suffers by the techno-industrial system? Nothing, it does not depend on us. Then are we going to remain immobile before all this? Never!
We make a clarification here: Perhaps it is time for the university authorities and police to put themselves to analyzing things very well, we have much information with respect to the attacked university. Do they think we don’t know there are a little over 70 students within the Nanotechnology course within the classrooms? (This number does not compare with the students of the other courses, who number more than 150.) We know about the other distinguished figures, the responsible professors, so it would be best for them to walk carefully within and outside of the university, that they take warning of every suspicious shape in rooms, buildings, parking areas and campus, because one of these days we are going to make them pay for everything that they want to do to the Earth with these kinds of nano-scale technologies. We will repeat, this is not a joke and we have made that quite clear.
One more time: Direct and total support with the anti-civilization prisoners of Mexico, with those eco-anarchists of Switzerland, to the affinities in Argentina, Spain, Italy, Chile and Russia. Remembering the savage individualist Mauricio Morales.
the majority of people move because they are ordered to do so, there is no will in their actions, they are all robots of flesh. The remainder live, sleep and die, nevertheless there are still some who dream and who laugh.
Taking advantage of this virtual space in which we disseminate our ideas/actions , we want to push a constant truly radical critique, it becomes important for us to analyze to the source some questions that are in the air and even can be or are in the habit of being untouchable for many. For some certain time there have been a quantity of groups of action and/or propaganda with ideas against Civilization and technology. Of these groups, one can detach various branches — there are those who believe that with actions of sabotage we can end the Techno-industrial System, others equally illusioned believe that when Civilization falls everything will be rosy and a new world will flourish without social inequality, hunger, repression, etc, etc, etc. Others tend to educate the masses so that they and their children will be more careful with nature. Others romanticize Wild Nature (calling it mother, home, etc) without realizing that to live in a wild environment is really hard and violent. Others still think that the collapse of Civilization has to be the work of “revolutionaries” and critique everything that is for them “deviant” and “pseudo-revolutionary” within their conceptions.
We do not mention ourselves within these branches because our ideas are far from the approaches put out. What we try to cover here are the old leftist terms that they continue to use even in some anti-civilization and anti-technology circles (which precisely critique leftism) at the international level and which must urgently be abandoned in order to give way to a radical critique and to go beyond in our positionings against the Mega-machine.
One of the first concepts is that of “revolution,” this concept so used by all the anti-civilization persons and primitivists who say they are the ones who have the absolute truth in their hands. The Unabomber, now known as Ted Kaczynski, started to use the term in various texts that (now) circulate in the Spanish language. In one of those he mentions an anti-technological “revolution” far from the values of the system, but isn’t the term “revolution” part of the values of the same system? We remember that all the revolts that ended in popular uprisings and later in “revolutions” throughout history have ended in domination. They have only reformed the system making it stronger, even though often having certain aspects antagonistic with the strategies of the prevailing market, it was and is the case with the socialist countries that although their financial structure was supported on an (according) economic-political-social-cultural basis different than that of the capitalist countries, they continued and continue being part of the system. Here we are not supporting what Kaczysnki said at one time  when he made the example of the so-called French or Russian “revolution,” in order to give space to the context which, according to his and many others’ belief, will give way to a supposed “anti-technology revolution.” Basing ourselves once again in Ted’s explanations, he has said in his other texts that now many people are questioning the use of technology, that that they are thinking seriously about abandoning it. We remember that Kaczynski is in a maximum security prison, isolated from the world that surrounds him since 1996; surely if he left the prison in this very moment, he would realize that everything is worse (much worse) than when he saw it last century, he would realize how much science and technology have advanced and how much they have devastated and perverted. He would realize that now people are alienated more with the use of technology and that they have even put it on an alter as their deity, their sustenance, their own life. As such, the concept of “revolution” is completely antiquated, sterile and outdated with the anti-civilization ideas that one would want to express. A word that itself has been used by different groups and individuals in history in order to arrive at power, in order to once again dominate and be the center of the universe. A word that has served as the longed-for dream for all the leftists who have faith that some day it will come to liberate them from their chains. Psychologically, in order to compensate their efforts with the “glorious day in which the revolution triumphs.” “Revolution” tends toward new arrangements, insurrection leads us to not let ourselves be arranged, but to organize ourselves and does not set its hopes on future arrangements — words of Max Stirner . The meaning of “revolution” has always been the violent change of the economic, political and social structures of whatever system, a change that would be reached (we repeat) violently, a change for which men and women struggle (in mass society) for a determined time even years, the struggle that liberated them is in order to obtain “something better” than what the old regime has given them, and in order that after the “revolution” has ended they work to obtain what they longed for, in order to satisfy that ideal for which they sacrificed and even gave their lives.
These are the steps that for centuries the old “revolutionaries” have repeated, but now, we place in our minds a supposed anti-technology “revolution,” it is said that the collapse of Civilization will be the work of the “revolutionaries” themselves (a phrase with much similarity what the socialists and other sorts employ: “’the revolution’ will be the work of the people itself”). But how do they know this? How do they propose such a thing when now the system is inventing new forms to self-repair automatically within the hand of the human being? They also say that education should be an important point, the work for which that we should occupy ourselves with, those of us who have these kinds of ideas, but educate who? We would be falling into an error to make a case of what Kaczynski said, “educating” the people that technology will bring us to our destruction — that is obvious, no doubt, but to “educate” the people, the masses, a society that lives for the new video game and virtual music on their music players, their automobiles that they park alone and their portable computers, their cellular telephones with new and improved modalities and their social networks? We do not see possible a change of structures at a major scale without the masses, therefore neither do we see possible a whole sea of people sick of the consequences of a western life, of sedentarism and the advance of the Techno-industrial System destroying it violently, we do not believe it possible. They also say that a change of values must come from an education taught from now on; Kaczynski has based his ideas on the French “Revolution” in order to make the example of that during the Renaissance many values began to flourish in Europe in many people’s minds and just then the uprising in France arose. On plain sight the approach is acceptable, but at the bottom we can see that it has expired, the same conditions no longer exist, technological advance and alienation born from this are significant and have devastated in modernity any desire of liberating oneself from what keeps us tied. Moreover, to compare the ancient Russian and French “revolutions” with the fictitious anti-technology “revolution” is a serious error because these have tremendous, clearly marked antagonisms, also because we suppose that the “revolution” that Kaczynski proposes is radically different from any other, either one renames this concept (for those who believe in radical change by the “revolutionaries”) or we accept the reality that the “revolution” never existed nor will it ever exist. If a socialist “revolution” (situated in Mexico) has not been able to be seen, much less an anarchist “revolution” and even less an anti-technology one. This critique, precisely, in time and space, is for those who believe that the collapse of Civilization will be the work of the “revolutionaries.” Then, if they believe in a “revolution” should there automatically exist a possible anti-technology utopia?
A world without domestication, with a system stopped by the work of the “revolutionaries,” with Wild Nature born from the ashes of the old technological regime and the human species (what remains) returned to the wild, is completely illusory and dreamy. Even if by a coordinated action of sabotage by the “revolutionaries” (for example, the spreading of a fatal virus that would do away with half or a little more of the global population) the system would collapse, domestication would keep existing, the Techno-industrial System would remain latent although with very few people who would sustain it (if this is a future in which it is not self-sustaining by itself). Nature would flourish there is no doubt of that (within this example), but the thousands of survivors who are used to the comfort and artificial happiness of the old system would try to raise and reconstruct it . But that is another topic.
By putting names on the war against civilization like those of “revolution,” “revolutionaries,” “pseudo-revolutionaries,” we are falling in the same thing that the Marxists preach when they brand some as counterrevolutionaries, furthermore we would be falling into a religious dogmatism like the leftists’ schemas.
In which the god is Wild Nature, the messiah is Ted Kaczynski, the bible is the Unabomber manifesto, the apostles are Zerzan, Feral Faun, Jesús Sepúlveda, and others, the longed-for paradise is the collapse of Civilization, the enlightened or the preachers are the “revolutionaries,” maintained by the faith which would be the blind confidence they have that someday the “revolution” will come, the disciples would be the “potential revolutionaries,” the crusades and missions would be carrying the word to the circles of people involved in green or anarchist struggles (where they would find the “potential revolutionaries”) and the atheists or sects are those who do not believe in their dogmas nor accept their ideas as being coherent with reality.
This is what they have fallen into, and what anti-civilization ideas can fall into, except that we began to analyze not only all that surrounds us (as we have done before) but also what is in our heads as well, a self-critique and a revalorization become indispensable in the face of the changes that the System of Domination presents.
The second concept, which is not only a concept but is a strategy, is that of the “new urban guerrilla,” this not right now within anti-civilization ideas, it is something a bit more general in the sphere of sabotage and direct action. Many groups have been seen to claim responsibility with these words, the term if we remember correctly began to be used with the most importance by the group of the Conspiracy of Cells of Fire in Greece a few years ago. The central argument of this concept resides in that the strategy continues to be that of an urban guerrilla but with new forms. That is to say, the actions continue to be the same, robberies for financing, falsification of documents, bombings with sophisticated explosives or lacking these with a large quantity of explosives, armaments, munitions, transport, safe houses and the rest. But what was considered as “new” was that it does not have leaders nor commands, the cells enjoy total autonomy in the attack, seeing their members as individuals and not as militiamen or subordinates of the general command or of the central nucleus. Even so, and although they say that there is a “new urban guerrilla,” they committed the same errors as the old urban guerrilla, we do not think to understand a judgement like the RAF guerrillas had in the 70s, repeating again but in the 2000s with the members of the CCF. It would not take us by surprise if some other group from whatever part of the world that will name itself as “new urban guerrilla” will fall in the hands of the State-capital for basing itself on these kinds of experiments that have only left prisoners. The best option to slip away from the system continues to be informal organization, meeting as individuals in affinity or alone, betting on insurrectionalist immediatism and the quality of sabotage, rejecting formal organization and indiscriminate recruiting.
The third aspect that we want to cover is the obscene handling that has been given to the name of Mauricio Morales lately, although clearly we never knew him, we have read what he left expressed with paper and ink; we find a very strong and sharp affinity with what he expressed and with what he did, if we did not feel it we would not even name him. Why? Because we are not participants in indiscriminate solidarity, we vindicate only our own, nothing more. Today marks two years from the death of an individualist who tended toward the wild, but it appears that many are the leftists who remember him as a “social fighter,” a “politically correct” person, all to the contrary of what he thought, deviating from what he truly was. Not only we say this, those who knew him to the bottom and who were with him will verify this, the Limited Group of Savage Individuals (as his compas signed)  showed their anger shortly after Mauricio had died. It is painful that his name has been converted into a slogan and that his name is simply attached to another text on the anniversary of his death. But although his name and his acts are almost completely deformed, there are some affinities who understand the real value that his words and actions had.
— Individualidades tendiendo a lo salvaje (Individualists Tending toward the Wild)
Communique Three (9 August 2011)
The continual advancement of technology will worsen the situation. The more the system grows, the more disastrous will be the consequences of its failure.
Revenue directly attributable to nanotechnology has been growing at levels of 42% between 2006 and 2011, and by the end of 2011 is estimated to generate revenues of more than US$19 billion .
This is only one fact that demonstrates that they are prostrating themselves to the gaze of the devastating nanotechnological progress with more emphasis on Mexico.
As has been mentioned before,   this country positions itself together with Brazil as one of the two most viable options for investing in nanoscience within Latin America. For this, they have put in the university engineering classes and courses whose end is the professional preparation of moldable minds that not only want to acquire a paper to accredit their studies, but also truly desire to contribute with their scientific studies to the development and rise of nanobiotechnology, to acquire what the system wants: The total Domination of all that is potentially free.
But let’s stop a little and think, What are the true motives that lead scientists to get involved in this new technological nanorevolution ?
Many of the scientists will say it has been to “help humanity.” But deeper within these simplistic excuses are hidden psychological needs that are called surrogate activities. Surrogate activities  refer to all those acts or tasks that aim to reach an artificial end and not a real one.
The scientists say that they create carbon nanotubes, for example, to make life more comfortable for humanity, but the true reason that most of them  do this is because they feel a strong emotional commitment to the branch in which they develop; that is, they do not do it so humanity lives “better” as they have always claimed, but rather for a vague personal and psychological realization, so that, with this, we arrive at a swift and irrefutable conclusion, most scientists base their research on their twisted psychological needs, on their surrogate activities.
Continuing with the theme, in Mexico there are 650 nanotechnologists and the figure rises , in addition to the the growing interest of young people to go into that area. Several factors (which we have explained in the above paragraph and in footnote f) drive more “new” minds to have the commitment to sustain this type of technology while today the fatal and desolate outcome that it will have in the future has not been publicly discerned.
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry Harold Kroto said that “The Governments of Europe and the United States devote large sums of money to nanotechnology to investigate, for example, how to make their planes invisible,” and, “If we could go back to 1910, we could avoid having researched chemistry in the twentieth century and could have avoided napalm or the atomic bomb” .
Here, Harold knows and clearly states that an environmental or human catastrophe will be presenting itself, as happened in the 1900′s after having researched chemistry.
And who knows what failures nanometric technology will have when it covers every corner of this artificialized life?
Some scientists have already realized the catastrophic consequences that could result from the aberrant fusion of nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, molecular electronics and robotics.
The ever-increasingly acceleration of Technology will lead to the creation of nanocyborgs that can self-replicate automatically without human intervention; this is obviously a worrying fact for these scientists who for years have given their entire life to the creation of human self-destruction.
One such scientist is the American Eric Drexler, one of the best molecular engineers in his country and promoter of nanotechnology in the international world.
He has mentioned, highly shaken, the possible spread of a gray plague (gray goo in English)  caused by billions of nanoparticles self-replicating themselves voluntarily and uncontrollably throughout the world, destroying the biosphere and completely eliminating all animal, plant, and human life on this planet. The conclusion of technological advancement will be pathetic, Earth and all those on it will have become a large gray mass, where intelligent nanomachines reign.
This realistic scenario was not invented by we who are opposed to technological progress, surprisingly, it has been raised by one of the best scientists in the history of the United States.
Let’s read from his own words:
“… [Nano] self-assembly based on early replicators (…) may out-compete plants, filling the biosphere inedible foliage. Omnivorous resistant [nano] “bacteria” could compete with the real bacteria: They could spread like blowing pollen, replicate swiftly, and reduce the biosphere to dust in a matter of days … ”
“… [Thus] the first [nano] replicator assembles a copy of itself in a thousand seconds, then both [nano] replicators assemble two more in the next thousand seconds (…) After ten hours, there are not 36 new [nano] replicators but more than 68,000 million. In less than a day, they would weigh a ton; in less than two days, they would exceed the weight of the Earth; in another four hours, would exceed the combined mass of the Sun and all the planets…” .
Another one of the scientists who has realized that he is an engineer of the destruction of Wild Nature (including human) promoting the Technology boom, is the computer scientist Bill Joy. He has said:
“…robotics, genetic engineering and nanotechnologies pose a different threat than previous technologies.
“Specifically, robots, genetically modified organisms and ‘nanorobots’ have in common a multiplicative factor: they can reproduce themselves. A bomb explodes only once; a robot, on the other hand, can proliferate and quickly escape all control…
“To end swallowed in a gray and viscous mass would be without a doubt a depressing end for our adventure on earth, much worse than simple fire or ice. Also, it could happen after a simple ‘oops!’ laboratory incident…” .
Intelligent readers will ask themselves, How is it that a scientist has realized what he is producing with his knowledge within the Technological-Industrial System to such a degree? What was it that drove him to thoroughly analyze these types of questions, the co-founder of Sun Microsystems and co-creator of Java and the JINI protocol?
The answer he himself has written:
“Theodore Kaczynski, alias Unabomber: In seventeen years of his terrorist campaign, his bombs killed three people and injured many others. One of the seriously injured was my friend David Gelenter, one of the brightest computer researchers of our time, a true visionary. Moreover, like many of my colleagues, I felt I could be the next victim.
Kaczynski’s actions are criminal and, in my eyes, the mark of a murderous madness. We are clearly in the presence of a “Luddite” . However, this simple observation does not invalidate his argument. I find it hard, but I must admit, his reasoning is worthy of attention. ”
Whatever else may be said, Kaczynski, Unabomber, Freedom Club (or whatever you want to call it) is has Reason.
To continue, what Bill proposed to avoid (according to him) the planetary destruction and the extinction of human and animal species by techno-advance is “…to renounce them, restricting research in the technological domains that are too dangerous, putting limits on our research of certain knowledge.” But what is not analyzed is that Technology never stops, always tending toward the Domination on greater and smaller scales.
Perhaps there are some scientists who believe that continuation in the study of nanotechnology would be an immoral error, and therefore leave their work and academic positions, but there will be others continuing as couriers of civilized progress who do not stop for, nor at, anything.
Nanotechnology focuses on and situates itself in strategic areas for the continuation of Domination, which is why universities create and design nanomaterials and investigate nanosystems (nanobiotechnology). But all this not only has a medicinal goal or one of genomic modification, but one of its strong motives is to use this type of nanoknowledge, initially in the field of war. Hence, millions of sums of money are invested for those to take one step further into the nanomilitary field.
The creation of nanorobots or nanocyborgs is the order of the day. Not only to destroy their enemies–programmed so that when they are within the body of a human (or nonhuman) opponent they program and self-destruct within the brain (or any other organ)–but to prevent attacks with biological, explosive, chemical, nuclear and radioactive weapons, and also so that military equipment would be much lighter, and of course other reasons as well.
Many scientists are still working by trial and error, just morbidly awaiting the effects that millions of nanoparticles ingested aerobically could have for humanity, and also on the environment in which we intend to develop.
Genes and particles do not work in isolation but depend on and interact within an extremely complex system that is the result of millions of years of evolution.
To alter it and change it at the whim of Technology alone would bring new problems and the self-perpetuation of the system.
Companies such as those that have Mexican state in the hand of foreign investment are the ones who drive the domestication of Wild Human Nature and who push forward the destruction of Wild Nature as such, submissively obeying the sick idea of progress of Civilization.
Government institutions like CONACYT (National Council of Science and Technology) and SNI (National System of Researchers) are for now the two most important federal institutions with regard to the evolution of Technology in Mexico, their accreditors have been for a long time conducting lines of research agenda within university classrooms and pushing them on all, the techno-industrial non-life that they are pushing on us.
One of the major universities that has staked everything on the development of nanotechnology (and others) in this country is the Technological Institute of Higher Studies of Monterrey, colloquially known as Monterrey Tec.
Within its teaching staff is an incredible gamut of sick scientists who contributed to this breakthrough that Technology wants to achieve; as an example we have one Laura Palomares, an engineer in Biochemistry for this private university campus, she was honored in 2009 with an award from the Mexican Academy of Sciences for the development of nanomaterials based on virus proteins and metallic particles , that is, by means of Bionanotechnology, Palomares created artificial viruses that can fight diseases such as bovine rotavirus.
It has been said that this nanovaccine is one hundred percent safe, but of how many drugs have they not said the same thing and later it is proven that more sicknesses are created by reactions of these substances?
A vaccine injected into the human body that can instantly heal a broken for example (of course, this by means of modified particles), sounds very well, but what is it that will linger after they generate certain reactions in the organism (or perhaps the environment) for these new artificial viruses whose whole complex nanoscale structure can hardly be comprehended?
We make a parentheses here: many might say that Technology has helped medicine be more effective, and they dub us as inhumans for saying that we firmly oppose a vaccine that cures diabetes (for example), but there is falling in one of the many pitfalls of the system.
The Techno-industrial System has always led one to believe that they invent this kind of cure for mankind to live better by being effective and fast in the health field, but what many do not realize is that the system does this so that people are much more dependent on it, for everyone to be healthy  and continue greasing the screws of the Megamachine, to continue working, producing and consuming, in short, for the System of Domination to continue to stand.
And so, as the most ingenious trick of the system  is solidified, reaping (even more) the vision of those who cower against those who radically reject Technology .
The use of modified viruses is not new in nanotechnology, scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) together with others at Harvard have created cells that provide solar energy based on of the photosynthesis process of plants. Remember that for this process to be accomplished, several factors are needed such as the use of water, carbon dioxide and sunlight. With this, scientists have achieved through nanotechnology the separation of oxygen from water to produce hydrogen, and this in turn to be stored for later use to produce energy, modifying their genes by means of a virus so that they absorb it and generate the production of solar cells.
This is the dream of total-technology, but, in the end, the Reality.
But what’s wrong with creating solar energy through modified nanoparticles? some will say. ITS answer: When these modified viruses affect the way we develop as the result of a nanobacteriological war, by some laboratory error, or by the explosion of nanocontamination that compromises the air, food, transportation, water, in short, the entire world, then they will realize, all those who defend nanotechnology and cannot find an apparent threat, that it was a grave mistake to leave it to grow at their leisure.
Like this conscienceless researcher (Laura Palomares) are also others within Monterrey Tec.
We will mention some more:
Dr. Serguei Kanaoun of SNI with his project of composite material mechanics (nanotubes).
Dr. Alex Elías Zúñiga with his project of nanomaterials for medical devices.
Dr. Marcelo Fernando Videa Vargas with his chair in Synthesis of nanostructured materials.
Dr. Joaquín Esteban Oseguera Peña with his thermochemical Treatments assisted by plasma, etcétera, etcétera.
The degrees that this private and nationally prestigious university imparts and that undoubtedly are directly complicit in the destruction, manipulation and domestication of the Earth, are the following:
Industrial physics engineering.
Electrical mechanical engineering.
Digital systems and robotics engineering.
Electronic technology engineering.
Master in Computer Science.
Engineering in information and communications technologies.
Among the projects at the mentioned university campus are the Center for Business Development and Transference of Technology, CEDETEC, which is part of a futuristic philosophy called Mission 2015, which is committed to developing research and technology relevant to nanobioindustrial progress for the country in different areas.
In order to accomplish this, the university authorities have created the Congress of Research and Development, which offers work for the alumni and professors of Tec in areas prioritized for this technological invasion, such as Biotechnology and Food, Mechatronics, Nanotechnology, Information and Communications Technology, Sustainable Development, Entrepreneurship, Social Development and Education, among others.
CEDETEC is a place where the efforts of companies, the State, and the university merge, and which aims to promote job creation, attraction of capital, and growth of technology companies and to increase value for the academy.
Tec belongs to another project, promoter of the nightmare technology, called Cluster. 
Cluster, which is located in Nuevo León, aims to develop human capital, financing and implementation of new business projects involving applications of nanotechnology. 
Among its partners are Cemex (Cementos Mexicanos), the Autonomous University of Nuevo León, Sigma (a leading company in the production and distribution of animal products), CIQA (a major company specializing in the development of new materials), Viakable (strategic company serving major markets at the international level), VAGO Industries (company using carbon nanotubes made by Tec), Arizona State University (with its Arizona Institute for Nano Electrics), Nemak (global company in production of aluminum-technological components for the automotive industry), I2T2 (Institute for Innovation and Technological Transference), Whirlpool, Cimav (Conacyt Center for Research of Advanced Materials) and many others.
All of these institutions, universities and anexes, are still within a much more massive project. We are speaking of PIIT (Technological Research and Innovation Park) located in Apodaca, where a major part of the industrial zone of Monterrey is concentrated.
According to their data: PIIT facilities cover 70 hectares, where the projects of 11 research centers in seven universities converge: the Autonomous University of Nuevo León, Technological Institute of Higher Studies in Monterrey, the Autonomous National University of Mexico, University of Arizona, University of Monterrey, Texas A&M and the University of Texas. At the Park there converge centers of research, development and technology of private companies such as Motorola, Pepsico, Sigma Foods, Viakable, Qualita, Prolec-GE, Cydsa, Metalsa, Furniture Manufacturers Association, Association of Plastic and MTY IT ClusterLania .
As could be read above, Monterrey Tec is not only focused on the area of nano technology, but also has its sights on informatics.
That entire world behind the computer that are creating monstrous global corporations, is obviously another of the gears of the System of Domination.
Every day we realize that human beings are moving away more dangerously from their natural instincts, that they are immersed in a false reality constructed by social networks and the obsessive idea of online updating in virtual spaces.
We live in the digital age, the system is always in constant dynamism and not only have that everyone alienated themselves through television or the vices that civilized life contracts, but also, a giant computer network has been made for the daily superproduction of more automatons who serve it blindly to maintain the prevailing order.
The American neuroscientist Gary Small  has said that excessive Internet use causes damage to brain functioning, in addition to altering neuronal stimuli that causes people to reduce their ability to strike up a conversation face to face.
This means that information technology in large quantities is isolating the individual and he or she is becoming a humanoid who prefers to entire spend hours or days at a computer rather than live with his small circle of lovers and/or friends.
In addition this, the daily and/or excessive use of computers and internet causes to diminish the natural capacity we have to capture details in a direct exchange of words with others, for small or developing children, the consequences could be highly dangerous if this way of life of addiction to the computer continues, they could develop attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in an extreme form.
The lifestyle in which certain individuals develop within techno-industrial society does not help at all, but rather pushing them to live in a state of crisis, change and necessary integration into the technological medium, this medium being the social networks.
While more “friends” or visits taken into this Big Brother trap make them feel totally realized, they want to acquire more new contacts and continue contributing to consumerism, and thus, the destruction of Wild Nature (including that of humans).
But Gary Small has not mentioned the consequences of the use of computers to alert people, he has not said this to disapprove of Technology, he has said it so that such problems are resolved in order to achieve science fiction.
Gary and other scientists are already, by means of lasers, stimulating and monitoring neural circuits so that, in the future, many brain functions can be manipulated by means of a remote control. As if this were not enough, they are designing, even now, small implants in the head of a human being that they will be connecting to computers so that the machines understand better than medicine the complexity of the brain .
Continuing the theme of information technology, the famous social networks–especially Facebook–have become the center of attention of techno-industrial society, for in this the system sees an important ally for the total control of human behavior, which is itself, an extremely threatening factor to the established order within Civilization.
One of the three leaders of Facebook is Peter Thiel, an American businessman who has proposed the total elimination of the real or natural world and the imposition of the digital world, he has said this.
Analyzing this, we can see that Facebook is not just a harmless communication network, but a social experiment in mind control which the Technological Industrial System is using with great effectiveness to exclude the Naturalness of human contact, that is, to develop in grand form the total alienation of individuals to Technology.
But this perverted businessman has not stood still, in addition to being one of the main contributors to that mind-control tool, he has invested millions in profits into artificial intelligence research and new technologies to extend the life of man through science. In this he has as an ally the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence and to the English biomedical gerontologist Aubrey de Grey, who is specifically in charge of developing, by means of a highly advanced technology, the indefinite lengthening of the lifetime of a human being, and like this, the man made machine has been created!
The huge popularity of Thiel’s virtual world is made possible because people get carried away by their peers, like sheep following the herd without thinking about why they do. They are being led blindly by the attractive world of technological progress and its small but important ramifications for exacerbated, useless, and unreal entertainment.
The characteristics that distinguish these people addicted to using the Internet to interact “socially” are their highly marked feelings of inferiority, plus, the insecurity they show living with others is visible, but having a person “connected” behind a computer makes them feel able to tell them things they did not dare to during a conversation.
This is how Technology is, little by little, finishing with social interaction that is a purely natural impulse; we are not talking here about building relationships of friendship indiscriminately with all people (ITS rejects hypocritical buddy-ism and oversocialization) but within small groups of loved ones or affinities; Technology is separating that natural interconnection, reducing it to emails and digital comments.
Seeing this, we would believe that we are reading a science fiction novel, but it is not so. This is what is happening in reality and to not confront it makes us cowards, softies and accomplices of the system.
There are more and more inventions that are created for the human being to be converted in the literal sense into a machine, an example of this are the microchips embedded under the skin that have been used in first world countries, the consequences of which already begin to show.
The scientist Mark Gasson, member of the School of Systems Engineering, University of Reading in England, has been the first case, which was only in 2010, of the failure of these microchips that had embedded in his body .
So we can read that Gasson is the first human infected with a computer virus, surprisingly we are not speaking of a machine is infected by a virus, but of a human being sick with a computer virus! and nevertheless, this idiot scientist feels flattered. Another one of his own already said it: human stupidity has no limits .
The push that this type of subject is giving to Technology is alarming, they are testing on themselves their techniques of control and manipulation and then, seeing their faults, improving and adapting them to the majority of the population, who will surely, however, look favorably upon such abjections.
As you can read in this criticism of nanotechnology, information technology, their effects and consequences, there are many truly strong reasons that we have to have carried out the attack on the Monterrey Tec – Mexico State Campus on Monday morning, August 8th of this year.
Individualists Tending toward the Wild (ITS) has left a package of simulated mail within the campus, which contained an explosive device filled with dynamite, ammonium sulfate (which acted as a poison), a galvanized nipple eight and three quarters inches long, red wires, a small bulb and a battery.
The device was intended for the coordinator of the aforementioned CEDETEC, Dr. Armando Herrera Corral, but it seems that this attack has affected two tecnonerds of one stone, namely the Director of the Doctorate of Engineering Sciences, and a specialist in the construction of robots, Alejandro Aceves López, was also injured by the explosion of our parcel bomb which also caused material damages in one of the buildings inside the Tec.
Indeed as mentioned by the press , within the small cardboard box (containing the explosive) we have left a message that the explosion will have fragmented, this message containing a threat signed by ITS. It is useless for experts to reconstruct since they already know what it contains and we are saying it by means of this text.
Certainly, an attack of this nature has not happened in previous years within the premises of this university, but this does not mean that the act is isolated. We have already struck at another university in the past, now at this one, which had a grand public commotion since the wounded are “respectable teachers” (for society), experts in their fields (in addition to that we carried out the attack on just the day the students go on vacation and the authorities inaugrated the Innovation and Technological Transference Park of Monterrey Tec, León Campus, Guanajuato), and so the first attack left one (for society) “insignificant” UPVM guard wounded  so there was no such reaction.
As we have already said before, ITS acts without compassion and without mercy, accepting our responsibilities in each act that transfers explosions against those immediately and intellectually responsible for the devastation of the Earth.
It is worth noting that ITS is not a group of saboteurs (we do not share the strategy of sabotage or damage or destruction of property).
Until we are satisfied, we have taken the firm decision to strike at those directly responsible for pressing the natural environment into artificial life, not at the institutions but at the actual individuals.
The condemnations have not done the expected , they call us terrorists, those useless members of industrial society, who know that we take this term as a compliment; we repeat, we are not some simple saboteurs placing bombs, we are more than that and if they categorize us as terrorists, they are right, because our goal is to mutilate and even kill these scientists, researchers, professors and other scum who are reducing the Earth to mere urbanized waste.
Within the investigation work is mentioned the participation of the Department of Defense, the PGR, the Interior Ministry (federal), PGJEM, ASE and other corporations engaged in security, from this communication we say: Search what they will, they’ll once again be a joke!
The leader of the design project of a humanoid robot (Alejandro Aceves López) and one of the two leaders of the Technology Park (Armando Herrera Corral) have tattoos on their bodies (with their wounds) starting from now, the symbols of the anti-industrial group ITS [Individualists Tending toward the Wild].
It is logical, we will continue with these acts, and other scientists and the rest of technoswillology [the original tecnobazofia more seamlessly combines two words meaning ‘technology’ and ‘pigswill’ or ‘hogwash’ — transl.] must pay the consequences of their actions, and better for it to be by some wild terrorists like ourselves.
Nature is good, Civilization is evil…
Individualists tending toward the wild.
Communique Four (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  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. 
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. 
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: <em>“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.” 
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 .
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. 
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.” 
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. 
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). 
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.” 
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. 
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. 
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  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,  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 , 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.” 
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 , 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. 
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.”
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 , 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.)
PS. 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. Th e 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!
Communique Five (18 December 2011)
Since the last public communique from ITS (21 September 2011) many things have happened, we have continued with the attacks that characterize us, but within this short text we will not claim responsibility for them (only one). Since the purpose of sitting down to write this and placing our fingers on a machine again is to deny all the mediocre information and disqualification that is emerging from a minority of leftist cells.
While it is certain that ITS is alien to everything that happens in the virtual world, that is, we are not aware of what happens in the full spectrum from anarchists of action to those who defend passive anarchism, the case is simply that some time ago this information has come to us.
We have heard of a commotion that is forming with respect to our ideas and actions within those circles; they accuse us of being a fabrication of the “repressive state” (phrase that the wretched leftists so love to mention), they say that we are the work of a Machiavellian supernatural evil force that controls the minds of the entire world, they call into question our critical words against all the system’s values because they do not appreciate that someone who has Reason to make them see the Truth.
To begin with, on hearing so many atrocities we decided to remain silence, but seeing that the racket continues we decided to write these lines.
ITS may be everything that “important” (and not so “important”) members of the techno-industrial society have repeatedly said we are, but never accomplices of the System of Domination.
We categorically reject all those labels that they have put on us, we are not “eco-anarchists” or “anarcho-environmentalists” as we have made quite clear in our September 21st communique, if anyone has not understood it, they may read it again.
It is logical that before a discourse and actions like ours there must be reactions from all parties and it seems that the “indignant” wing of anarchism has responded, although not very intelligently. We are against the values that they preach left and right, we are against various concepts that they consider sacred, we are against their strategies because everything that they defend is deposited in the system. Idiots who do not tack the ship and will soon sink, irremediably. Thus they find something (or a lot) “strange” about ITS, they find themselves to be like civilized people within a forest of sylvan vegetation when they read our communiques, they do not know where they are. Confused leftists who perhaps some day will learn or else will remain stopped in the quicksand, immobile and passive, waiting for their environmental conditions to consume them. But that in reality does not concern us in the least.
ITS has seen an analyzed that the leftists are a real threat who only seek to reform the system and create alternatives in order to “fight” against it, but (although they don’t realize it) they are useless, since this only feeds it. The war against academics and technologists is declared (that is more than clear and we have shown it) but also the war against leftism, thus we have sent a package with incendiary cargo to the offices of Greenpeace Mexico (which arrived [according to the authorities] on 25 November of this year).
The package was sent to the activist Alejandro Olivera, who insists on carrying out hypocritical campaigns in “favor” of the environment in order to gain public notoriety, his psychological necessities make his activism a pathetic surrogate activity that sugarcoats artificial necessities like self-realization that he acts like it is his “moral duty” to do the “right thing” in the face of the devastation that ecosystems are undergoing.
Surely Olivera will not realize this (since his reasoning does not allow for more) because of this action, he will not realize that Greenpeace is one of so many highly reformist organizations, that they only want to change the laws for other ones in order to illusorily achieve a supposed rescue of the Earth, and here comes the threat–the change of economic, political, social and cultural aspects so that the system continues on its path. (On this point we will not say more, it will have its time when we write a long communique that brings all the rational explanations to such attacks.)
Before this kind of leftist organization we respond with direct attempts, all those who seek a world that is “more just,” “more humane” and “more green” are on our list, ITS have finished with consideration, have fininished with what they will say, we do not pretend to be “well-intentioned activists” with a moderate and good image, we are a group of radical environmentalists, anti-industrialists of a terrorist stripe (towards society and its defenders).
ITS shows its true face, we go to the central point, the fierce defense of Wild Nature (including human); we do not negotiate, we carry out our task with the necessary materials, without compassion and accepting the responsibility of the act. Our instincts make us do it, since (as we have said before) we are in favor of natural violence against civilized destruction.
All leftists be warned (and by leftists we refer as much to those of the left as to those of the right): ITS does not hesitate to make an attempt on the physical integrity of any one of you, you are our enemies and thus our threats will materialize in bullets and dynamite.
With this said, we declare that we will not make further mention about the attacks of the leftist eunichs for the moment; they do not merit any consideration, since these mediocre people (with much lack of attention) act toward the impossible (and go to ridiculous extremes) in order to gain notoriety within some movement (a completely pathetic deed); as they say: the fish dies by its own mouth.
To the humiliating leftist mythomaniacs who seek to destroy our discourse and attacks with false arguments founded not in Reason but instead in speculation, irrationality and animism, do not expect our attacks to stop, do not expect dialogue with ITS, do not expect any answer to questions you may have; from ITS, only expect the worst…
Individualidades tendiendo a lo salvaje
(Individualists tending toward the wild)
Communique Six (28 January 2012)
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.
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).
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.
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 , nuclear disasters such as in Fukushima, accelerated environmental deterioration, the growth of biometrics , 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.
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” , and the emergence of the Earth Liberation Front in the United States , 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).
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.
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.
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, 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.
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) 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.
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</em> spills <em>(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)
Communique Seven (18 February 2013)
“When the blood of your veins returns to the sea
and the dust of your bones returns to the ground,
maybe then you will remember that this Earth does not belong to you,
you belong to this Earth.”
– Native American saying
Before beginning this new text signed by ITS, we want to express our enormous gratitude to the anarchist portal “Liberación Total,” since over the years they have disseminated our communiques despite the many uncomfortable circumstances that have presented themselves; in a note attached to a November 27, 2011 text by the “Animal and Earth Liberation Front of Mexico” titled “Conspiracy Theories and the Ridiculous Saboteurs“ [Spanish link*] which we quote, they said, “we will keep disseminating the information which has to do with the ITS” and that is what they have done.
Likewise we thank all the persons and groups (from Mexico as well as Canada, the United States, Chile, Spain, Indonesia, Costa Rica, Italy, Russia, Germany, etc) who have at their own times recognized our work and/or have spread our words in one way or another. These displays of acceptance will always be taken into account as ITS did in our fourth communique (September 21, 2011) in note E; but it is worth mentioning that the displays of rejection do not go unnoticed either, when they have solid foundations that merit the effort of a response.
The aim of this text is to make our stance clear, continuing the work of spreading our ideas, clearing up some apparent doubts and misinterpretations, as well as accepting mistakes and/or errors. In no way do we want to start an endless discussion that only takes up time and energy, nor do we want this text to turn into something other than what it is. Anyone who reads it will be able to interpret correctly (or incorrectly) what they are aiming to read; the intelligent reader will know to reflect and consequently do what seems right to them.
ITS is not going to cover every person or group’s forms of thought, but the ones we respect, that we tolerate, is something else; the ideas, doctrines, stances (etc) that deserve critiques (because we are in disagreement with them [being that they cover discourses that are leftist, progressivist, irrational, religious, etc]) will be mentioned in this way; the ones that don’t, we will let pass or agree with.
All the texts that ITS has made public are not for society to “wake up and decide to attack the system,” they are not to forcibly change what the others think, nothing like this is intended; the lines we write are for the intelligent, strong individuals who decide to see reality in all its rawness, for those few who form, think and carry out the sensible critique of the highest expression of domination–the Techno-industrial System .
And so that our words, critiques, clarifications and statements are made known as they have been spread up to now, we have decided (until now) to take the next step, which has been to attack and try to kill the key persons who make the system improve itself.
This is the only viable way for radical critiques to emerge in the public light, making pressure so this discourse comes to the surface. We are extremists and we act as such, without compassion, without remorse, taking any means to reach our objectives.
What’s said is said.
The internationally-distributed review Nature, which focuses on scientific and technological topics, has given a global following to the attacks against technologists and institutions that deal with nanotechnology, information technology, biotechnology, nuclear business, etc.
Some weeks after ITS let loose an explosive against Herrera and Aceves (the Monterrey Tec technonerds) the aforementioned review published a short text titled “Stand Up Against the Anti-Technology Terrorists”  signed by the brother of one of our aforementioned victims, the physicist Gerardo Herrera Corral.
In the final paragraph of his text Gerardo wrote: “it is not technology that is the problem, but how we use it,” something which ITS considers completely erroneous.
Complex technology is the problem that has afflicted us as a species since the expansion of Civilization. Here it is necessary to say that there are two kinds of technology–complex and simple technology; an example of the latter were (or are) the utensils and tools employed by primitive man during the paleolithic and part of the neolithic, which helped him survive and which some cultures undoubtedly still use to hunter, gather, shelter and defend themselves.
ITS have always positioned ourselves against modern Technology, complex technology, which drives the destruction of Wild (human) Nature.
To return to Herrera’s text, if complex Technology were used for “good” things, what results would it have? The same as always: deforestation to create wind energy fields, large-scale pollution for the manufacture of “vegetarian and ecological” products, destruction of entire ecosystems for the construction of new “renewable energy” plants, the perversion of Wild Human Nature and its artificialization through information technological and social networks of “friendship,” the perversion of Animal Nature with the cloning of species that went extinct thousands of years ago  damaging the self-regulating ecological equilibrium, new diseases, supposed nano-cures that mutate into other more infectious and resistant viruses, etc. The absurdity that complex Technology could serve something “good” has already expired and it has been shown that it will always tend to destroy Wild Nature even while absurdly dressed up in philanthropy.
- To continue with the articles from Nature: the writer Leigh Phillips of that periodical wrote an analysis titled “Anarchists Attack Science”  which details the attack suffered by the Italian Roberto Adinolfi (executive director of Ansaldo Nuclear) on May 7, 2012 in Genoa by an anarchist group. Phillips, with supposed information from the European police, says the Italian group, as well as one from Switzerland, has ties with us. We belie this. Although we must admit the shots to Adinolfi’s legs were well aimed, the people who carried out the attack had their reasons for not ending Adinolfi’s life and only leaving him wounded ...
Another mistake this text’s author made was to name us as anarchists from the same network as the Italians; as we have mentioned before (and as point IV of this text will explain), ITS is not anarchist, nor do we belong to any network of or with anarchists; our work is separate and the only thing that could relate us (and only in a few cases) would be the targets and materials that are usually wielded.
- In September of last year the same writer referred to us again in another (even more extensive) article titled “Nanotechnology: Armed Resistance” ; in the article he makes reference to the repercussions that have been shown more than a year since the August 8, 2011 attack at the Atizapán Campu of Monterrey Tec.
Phillips interviewed Silvia Ribeiro, the head of the Latin American wing of the leftist group ETC (Group of Action on Erosion, Technology and Concentration) who were criticized in our fourth communique in note M. Silvia said, “These kinds of attacks are benefiting the development of nanotechnology,” a view that we do not share.
It was obvious that the more the Techno-industrial System grew, these kinds of branches (such as nanotechnology) would have a greater impact in society, and that, seeing that it is one of the sciences of the “future,” it would adapt, study and improve it. We are sure that if we had not done what we have, nanotechnology would have kept its course and that now (like today) it would be one of the most demanded sciences at the global level.
Mrs. Silvia suffers from naivety to say such things, to say that merely because ITS has struck at nanotechnologists, this science has seen benefits to its development. Perhaps she should ask all the researchers who now live in fear of being ITS next target if they work better scared and hidden as they do now.
In reference to these kinds of questions (about whether the system benefits from these kinds of attacks), ITS has responded to a brief interview dated April 28, 2012 in which that question is addressed (specifically in the sixth question); it is worth mentioning that this is the only interview that we have really given and it was a foreign anarchist editorial which you can read on your own time.
- Concretely and to end this point, Mexican scientists, like scientists of other countries, will continue with their research, they will continue doing studies so the Techno-industrial System becomes stronger and the results of their failure are more obvious and catastrophic–for us that is clear. But what has to also been made clear is that there will be more attacks on these scientists, there will be more attacks on their laboratories and institutions, they must pay for what they are doing to the Earth, they must accept and take responsibility for their actions, and, moments after a bomb explodes in their face (if they survive), they must say “I earned it…”
The response will be expedited, without any compassion.
Because if Technology does not stop, neither will ITS
We do not at all say that the system benefits from our attacks, we have evidence and we have belied it with actions. Although many armed groups do make the system improve and make it stronger.
There are two kinds of leftists of the extremist kind who we can immediately classify by their bad intentions to employ violence against established regimes.
We will divide them into two groups:
A) The ones that make use of armed struggle in order to rise to power:
These groups are the ones that want to come to power with armed actions in order to then have the possibility of implementing a new regime of “peace,” “solidarity,” “equality,” “humanism,” (etc). But over the years they become more oppressive than the previous regime. It doesn’t matter to them if they do the worst damage in achieving power. Examples are aplenty:
“Sendero Luminoso,” a Marxist-Maoist group of Peruvian origin
Guerrillas lead by Ernesto “Che” Guevara de la Serna.
“ETA” Basque independence movement
“Combat 18″ right-wing guerrilla
The Taliban Movement in the Arab countries
The Marxist-Leninist organization “Red Brigades” in Italy
In reality there are many organizations of this kind that can be considered extremist leftists since their militants and/or leaders do not want the destruction of the entire system, they always seek to end up in power. To substitute one thing for another, which ITS classifies as reformist. And although their actions have very strong repercussions and they destroy monuments, buildings, kidnap officials, assassinate presidents, and so on, these attacks do strengthen the system at the root their discourses.
Moving on to the next group:
B) The groups that employ violence so that the government will in turn resolve their demands:
These groups’ struggle is in reality a “serious” call to the attention of the authorities so that they make them protect their “rights”; weary of not being heard or the legal avenues having run out, they use violence so that their demands are fulfilled. As in the above point, there are plenty of examples, we will only mention three in order to not make this point longer:
The “Cristero” Movement in Guanajuanto
The “Animal Rights Militia” in the 80′s
The revolt led by the supposed “Ned Ludd” in England at the beginning of the industrial revolution
The bottom line is that the two mentioned groups, both A and B, are reformists and leftists because they always tend to want to improve the system; their slogans were (and are) “end inequality,” “stop the war,” “halt imperialism,” “rights” for animals, “improvements in public services,” “teaching of religion” in schools, the “destruction of the machines” for the return to manual labor, “economic independence,” the “implementation of communism,” the “implementation of national socialism,” etc.
Some of the slogans (mentioned above), the system agrees to use (or not), since it sees if it is implemented in the daily life of society everything will be at “peace.” For example, it did not agree to halt “globalization” because in this it locates the possibility of having a “free market,” that is, finding a way to over-exploit nature in order to be able to take resources in any part of the world. It did not agree to end the wars (save for calculated exceptions) because that is how they put new technologies in practice so that in the future they can be launched to the market, as happened with the internet, armored vehicles, cell phones, robotics, and more.
Previously in the history of humanity (very similar to the modern era) it was like this:
“War contributes to slavery–slavery fores agriculture, and this in turn contributes and determines sedentary life and ‘peace’” (quote marks added by ITS) .
But for example the system does agree that animals have rights, so a more “humane” civilization can give way to new ways of thinking in society, and in this way one of the system’s many most ingenious tricks is plotted. It also agrees to apparently put an end “inequality,” with this it can have the majority without fighting and anyone who discriminates is seen as an inhumane criminal.
It is worth mentioning that for ITS discrimination is not always bad; we will make one simple example for the reader: suppose that you are the head of a tribe who falls sick and someone else has to urgently go for the berries of a shrub that will cure you, and it is far from where the clan finds itself. Who would you send if you know that the forest is full of hungry wild animals that only a group of hunters is able to cross, carrying the berries? You wouldn’t send the women gatherers or the little children, would you? Obviously you would send a group of the most valiant hunters for your remedy. Remember that hunters are also wont to be gatherers and women are very rarely hunters (or occupy themselves with minor hunts) in any tribe.
Then in this example discrimination is not so bad.
Let’s make another example for those political correct people who may feel offended, accusing us of being “machistas” (for the previous example). What person would you make responsible for a work of masonry, if you had a painter of surrealist art and a salesman of good roots?
Obviously you would discriminate against both because neither is suitable, you would have to call a mason to complete the desired work.
As one can read in this point, discrimination is not always bad, it is just that many have accepted it as such due to adaptation to the psychic-cultural schemes established in Civilization, something we call oversocialization. 
In this point we will try to distinguish between our stance and anarchist stances.
Since many keep labeling ITS as an anarchist group, we see the need to write what comes, perhaps in this way one will manage to understand (or not) that ITS is something else and cease calling us that. We clarify that we are not offended that they call us anarchists (in case someone might think so), it is simply that things ought to be called by their name.
We will begin by writing something about the old anarchists and only then address topics that have to do with anarcho-nihilism. We put forth that, although within anarchist ideas there are infinite currents, it seems that the majority of individuals with anarchist ideas have ideological schemes and principles that go against “authority,” “property,” “discrimination,” the “law,” the “order,” the “family.” These concepts will be the motive for analysis and comparison with respect to what we think.
What follows does not in any way intend to question anybody, nor to make it seem that ITS has a “secret formula,” it is simply a publicly launched opinion. Everyone acts in consequence with what they live, think and feel.
That said, we begin:
- Within the extremist leftists of point II there are some old anarchists, even though they did not (or do not) want power to build a directive government. They wanted (or still want) a “social revolution,” they want to achieve a “new society” based on “new values,” like “mutual aid,” “solidarity,” “equal rights,” and other utopias. Such values are the representative values of the system, the ones it wants at all costs to manage to–and that it more or less has managed to–consolidate so that Civilization could be “perfect” and there could not be any dissidence.
These old anarchists of Saint-Simon’s kind of “utopian socialism” wanted to eliminate states, basing themselves on the values that the system would impose softly, without one realizing they were falling into its game. Now in the present anyone who speaks of the “emancipation of the proletariat,” of the “class struggle,” “social revolution” and other two-odd-century-old slogans carries a corpse in their mouth, because those arguments are expired and it is useless to try to propel them now because they no longer have any solid validity.
The old anarchists oppose all authority, and some were really consistent with their ideals until death (there is no doubt of this), but the problem here is in those who wanted to build a “new society,” wanted Civilization to remain, production to be self-managed, Technology to be used for something “good,” goals that we completely reject, since Civilization deserves only destruction and/or rejection–trying to exchange society for a “new” one is not viable now, perhaps it would be viable for anarchists to live in a small community but at the general social level it would even be impossible.
ITS thinks that society must not be exchanged for another or convinced that it is heading to the precipice; (techno-industrial) society (as we said of Civilization above) only deserves to be destroyed, messed up, and rejected, just like this whole filthy system.
Clearly on this point we are only referring to the old anarchists (and a few “new” ones with old ideas), since for some time now anarchist ideas have changed. So-called neo-anarchism or anarcho-nihilism has spread at least through Europe, the Americas, Asia and Oceania (if it doesn’t already have a presence in Africa too).
- From what we have read regarding the anarcho-nihilists, some of them do not want to build a new society like their political predecessors, they want its destruction in order to fulfill their commitment which would be the “elimination of all bondage and authority” (in their own terms, of course).
But ITS thinks that authority is not always bad–it is bad when it restricts Freedom, when it limits your capacities to be able to reach your ends. But it is not bad when an authority figure teaches you not to falter, to pick yourself up from some emotional or physical decline, when he gives you wise counsel and when he leads you by good paths.
We think that an example of this non-harmful authority would be the parents and grandparents of primitive man  (today, there are very few people remaining who represent non-harmful authority).
On the same topic of authority, the family is related with this thematic. We do not believe that the family would be a problem because it represents a “hierarchical framework” (as some anarchists say); to the contrary, the human being is biologically programmed by nature for being born in community and living together in family. Or perhaps being with family was bad for our hunter-gatherer-nomad ancestors? Not at all. For millions of years primitive man lived happy along with his family,  when the tribe grew too large, some consanguineous groups would separate in order to begin a new life, to create a new tribe. When the human being was nomadic, he had respect for the head of the clan, or for parents and authority; how can children now keep respect for parents who are neglectful, paternalistic and bad-intentioned? The family and the Wild Nature of the human being in general was perverted when it started to become civilized. An example of this is the following:
“Crowds become denser, elites became more select, technologies acquired a more technical character. The frustrations and tensions of city life increased in intensity. Inter-tribal clashes became bloodier. There were more people which meant there were more surplus people, people who could be squandered. As human relations, lost in the multitude, became more impersonal, man’s inhumanity increased until reaching horrible proportions.” 
This is why ITS says that authority is not always bad, because the rate of familial deterioration (starting with parents and ending with children) depends on various cultural and social facets. Today’s family is oversocialized, it is stuck on hard moralist guidelines, it overprotects children, or, to the contrary, it creates frustrations disregarding or accelerating their development.
For better understanding we transcribe these lines:
“Filicidal  hostility manifests itself under the two extreme categories of indulgence  and of irrational frustration (in the children). It would seem, moreover, that it obeys basic motivations. On one hand treating them as children even when they are adults, protecting them from mistakes and from “bad steps,” or cynically leaving them to fail in order to thus test their inferiority and impotence and the paternalist sees his perversions realized, confirming his hostile prejudices. On the other hand, [...], a paternalistic attitude is that of “machismo” in which the father, in order to make his son a “man,” humiliates him, stimulates his aggression, wants him to be a premature man, prohibits him from being and recognizing himself as a child. In the first case one perpetuates infantilism in the children, in the second case one mutilates the child from his infancy and inculcates in him a facade of artificial masculinity. In both cases there is hostility with the child, a pathological distortion is perpetuated in him which, like a new link, lengthens the chain of perhaps several generations.” 
It is for these reasons that ITS does not defend the slogan “against all authority” that many anarchists express, since this would also include innocuous authority; ITS only rejects the authority that the Techno-industrial System exercises with all its values and civilized pseudomoral schemes.
Family (on the other hand) is not the problem in itself, it is the Civilization that has degraded this natural nucleus, that has contaminated the strong branches of the genealogical tree to turn it into something very different from what it was in a beginning.
Many anarchists also position themselves against law and order. But, (again) are order and law always bad? ITS (again) thinks not.
In Wild Nature everything has an order, everything is self-regulated, there is a circle that repeats infinite times so that the natural equilibrium keeps its course and is not lost.
An example: The tree grows, the rain gives it strength, the moon makes it so there is humidity in the environment and new plants may germinate; the tree drops fruits that in turn are eaten by the herbivorous animals and their young so they grow in a future, these herbivorous animals are hunted by carnivorous and omnivorous (human) animals, the meat is for them and their young, the surplus is devoured by scavenging animals and brought to their young, the earth is nourished with what is finally left. A bird comes to the aforementioned tree and brings what it needs for its nest, while the bird flies, a seed falls where the earth is fertile and everything begins again.
From the beginning of time everything has been ruled by the natural order, until Civilization came and changed everything. Everything turned into disorder, chaos.
From this idea that everything in Wild Nature has an order, and because we say that we obey this order and these natural laws, those who disobey these natural statutes are confined to obeying the system  and denying their human nature .
ITS categorically rejects the chaos of Civilization and ferociously defends the order of Wild Nature.
We also differ with anarchists on the term property. We do not believe that private or personal property are bad in all aspects; Stirner in his book The Ego and Its Own [literally Property — transl.] has made this clear.
Our Freedom is ours alone, our individual property, our individual body, like those material (or non-material) things that we have obtained through a really serious effort and we are not ready to share them with any stranger. 
We defend egoism but not egocentrismo (which are very different things) since the human being from his beginnings has always had to see for himself and then for the others. Even the term individualidades, used in our pseudonym, emphasizes more firmly what we are. The idea of sharing everything with everyone, as some anarchists (not all) dream, comes across as abnormal and mistaken to us.
Perhaps with agree with the anarcho-nihilists on the matter of egoism, since some (few in reality) have openly declared themselves as such, perhaps, also with their discourse about the destruction (and not the reform) of society and of the system; although we don’t know how it is that they want to achieve that… perhaps it would be through an immediate and symbolic destruction of the “established order” (as we have read in their communiques).
ITS has from a beginning said that it does not believe that the destruction of the Techno-industrial System (or Civilization’s collapse) can be propitiated or accelerated by a group of “revolutionaries” or a movement. ITS thinks that this destruction will come from nature or from the system itself. Although we would prefer that it was Wild Nature that drove the system to fall at its feet. Perhaps by means of a global cataclysm, a meteorite from space, a new glacial age, a great solar storm, etc. We would prefer that over the system collapsing under its own weight, because then its fall would be so violent and disastrous that the planet Earth would be left changed, totally polluted and without any remedy to bring itself back and regenerate (or perhaps so, but in millions of years). Whatever will happen will happen, for us it is not too late, we still have instincts (organic impulses or however one wants to call these similarities we still share with wild animals), the human being has lived longer in caves than in great buildings, they have not been able to eradicate our wildness, we are still not machines; we still are and represent nature, and therefore we will defend ourselves from the stranger who comes trying to artificialize us and reduce our sphere of Freedom in the least.
The system is so naive to think that it will eliminate and subjugate every trace of Wild Nature that remains, without thinking that it is not just this planet that represents the Wild Nature it wants to dominate. Other planets with (maybe) subatomic life, other galaxies, star dust, black holes, asteroids, supernovas, suns, stars, natural satellites, dark matter, in sum the entire universe also represents Wild Nature, that infinite proportion that it will never be able to dominate, even though the futuristic visions of some astrophysicists say the contrary.
Continuing with the themes of an anarchist nature, we publicly admit that we made a mistake in past communiques (specifically in the first, second and fourth) when we mention persons who we do not know personally, but who at that time we considered “afines” [people we have affinity with — transl.] At that time ITS was rather influenced by liberationist currents (animal and earth liberation)  and insurrectionalists, now things have changed, we do not deny that these currents were, in a beginning, an integral part of our ideological development, but we have left them behind, and as one can read above, we have turned into something different.
Today, things have changed.
We will not send out “greetings of support and solidarity” with people who are or are not related with our immediate circle of afines, whether they are incarcerated or have died, we do not see it as strategic in any way.
On the other hand, anarchists of the nihilist-insurrectionalist stripe have for some time called through the internet, written propaganda, etc, that they give “direct support” to their compañeros who have fallen into prison, wounded or even dead. This is how these anarchists’ network has become stronger year after year. Although this has repercussions for some anarchists who have prison records or who only disseminate their communiques on blogs (as happened in Italy), it seems they will not stop for anything. ITS thinks that in these anarchist cells there are sincere people who do not feel the need to construct a new society, but rather to destroy the existent, a mission that for us is not leftist. States really are worried by the rise of anarchist sabotages, which show that they have become a threat for the economic-political system of some countries, something that is worthy of recognition.
To end with this topic and all the subtopics, we hope that it has been made clear that although ITS has a few agreements with the anarchists, we are different things.
Perhaps from our first communiques and due to our poor wording in the past, some are confusing our stance with the absurd ideas of the “eco-fascists” who are very popular in Europe.
On this point, we will also differentiate our stance with what these pseudo-ecologists defend, so that no doubt remains that we could ever be the same.
Pentti Linkola, a philosopher from Finland, is one of the principle ideologues who promote eco-fascism in his country. Among his principle proposals are:
The implementation of a dictatorship headed by intellectuals in ecological topics.
A lifestyle similar to the middle ages.
He defends the extinction of foreign animals which according to him “destroy the environment.”
His perfect society is that people abandon technology and progress but that, on the other hand, leaders have highly technological weapons for their defense.
Although this seems to be a joke, we are forced to ask, do these ideas have similarities with the ones that ITS defends? It is obvious they do not.
Our stance positions itself against the Techno-industrial System, we defend Wild Nature at all costs trying to achieve true Freedom , rejecting the values of the system that are progressivist and leftist. Like the nature that we still are, we defend ourselves against all Civilized aggression, resisting, confronting, criticizing and attacking the researchers who try to push us toward the bottomless hole of artificialization with their advanced sciences.
We do not want a new “alternative” or “greener” regime lead by intellectuals, military officials, or politicians; we want all the regimes that Civilization  encompasses to be destroyed. And as we do not want new states, nor do we believe in forced sterilization, since that would entail believing in politics, in rights, in the laws of Civilization, which we reject. It is obvious that overpopulation is a real problem for the free development of the human being, of animals and the Earth; it is totally abnormal to live together with hundreds of strangers around you. But at least ITS does not answer by reducing the global population, positioning ourselves in favor of human sterilization or collective genocide. ITS only answers by rejecting it and hurling radical critique at the Techno-industrial Society and not falling into its game, only this.
We do not believe that the kind of life of the middle ages would be appropriate to live. And neither do we believe that people in general would want and/or can return to living in that way. The form of life that ITS defends (and the one that the human being is biologically programmed for through evolution) is that of hunter-gatherer-nomad; in many parts of the world people still live in this way (with all of the limitations), which shows that it is still viable to live in this way; we emphasize that this form of life can be carried out only by those few who are decided to break with everything civilized; we are not insinuating that all people should adopt it.
Remember that in past times, “… [The people who formed Civilization] were the discontent, the weak and the disparaged who separated themselves from their more fortunate and dominant companions and made the first attempts to settle and break ground for a way of life”  (brackets are from ITS).
Now, in modern times it is for the few strong and decided individuals to abandon Civilization and return to the Nature we are part of.
The extinction of species in many cases is even natural and is tied to their evolution (even Darwin called it “natural selection” ).
Nature knows when and at what moment the time has arrived in which some animal will cease to exist. Extinction forms part of the ecological equilibrium and one must accept this.
Everything is fine until the human being comes with its anthropocentrism and wants to “save” or preserve these kinds of species whose own environment and physiology have brought them to disappearance.
The natural equilibrium is also violated when the anthropocentric human being massively hunts various animals to remove some “prime material” or simply for sport, creating a “civilized extinction” (to call it that).
ITS positions itself against this artificial and irrational extinction. In fact, Nature does not need the civilized human to take charge of intentionally extinguishing species (as Linkola declares), and it remains clear that these kinds of acts are in themselves an attack against Wild Nature .
Mr. Pentti Linkola is against “foreign” animals bringing an environment to “imbalance,” but what Linkola hasn’t thought (or seen) is that the same Civilization is what drives those animals to “invade” other foreign environments in the face of that Civilization’s demographic growth. So the problem is not the foreign animals, but the Civilization, it is the true problem.
The positions of ITS and the positions of the so-called “eco-fascists” are vastly different and completely antagonistic. While they want to regulate overpopulation, the ecological damage of industrialization, and they say they are concerned for the Earth, their pseudo-positions are nothing more than leftist, reductionist and irrational ideologizations. Many of them exalt Nordic and/or Germanic paganism, are vegetarians in the style of Hitler, study botany and biology, live in forests in a rural manner, but they do not have a real critique of the Techno-industrial System and they adopt recycled and useless ideologies (such as national socialism, fascism, monarchical totalitarianism, etc). In brief, “eco-fascism” is the result of minds of little intelligence, adapted to aberrant and reformist political-social-military theories that only want the system to become stronger.
We hope that we have (at least) have made ourselves understood in the majority of the points written so far in this seventh communique.**
ITS thinks that in order to plot an effective struggle against the Techno-industrial System, these kinds of texts have to be made public, as well as analysis and (self) criticism that lead to reflection, rejection and confrontation; it takes experiences, lived experiences, mistakes and failures have to be committed, it also takes time. What is not needed is immobilism, useless confrontation, lack of analysis and/or lack of radicalism. We said in point IV, we do not have the “secret formula,” we act under trial and error, we accept our faults and with this we keep on going.
To end this text, we claim responsibility for sending a letter with explosive-incendiary material to the nanotechnology researcher Sergio Andrés Águila of the Institute of Biotechnology of UNAM in the city of Cuernavaca, Morelos.
ITS wants to emphasize that this action is not a “reaction from organized crime to the implementation of the single police command” as was said by that state’s jumpy governor Graco Ramírez .
Our attacks are directed to more concrete targets, the authorities and the press are always the ones who want to gloss over the information and/or make it seen differently.
ITS is not interested in the police’s “single commands,” what’s more we are not interested in politics (we consider ourselves apolitical) since our motivations go beyond the simple politicking that we are accustomed to.
It is worth mentioning that the Institute of Biotechnology of UNAM in Cuernavaca has already been hit before. On November 8, 2011, the biotechnology researcher Ernesto Méndez Salinas was assassinated by a shot to the head on Teopanzaolco Avenue; months later the police reported that they had arrested those responsible , which is a lie.
It is not an accident that the same institute has been hit now, in order to make the truth known: the biotechnologist Méndez Salinas, on November 8 (only three months after the explosion in Monterrey Tec) became the first mortal victim of ITS
We have said it before, we act without any compassion in the feral defense of Wild Nature. Did those who modify and destroy the Earth think their actions wouldn’t have repercussions? That they wouldn’t pay a price? If they thought so, they are mistaken.
For the moment we only claim these actions, the Mexican government along with the scientific community know very well what attacks we have not made public, and although they hide the information, there is always space to again read something about the people who oppose in action the progress of the Techno-industrial System .
For now, that is all there is to say…
Individualists Tending toward the Wild
A brief note (22 February 2013)
By means of this short message, ITS claims responsibility for the envelope with incendiary contents which detonated on a curious worker of a business linked with the Mexican Postal Service (Sepomex) on the afternoon of February 21 of this year.
The authorities have declared that the parcel was addressed to a woman named Lilia Botello, which is a lie.
As one can see in the photograph from the press, the label that carried the address was burned when the dynamite was activated. This only left the supposed return address, which carried the name of Lilia Botello Ramos, with a residence in the San André Tetepilco neighborhood of the Iztapalapa sector of the Mexican capital.
ITS usually chooses some name and address at random to fill in the return address. Obviously we are not going to put our names in!
For the time being we are not publicizing the name of the real intended recipient, we will keep it secret in order to hinder the police investigations.
We are aware that these kinds of “accidents” may happen to reoccur, but this is only one of the consequences that the war against the Techno-industrial System brings.
As we have said in our seventh communique: If Technology does not stop, neither will ITS
Individualists Tending toward the Wild
Communique Eight (March 2014)
After a short period of silence due to recent events (public and not so public), the terrorist group ITS has something to declare:
“What is needed is not to seek negotiations with the system, but a life and death struggle against it”  – Theodore John Kaczynski
The popular science journal “Nature” published an article (October 2013) criticizing our third statement , which we wrote after bursting the meat of technonerds at Monterrey Tech in August 2011. In this text the “nano-anthropologist” Chris Toumey (University of South Carolina) made a very poor attempt to “break” our primary motivation in which we have to attack.
In the article, Mr. Toumey states that our attacks against nanotechnology are basically founded on the supposition of the Grey Goo scenario . Which is a lie.
The Grey Goo is a theory that first began to be popular in scientific environments and then caught the attention of the general public. The Nano-technologist Eric Drexler was the first person to use the term in his book “Engines of Creation” in 1986. In the year 2000, the co-founder of Sun Microsystems, Bill Joy wrote the famous article “Why the future does not need us”, (which we mentioned in our third communiqué), which set forth an apocalyptic vision of the Gray Goo, an article that caught the attention of some pseudo-critics of civilization, like John Zerzan, etc..
Since 2004 (when nanotechnology was more than a reality) the issue became so outrageous that Drexler publicly stated that the Grey Goo was only an illusory idea, and technological conditions were not suitable (at the time) for a catastrophe, as predicted years ago, to arise.
Given this, ITS want to state the following:
1. The hypothetical threat of Grey Goo has NEVER been our main motivation to begin the attack on nanotechnology in Mexico.
2. Since our third statement was published until now, some ideas of members of ITS have CHANGED (as evidenced from the sixth statement to this), and one of them is all that has to do with the alleged Grey Goo.
3. Now, we consider this theory as a simple catastrophic assumption, from a twisted mind hungry for public attention (Drexler).
With this statement we do not intend, in the least, that technologists give us their academic acceptance by rejecting the Grey Goo scenario (because obviously that will never happen, as they will never accept terrorism against them).
We employed direct attacks to damage both physically and psychologically, NOT ONLY experts in nanotechnology, but also scholars in biotechnology, physics, neuroscience, genetic engineering, communication science, computing, robotics, etc.. because we reject technology and civilization, we reject the reality that they are imposing with ALL their advanced science. We deny a life imposed on us by the system that dictates that we must walk mindlessly, obligatorily obeying orders from large organizations (industrial giants that tell you what to eat, what not to do, to say, to wear, where to go, etc..) and people outside our inner circle. We negate the artificiality and we cling to our past as Warriors of the Earth who cling to our darkest instincts of survival, and although we know we are civilized humans, we are awake and we claim ourselves as fierce individualists in TOTAL WAR against all that threatens our nature and Wild Naturethat is left.
“(…) On the altar of technological development, we are sacrificing all areas of our individual freedom and the possibility of living a life really worth living. Now it’s up to each of us to choose to be obedient subjects, or to try to live, here and now, and reject the existent (…)”  – Nicola Gai
- We chose to attack from the outset, because nanotechnology is a science that is having a significant growth in the future and will exponentially advance global economic and power OVER all Wild Nature.
Nanotechnology pushes a hyper-technological process and a hyper-artificiality of imposed reality, which in itself is already too absurd for scientists, so they try to make it more miserable and mechanical.
Already Albert Einstein once said: “All our supposed technological advances are like an axe in the hands of a madman.”
-Toumey in his article in “Nature”, has also said that we know nothing about nanotechnology and that it is absurd to attack, knowing so little. ITS members are not going to discuss with experts the pros and cons of nanotechnology, so if we say that we UNDERSTAND loudly, that science (and other things) are a danger to our individuality, and to the natural environment in which we evolved, there is no need to be a genius or have high academic and labour studies, to shred all this garbage of technological progress.
- Taking issue with the arrogant criticism of Toumey, ITS has realized (as FC realized years ago)  that scholars, professors, researchers and academics are not always as smart as they claim to be, because if so, Herrera and Aceves of Monterrey Tech would not have been injured by the explosion of a letterbomb (which you could tell was from the apocryphal leagues), the morning of August 8, 2011; if it was like this, the professor of the Polytechnic University of Pachuca would not have suffered various burns after opening a package that was NOT addressed to him, but a nano-technologist, the afternoon of December 8, 2011; if he was smart, the biotechnologist Méndez Salinas of the Institute of Bio-Technology (IBT) of UNAM would have noticed that someone was watching for him for weeks in his footsteps, and he would not have received that shot that killed him instantly, the night of November 8, 2011 .
If all these technonerds had had any brains, they would know in advance that there are people who are bitterly opposed to the way they are domesticated, mutating and ending life and wild environments, and would not have committed so much to their daily routines.
Along with these three real examples, we could list other objectives (such as attacks on Olivera, activist of Greenpeace, and the nanotechnologists Galem Rondero and Sergio A. Águila  of the UNAM, in 2011 and 2013) that although not injured, left much to be desired regarding their supposed intelligence, being university professors.
At the same time, view the decision of scholars in state, district and / or national security, criminology, ballistics, law, etc.., Hiding our attacks, is not worthy of smart people with advanced degrees, because these people know very well that hiding them while more and more of our attacks happen will mean that we will claim at the same time a list of acts, (as we have done so far), to create a greater impact, and/or highlight the lies and cover-ups by the authorities, making them look like ridiculous idiots.
Anyway, with this ITS wants to make it clear once again that the flaccid reviews of smart academic experts will not stop us, their darkest fears will come true sooner or later.
As we continue along the same path of artificial growth, the mentality and conduct of the Technoindustrial Society will be gradually manipulated further. There will come a time in which the Leftist masses will miss attacks on technology, civilization and progress, and blindly believe what is killing them slowly now is good, and all those who dare to contradict their values are crazy or dysfunctional. And while this may be applicable, ITS would like to emphasize that although the official (and unofficial) media disqualify and silence our attacks, these are things that do not interest us, to speak ill of ITS or suspiciously hide information indicates that we have become a latent threat    and will continue to be (of course), unless the Technoindustrial system collapses (sarcasm), or before we are caught, although the latter option seems to be far from realization.
From the beginning we have claimed our attacks, whether they have worked or not, whether they have come to public light or not, why? Because as individualists we are responsible for our own actions; our packages explode or not; our bullets hit the target or not; this will continue to be included in future adjudications. At this point ITS claim the following acts:
- August 2012: We sent a packet with explosive payload to neurologists of the Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico (ITAM) in Mexico City, which no public notice was learned of; how the package was found or deactivated etc.; a typical act when it comes to direct attack to physically injure the wealthy technonerds of such an institute.
- September 2013: Parcel bomb addressed to Alejandra Lagunes Soto, former director of Google Mexico and current head of the National Digital Strategy Coordination of the Presidency of the Republic.
- September 2013: Explosive package to the Director of modernization and administration of the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) Guillermo Turrent Schnas.
In the latter two cases no public news broke, since then, the DF government was busy enough to contain the demonstrations of teachers and anarchist riots caused by them, leaving aside such acts. The crisis had been made more than obvious, as the authorities had decided to not publish in their media the news of the attacks. However, it is known that these packages are ours.
Finally, as we had already mentioned in past releases, with these attacks we have executed we are not trying to win or lose (because who thinks they will win, since that time, has already lost). Our attacks address the system and that which sustain it, our acts demonstrate that we have NOT submitted, we have NOT accepted their values, we remain human rather than robots, that we have NOT fully domesticated our behaviour, that we are reluctant to join their lies and their negotiations, covenants that we do not want. We do not want something more beneficial or less harmful. We want confrontation, war to the death against this dirty system.
INDIVIDUALISTS TENDING TOWARD THE WILD
 Here we do not at all want to situate ourselves in student victimism, to which there are infinite subjects from people in Mexico. The students (a great majority) complain that the state does not give them education in order to progress in their non-lives and to carry them on normally, — “when you go through the street in a city that is dying of scabies and you walk along with human cockroaches who speak of heroin and child pornography, do you truly feel normal?” — to paraphrase a fictional person. The claim to the eduction imparted by the state is civilized, which we reject.
 Isn’t it contradictory that individuals who say they are against technology used a computer and internet? For us no, since we use it as a means to make critiques and strike up relations of affinity. Only thus can we spread our ideas, we who are in anonymity. Did you really think, stupidly, that those who make a critique of the Techno-industrial System spread this discourse on carved stones?
 The Road to “Revolution” by Ted Kaczynski.
 The Ego and His Own by Max Stirner.
 “When Non-violence is suicide” and “The Coming ‘Revolution’” by Ted Kaczynski.
 Although the published communique has some (not so many) classist markings, we offer as reference the text called “Regarding the handling and misrepresentation of the figure of our comrade Mauri.” (Spanish link).
 Data from El Economista, February 28th, 2011.
 First communique of Individualists Tending toward the Wild (ITS) for the package bomb action against the director of Nanotechnology Engineering of the Polytechnic University of Valle de México (UPVM) on April 14 of this year. Which left a security guard seriously wounded.
 Second communique of ITS on the action and a threat of a explosive device against the Nanotechnology campus of the same university May 9th of this year. The result was not published by the press, which seeing that ITS had claimed the first attack, decided not to disclose it.
 Although we have dissected the term revolution and revolution in our previous communiques, we only have done it within a line, that is, we have critiqued and eliminated these terms when we mean that there are individuals or groups who feel enlightened to proclaim themselves as such. The system has been the example, the system that has made a joke of “revolutionaries” since the system is the only thing that is revolutionary, the system that has changed everything radically tending to the artificial and disregarding the natural, the principal example being the Industrial Revolution and now the Technological Nanorevolution.
 To know more about this term, read the Unabomber Manifesto: Industrial Society and its Future.
 The rest of the scientists also develop this kind of dominating technology to achieve a high social status by means of national and international, private or public, prestige; however, the altrustic idea that the scientists develop nanotechnology and whatever kind of this to help others, remains completely ruled out.
 Data from El Economista, February 28th, 2011.
 Conference in the Public University of Navarra, Spain. March 9th, 2011.
 Term used in the book by Eric Drexler Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology, 1986).
 Passages from the book by Eric Drexler Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology, 1986).
 Excerpts from the text by Bill Joy “Why the future doesn’t need us.”
 Here, Bill has not understood very deeply who Ted is in reality. The term Luddite was given to those British artisans who when the Industrial Revolution happened had to leave their jobs because of the rise of modern machines; they, as a response to this situation, began to sabotage the machines, but they did not do so because they wanted to destroy the nascent technological progress or because they had a radical critique of where the system would be carrying us with the machines, but as a simple psychological repercussion of seeing their jobs lost. So, analyzing this, we cannot categorize Kaczynski as a simple Luddite or neo-Luddite because he was and remains more than that.
 She contributed also to the creation of a supposed cure for influenza, according to The Journal of Science.
 ITS considers that health within Civilization is a far-out concept; there cannot be supposed health when the whole [entorno meaning ‘environment’ as well as ‘whole’ — transl.] is sick.
 To delve into this topic, read The Most Ingenious Trick of the System by Ted Kaczynski.
 Perhaps it sounds counterproductive to speak out against the technology while using a machine to write these kind of criticisms and claims, but ITS has seen it necessary to encourage all those individuals and/or groups to continue to go to war against the system and not stay in critical-literary ambit. That said, we do not in any way justify Technology.
 ITS footnote explained the meaning of ‘cluster’ in English – transl.
 Information taken from the Cluster vision and mission.
 Information from clients and contributors to PIIT
 Gary Small, author of the book iBrain, is one of the most important neurobiologists in the United States. He is also the director of the Center for Research of Memory and Aging at the Semel Institute of Neuroscience and Human Behavior at the University of California – Los Angeles (UCLA).
 Interview with Gary Small: Does the Internet speed up the brain?
 Jordan Hall, May 26th, 2010.
 Einstein said: Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I am not sure so sure about the first…
 “10 facts on the explosion at Monterrey Tec.” El Universal EdoMex, August 8th of this year.
 “Device explodes in university of Tultitlán; one seriously wounded.” Milenio, April 20th of this year.
 “CNDH opens complaint for explosion in the Tec.”, El Universal, August 8th of this year.
 April 14, May 9, and August 9 of this year.
 In order to know a little more about this term, read Industrial Society and its Future by Freedom Club.
 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.
 The Antichrist. Friedrich Nietzsche.
 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.
 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.
 1984. George Orwell.
 Industrial Society and its Future by Freedom Club.
 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.
 The Fountainhead. Ayn Rand.
 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.
 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.
 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.”
 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.
 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.
 The Fountainhead. Ayn Rand.
 Giacomo Rizzonatti during the symposium “The substratum of the society of consciousness: The brain. Recent advances in neuroscience.” El País, October 2005.
 “Reading the mind. The brain and the art of fiction.” Jorge Volpi.
 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.
 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.
 An expression referring to the way in which things that one said carelessly can return with a vengeance. It seems (it’s not quite clear) that the expression’s sensibility is that humans live in and by words in the way that fish live in and by water, and so do we also die by them. – transl</em>
 Two-dimensional material formed by covalent bonds and carbon atoms, it is more resistant than steel, flexible and energy-conducting. With graphene, Science is closer to the new hypertechnologized era.
 Technology that pretends to imitate the perfection of nature for the creation of artificial innovations.
 “Unabomber for president” was a political campaign headed by the leftist artist Lydia Eccles in some parts of the United States, the idea was that people “would realize” the “totalitarian control of technology” on the basis of the text Industrial Society and its Future by F.C., spread through communication media in 1995.
 One of the first actions of the ELF, which gained notoriety in the means of communication, was the arson of the Oregon Ranger Station in 1996.
 Here we include the Terrorist Cells for the Direct Attack – Anticivilization Faction, although it is worth mentioning that we have some differences with their communique transmitted on September 5, 2011 after making an attempt against the INE and against the IFaB in Mexico City.
 Which we spoke about in the brief communique from ITS on December 19, 2011.
 In our fourth communique we pointed out that:
“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.”
 By “Techno-industrial System” we refer to the conjunction of physical components as well as conceptual ones (values) that include complex Technology, science, industry, Civilization and artificiality. The Techno-industrial System is the target to strike because from it (and its population [the Techno-industrial Society]) emanates the functioning, improvement and perpetuation of the megamachine called Civilization.
 Nature, #476
 On September 11, 2012, the Northeast Federal University of Russia sent out a communication in which they reported on the acquisition of possible cellular material of mammoths in a province in Siberia. With this material, the scientists intend to clone that species which has been extinct for centuries.
 Nature, #485
 Nature, #488
 “Primitive Society” by B. Burnet Taylor, European Review. April 11, 1875.
 By “oversocialization” ITS understands a psychological state where the conjunction of acceptable “moral” values in Civilization and the rejection of ideas that are not acceptable for the civilized human within society are joined. An individual who is oversocialized is incapable of having thoughts contrary to the accepted “moral” without feeling guilty for what he thinks, he experiences self-loathing and guilt for having improper thoughts. At the same time, the oversocialized person reproaches as inappropriate those thoughts and actions that go against the social “moral.” This is why for the Techno-industrial Society it is condemnable for someone to discriminate, because that society as a whole is oversocialized.
For a better knowledge of this topic, read Industrial Society and Its Future by Ted Kaczynski (we recommend reading it in English).
 When ITS makes reference to the words “primitive” and “wild,” we refer to the meaning these words have in their literal sense. That is, they signify people who have not been domesticated and consequently do not accept the norms of conduct dictated by modern society, and/or the primary state of animals (including the human) and flora in general living in synchrony, forming the complex non-artificial self-regulating process, forming part of a whole, that whole being Wild Nature.
This is why we call ourselves Individualists Tending toward the Wild. Because that is what we are, individuals come together who are heading toward a “feralization” (to call it that), that is, who are tending to adopt or regress to a primitive state or a very ancient and simple lifestyle.
But what primary state, ancient and simple lifestyle are we referring to? We refer to the period of the primitive human in which it develops without complex technology, without agriculture, without sedentarism and consequently without Civilization. The paleolithic period of human history appears to be the most fitting to answer this question. Specifically we think that the life of the first homo sapiens is the right one.
Obviously planet earth in our era is highly populated and has changed quite a bit during the many periodizations that it has endured from the paleolithic until now.
It is very different to say that such a way of life appears fitting to us, than it is to say that it is easy to return to living that way. Although it is obvious that some cultures in the world still go on subsisting as their ancestors did for thousands of years (for example Australian Aboriginals, Yanomamis, Mentawais, Danis, Bushmen, Eskimos, Huaoranis, some Raramuris, etc), there are some powerful limitations (physical, psychological and perhaps environmental) that we as modern human beings must confront and surpass if we want to adopt anew this way of living together with Nature; even though every day there are fewer wild areas in America (to speak of “our” territory) where one can employ the hunter-gatherer-nomadic life, we do not see such a question as completely impossible. It would be highly naive to say it is easy. Logically it has to have a process.
 With this, ITS is not trying to imply that the life of primitive man was easy and hedonist. When ITS says that “primitive man would live happily in family” we want to make it understood that in those times there did not exist the majority of the family problems that are characteristics of our age.
 The Human Zoo, Desmond Morris. 1970, Plaza & Janes, S. A. Editores, pg 18.
With regard to this book, ITS wants to emphasize that we reject Morris’ progressivist ideas, we transcribe the small fragment only because it is logical, not because we are in agreement with everything the author writes.
 By “filicidal” is meant the psychological as well as physical damage that parents instil in their children during early ages, explosion of frustrations, mental diseases, deficient self-esteem, depression, uselessness, extreme megalomania, etc.
 By “indulgence” we refer to the act of indulging, or spoiling, the child in this case.
 “Psychoanalysis of “Filicide” and Juvenile Protest” by Dr. Jorge Remus Araico and Dr. Hernando Flroez Arzayús. 1971, Organización Editorial Navaro, S.A., pg 44–45.
 For a better understanding of the topic of natural laws, the story The Call of the Wild by Jack London is highly recommended.
 Some anarchists (not all) go to the limit, saying that people or other anarchists should “reject” their instincts because, according to them, they are something that dominate or manage them. Something that we see as absurd, since our instincts, impulses and physical, psychological and biochemical reactions (conscious or unconscious) are something that characterize us as human animals and it is practically impossible not to carry them out.
 “History shows us (…) that even living in wilder ages when men only lived by hunting, natural fruits and the roots that grew uncultivated, there was a law of territorial property destined to safeguard the right of hunting. Each tribe had known limits, indicated by means of rocks, streams of water, trees, and even artificial signs.” Fragment of “Primitive Society” by B. Burnet Taylor, European Review, April 11, 1875.
 ITS totally supports the idea of Animal Liberation and Earth Liberation; speaking of animal liberation and earth liberation is not the same, since they are different ideas. While the latter is the capacity to develop and unfold, without any artificial limitation, the biological necessities of animals and of the earth itself, the first (broadly speaking) refers to the action, movement or struggle to take animals from their captivity (often times motivated by psycho-emotional frameworks [not in all cases]). ITS considers the act of depriving a wild animal of its Freedom, or genetically manipulating the development of a sylvan plant species, an abominable thing, but we do not struggle for their liberation, we struggle for their complete Freedom.
 By “true Freedom” ITS refers to the self-sufficient development of capacities, tendencies and necessities, biological, physical and emotional, individually as well as accompanied by an immediate and reduced social circle of afines. Integral development without any mediation or limitation imposed by Civilization and human progress. All this within a natural environment determined by such evolutionarily adapted individuals. That is the true Freedom primitive man enjoys, without agriculture, without large-scale production and without complex Technology.
 By “Civilization” one should understand any settlement and determined urban social system which implies large-scale demographic growth, large organizations that administer activities that make room for economic-political-social sustainability. Within this sustainability is agriculture, animal breeding, mining, business, institutions, states, information media, commercial organizations very structured and at proportionally large scales. We reject and criticize any Civilization that fulfills all or several of these characteristics, be they Eastern Civilizations, or Arabic, Asiatic, Mesoamerican, etc.
The bottom line is, Civilization is a complex society.
 Cradle of Civilization, 1978, Samuel Noah Kramer and editors of TIME-LIFE Books, pg 15.
 This is why we began this text with a saying of the Native Americans. The saying can perhaps be translated as biocentrist at plain sight, but it is not this, may the reader not be confused–as much as we are part of Wild Nature, we are also living beings who belong to this Earth, both at the same time.
 For a better understanding of the term, read The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin.
 Much has been said about Wild Nature in this and other texts but what is meaning that these two words have for ITS? For ITS Wild Nature is the complex development of sylvan ecosystems and living wild beings that harbors the complex natural self-regulating environment outside of the artificialization of Civilization.
 “Threats Against Graco Continue: Letter Bomb Left in UNAM Academic Office.” Proceso, February 11, 2013.
 “Suspected Assassin of UNAM Researcher Arrested in Cuernavaca,” Organización Editorial Mexicana, January 27, 2012.
 “No Arrests Made Yet for the Explosion in Monterrey Tec.” Diario de Yucatán, January 13, 2013.
 Phrase taken from the text “Hit Where It Hurts” (2002)
 The article is entitled: “Anti-nanotech violence”
 Grey Goo is a hypothesis of the catastrophic results of nanotechnology: self-replicating nano-robots uncontrollably spreading throughout the world and universe. In our third statement we have written enough about this topic.
 Quote taken from the public statements (October 2013) of anarchist responsibility from comrades Gai and Cospito, for the attack on Roberto Adinolfi (Ansaldo Nucleare boss) in May 2012, in the city of Genoa, Italy. For this event, we have written something in our seventh release.
Maybe it will call the attention of observers that ITS cite these two anarchists, and we stress that clearly their words and actions coincides with ours even though we don’t entirely agree with all their ideas. We quote them anyway, as we would have done if anarchists Mario Buda, Galliani, Di Giovani, Roscigna, Ravachol, among others, were alive.
 Freedom Club wrote in a letter to the computer specialist, David Gelernter (who was seriously injured by a parcel bomb in 1993): “People with advanced degrees aren’t as smart as they think they are. If you’d had any brains you would have realized that there are a lot of people out there who resent bitterly the way techno-nerds like you are changing the world and you would not have been dumb enough to open an unexpected package from an unknown source.”
 On this event, and because of our adjudication, some unbelievers have swallowed the lie that was spread (at the time) by the authorities of the state of Morelos (with use of the official media) that ITS was rumoured not to have caused the death of Mendez, but it was the work of a “gang that steals cars” as the national press repeated. A statement which is absurd at first sight, but of course, a teacher killed during an attempted robbery sounds less worse than the murder of a Biotechnology expert of the UNAM by an extremist group.
Here, we mention that in 2011 the (newly formed) ITS was testing various modus operandi (from known and attempted arson attacks on cars and construction machinery, companies and institutions in Coahuila, Guanajuato, and Veracruz State of Mexico, until we decided to focus on terrorism and not sabotage), some were successful and some not, the most violent cell of ITS in Morelos, being already familiar with the purchase and use of firearms, decided to implement the act by then. It would be the strongest (the murder of Méndez), and in fact was claimed in an indirect and/or symbolic form to achieve on the 8th November, (as an equal to the day of the attack on Monterrey Tech 8th August). We also mentioned this in a letter sent to a pair of physicists from the UNAM (read our sixth communiqué) in November of that year (for this, you can read a little more in an interview for an anarchist project ITS answered in April 2012, but published in late January of this year 2014), the act was not the impact we wanted in that year, because there was no DIRECT logical reasons, so waited until 2013 to reorganize another blow at the same institute [letter bomb to Andres Aguila, researcher of UNAM Institute of Biotechnology].
It was like this the ITS cell in Morelos chose Chilean Nanotechnologist Sergio Andrés Águila. It was directed precisely to a Chilean, because we decided to symbolically thank the blog in Chile Liberación Total for spreading our texts (this we already spoke of in our seventh release). The information (full name, address, and other data) of Mr Águila was sent to ingenious cells of ITS in DF [Mexico City Federal District], they are familiar with the manufacture of homemade explosives, sent package bombs, but by a failure of the electrical mechanism, the device did not explode, but because the package was opened by the same Andrés Águila, at least had not missed it’s target. The researcher would have received the same degree of injuries (if not more) that was sustained by a curious man who opened one of our packages in DF (21 February 2013), a few days after what had happened in Morelos (11 February 2013) [the letterbomb attempt against Aguila]. Although this attack did not reach the expected result, it served to know the TRUTH about removing Mendez by ITS group members.
Curiously, a month after the fact we acted, the main suspect who was in jail accused of the murder of the technologist and other charges was acquitted for lack of evidence
“Acquittal of alleged murderer of UNAM researcher.” Milenio Diario. March 19, 2013.
With this we break the silence, saying that we destroy any questions about our responsibility in the attack; as we said above, as individualists we become responsible for our own actions; and to the authorities and objectives struck, to give them no doubt that our words are NO joke, they are NOT a game, our words are only the consequences of our actions.
 On this researcher and another curious fact in the news section of the journal “Nature” was published the note: “Letter bomb threat rattles Mexican biotechnology lab” (February 18, 2013), which states that (days after the attack), on the website of the IBT, Mr. Águila had changed his details as “contributor” to “ex-partner” of the institute, what happened we wonder? Will Mr. Águila have been so smart as to resign from his detestable trade? Or only the institution will have changed? Anyway, we will know sooner or later, and as you well know, we will go through your head and that of your colleagues, maybe tomorrow, or in a few months or a few years, but we WILL GO …
 “Por sobres-bomba y homicidio de académico: Van por ala terrorista de anarquistas” Diario 24 Horas, 26 February 2013
 “Anarchist attacks in Mexico are numerous, but very few are reported by the media. That was the case of the explosive package placed in a mailbox that on last February 21 erupted in the hands of a Postal Service worker who illegally opened it. In a report dated February 22 the attack was the act of an anarchist group claimed Individualists Tending Toward the Wild, one of the most active in Mexico and whose attacks against the “techno-industrial system” aimed at academic and scientific centers such as the UNAM or Tecnológico de Monterrey. This group claimed responsibility for the murder committed in Cuernavaca on November 8, 2011 – Ernesto Méndez Salinas, a biotechnologist at UNAM”
“Alarm in Europe of Mexican anarchists” Process Magazine 1903, April 21, 2013.
 “Following the riots of October 2, the City Government launched an investigation that has begun to identify the anarchist groups (…)” “(…) An anarchist group on record using explosives, due to attacks against institutions or persons, is Individualities Tending to the Wild (ITS), considered the most dangerous.” ”(…) The strategy is based on sending explosives to researchers and academics, the study found. In February this year, ITS claimed an explosive package in a mailbox in Tlalpan, and in August 2011 a letter bomb was sent to a professor at the State of Mexico Campus Tec, Alejandro Aceves López, who was leading a project to create a humanoid robot (…)”
“Government identifies anarchist groups” Reforma, 11 October 2013.