ITS on Indiscriminate Attack and its Critics

  • Posted on: 8 March 2016
  • By: Chahta-Ima

Original found here:

“So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”

For some time now many have been commenting on the eco-extremist position of carrying out indiscriminate attacks. The attacks, which have now extended from North into South America, have caused a great deal of consternation among radical anarchists, not to speak of the modern left.

The unsettled discourse coming from these groups has its origins in the initial ITS communiqués dating from 2011 forward. These openly favored terrorist violence for those who work in favor of techno-industrial progress without regard as to whether innocent bystanders are hurt.

This attitude was plainly evident in the first attack by the group when a UPVM worker did not deliver the mail-bomb left at the campus to the selected target. Instead he decided to open it himself, and his wounds were the first incident in the series of attacks that continues to this day.

Since its beginning, ITS has no doubt been a group without classification that has clashed with various eco-anarchist circles characterized by their civilized and progressivist posturing, as well as their “cult of the victim” and humanism.

Some Background

In Mexico, various collectives, organizations, and individuals that advocate the same old ideologies antagonistic to the state, institutions, political parties, etc. have been scandalized by ITS and its official statements. They never really understood them, and still don’t get them it seems.

What was with all of those communiqués and attacks against scientists in 2011? A few pansies whined to anyone who would hear that ITS was a macabre front to justify repression against the social movements and anarchists active at the time.

From where did such a group emerge that is so problematic in its attacks? What did these claims of responsibility on behalf of Wild Nature mean? Isn’t Mexico the land of Zapatistas, commies, and shitty anarchists who go on and on about autonomist-populist discourses? Is this some sort of split from an armed communist group? Are they really radical ecological militants as they claim to be or are they agent provocateurs to be used to jail the same whiny usual suspects clamoring for justice? Or is this some sort of elaborate troll executed by a bunch of bored punks?

No, ITS is a group of individualists coming out of eco-anarchism who have departed with unrealistic and utopian ideals. They criticized and self-criticized, working in the shadows to carry out attacks in the here and now.
ITS adamantly states that there is NOTHING that can change society for the better. Neither can we rely on a “primitivist paradise” or a revolution to struggle for. We aren’t anarchists, communists, feminists, punks, or any other stereotypical “radical”. We are at WAR with civilization. We are against the technological system, against science and all that seeks the domestication of Wild Nature and wants to impose an artificial life upon us as humans bound to our most profound roots in the past. We don’t deny our own personal contradictions. Indeed, we don’t really care if we seem “inconsistent” to those who issue dumb arguments like, “If they oppose technology, why do they use the Internet?” We piss on their vague and baseless criticisms.

After the first phase of ITS in 2011, the second began after the publication of the sixth communiqué in January 2012. This document contained a number of self-criticisms which ITS made to rid itself of vestigial anarchism and the influence of Theodore Kaczynski.

The third phase reached in 2014 with the emergence of Reacción Salvaje (Wild Reaction) clarified ideas even more. Here a penchant for indiscriminate attacks was maintained and carried out by different groups: of the 25 communiqués issued that year, 15 were primarily concerned with claiming responsibility for a particular attack.
ITS was not lying when it said in these communiqués that it was not interested in who was wounded in these attacks. It was pretty clear then that they were indiscriminate and this continues to be true.
In April 2011, ITS’s attack left the already-mentioned UPVM worker in the Mexico State gravely injured. In August of that year a package-bomb left two important professors of the Tec University of Monterrey in similar condition. In November they assassinated a recognized biotechnology investigator in Morelos with a gunshot to the head. In December an envelope-bomb wounded another professor at the UPP in Hidalgo. In 2013, a postal worker was wounded after having stolen a package-bomb from a mailbox in Mexico City. That is all to say that, from 2011-2013, ITS’s attacks left 5 injured and one dead: four were serious and two hit unintended targets.

This was the same story with RS: in July 2015 a public official belonging to the Commission of Human Rights suffered burns after opening a package found in the garage of the headquarters of that institution in Mexico State. On August 14th a secretary if the Cuevas Group (engineers linked to the ICA) was hurt in a similar manner after opening a package left at its offices in the same state.

After the death of RS, successor eco-extremist groups have already racked up a casualty list. In October 2015 nine bombs were left in nine separate Mexibus buses in Mexico State. These were detonated using timers and even though this was an attack on public transit, only one person was injured. Nevertheless, the danger of doing major damage to both life and property was quite severe, but the author of the attack, “The Pagan Sect of the Mountain and Allied Groups”, did not care about this.

In November of that year, a package bomb was left inside the National Agriculture Council in Mexico City and wounded the Vice-President of the Pro-GMO Alliance, as well as his secretary and two bystanders who were nearby. The “Eco-Extremist Circle of Terrorism and Sabotage” took responsibility for the attack.

Two other groups coming out of RS, “The Indiscriminate Faction” and “Ouroboros Nihilista”, have tried to detonate explosives at their targets without concern that they might hurt innocent bystanders. Even though their attacks do not appear successful so far, their intention remains the same.

In January of this year, 2016, ITS then resurfaced with its first communiqué, which opens a new chapter. Even for the usual suspects in this War, this has been a surprise. Fifteen days after the publication of this communiqué, ITS carried out six attacks with explosives in three different states in Mexico. Its ability to carry out these widespread successive attacks has given people much to talk about. A second communiqué claimed responsibility for the January-February attacks. A week after its publication a Transatiago Bus was reduced to a burnt-out hunk of metal in Santiago, Chile in broad daylight. The name of the group that took responsibility for carrying out the attack was “Individualists Tending Toward the Wild – Chile”.

With this third group communiqué, it was evident that indiscrimate eco-extremism was going international. A week after the bus burning, a fourth communiqué signed by “Individualists Tending Toward the Wild – Argentina” was issued taking responsibility for an explosive device left at the Nanotechnology Foundation, for various threatening messages sent to scientists and the press, and also for having left a package full of blasting powder with a message at a bus station in Buenos Aires.
Even though ITS in February carried out attacks in three distinct countries under its own direction, in ten separate attacks some of which were carried out in broad daylight, this wave of attacks only left two bystanders wounded.

In March a fifth communiqué of ITS-America (Mexico, Chile, and Argentina) defended and re-emphasized the position that has been advocated since 2011: it doesn’t matters if bystanders get hurt, this is War, the method of attack is indiscriminate. ITS does NOT have any moral qualms in carrying out its attacks.
In the aftermath of these disturbing words, there were reactions…

Debates, notes, and insinuations

Various anarchist “counter-information” blogs reported on these attacks by eco-extremist groups in Mexico with the caveat that they did not approve of these attacks even though they decided to publish the communiqués anyway. Others chose to publish them without comment or editorializing. Some only mentioned the actions themselves while silencing our positions. This is
understandable, as no blog, magazine, or any other anarchist project has any obligation to publicize what eco-extremist groups do or say. There will always be criticisms between us, some constructive and some not so much. What the Editorial Group of Regresión Magazine would like to clarify is the following:

-We don’t want everyone else to accept our “terms and conditions”, we are not trying to be nice or friendly to strangers. We don’t want others to be more like us. We are not looking to make converts from eco-anarchism to eco-extremism. The few who decide to go down this path are convinced that this project will be defended with tooth and claw; by planning and contemplating how to inflict surer and stronger blows.
Some anarchos call us out as being a “Mafia”. We’ll accept that classification from those critics and big talkers who go about defaming our project in Mexico as well as in other countries where the eco-extremist presence is felt.
We carry out a special type of crime, we are delinquents who have come together to attack different places in Mexico as well as in Chile, Argentina, and other countries. Don’t think twice about accusing us of being terrorists or a new type of mafia, because the shoe fits in this case and you’re not telling us something we don’t already know.

-Everyone is open to express their anger when they read our stuff; many closeted U.S. anarcho-Zerzanians (Anarchist News, to name one example) have done so. This last example in particular censored ITS communiqués since many on the site consider us “reactionaries”. We don’t bring this up because we are bitter and are playing the victim. We’re bringing it up so that these blogs don’t put on airs of being so tolerant of divergent opinions. And if they are indeed so “triggered” by our politically incorrect, terrorist, and Mafioso communiqués, they’d be doing us a favor by not publishing them.

-As we stated above, anyone can disagree with the indiscriminate eco-extremism that we advocate. For example, the so-called “Paulino Scarfó Revolutionary Cell” has done so in February of this year when it indirectly mentioned the ITS attack in Chile. To reiterate, it’s healthy to express criticism and disagreements, but insinuations are a whole other story. That’s not being particularly badass to be honest. Maybe they should have signed their communiqué, “Leo Tolstoy Anarcho-Christian Cell” instead of what they signed. It also seems that memory escapes these supposed anarchos, or they suffer temporary amnesia at the mention of the person who was the comrade of the TERRORIST Severino Di Giovanni, the anarchist who blew up the Italian Consulate in Buenos Aires, killing various fascists but also wounding bystanders, and who also murdered another anarchist who he had branded “a fascist”.

Scarfó accompanied Di Giovanni in the most violent phase of the Individualist War against mobile and symbolic objectives. He was INDISCRIMINATE, in fact he was condemned by the anarchists of his time as his methods were considered “inappropriate”.

It’s true CRPS, the eco-extremist groups, ITS, and we aren’t revolutionaries. We don’t particularly care for repetitive and boring leftist discourse. The difference between you and us is that we don’t beat around the bush about it and we don’t passively-aggressively deal in bitchy innuendo.

Some of our positions in regard to “Nigra Truo” (NT)

Some days ago a member of the blog, “Por la Anarquía” published a post where one can read his position for and against eco-extremism. To date it’s the only criticism that for us approaches being sincere as it doesn’t just focus on criticizing what we defend but also makes criticism of anarchist circles.
Still we’re not letting him get off that easily, so we have to clarify the following:

-It seems that NT has gotten his information about ITS all mixed up, as he has written that it is a contradiction to be pushing The Amoral Debate of the nihilists from the editorial house “Nechayevshchina” but at the same time have a moral rule of “Nature is Good, Civilization is Evil”. NT should be reminded that ITS has went through many phases: if the group defended that Naturien motto in 2011, it should be clarified that the ITS of today is different. It’s been years since we’ve utilized that phrase, so I hate to break it to you, NT, but your criticism is a day late and a dollar short. ITS no longer utilizes this motto, as Wild Nature works on an extramoral level.

-Reading NT’s criticism it seems like he is confused about what we, the defenders of the eco-extremist tendency, consider to be Indiscriminate Attacks. Putting a bomb in a bum’s cardboard box or lighting a Street vendor’s cart on fire is not what we are talking about when we mention

“indiscriminate attacks”. Indiscriminate attacks are when we place a bomb in a specific place, a factory, a university, a particular house, a car, or institution where our human or inanimate target can be found, without regard as to whether an explosive can harm bystanders. Indiscriminate

Attack is setting fire to a place of symbolic significance without worrying about whether “innocent people” will get hurt, in order to strike out at Human Progress. Indiscriminate Attack is what ITS has been doing since 2011 which was outlined at the beginning of this text: it’s sending package-bombs without regard for “collateral damage”, always having the objective of destabilizing, terrorizing, and spreading chaos in a society that cannot think for itself.

-We continue to celebrate “natural disasters” which can be considered acts of vengeance or violent reactions of Wild Nature (depending on one’s personal individualist worldview that departs from the one which civilized culture defends), derived from the environmental destruction that comes from the hand of man, from the giant multinational corporation to its
peons, the proletariat.


In closing, all that is left to say is that the attacks by eco-extremist groups will continue along with their unsettling discourse. There will be moments where we all agree to disagree, but let it be known that we will respond when appropriate as the politically incorrect terrorists that we
are. We say what is on our minds, and we clarify again that before anything, we are members of the Eco-extremist Mafia!!

With the inscrutable fury of Wild Nature!
With Chahta-Ima, Nechayevshchina, and Maldición Eco-extremista (Eco-extremist Curse)!
With ITS of Mexico, Chile, and Argentina!
Let the War continue!

Xale: Editor-in-Chief of Regresión Magazine
Mexico, Winter 2016



Well i for one hope you all die terrible deaths. Fuck you all -may you blow yourself up before you take out any more "collateral damage".

right, meanwhile you can go back to eating your boogers for the salvation of humanity with the rest of your self-righteous comrades while you live your life through proxy murder.

there is a world of things that exist between the poles of indiscriminate bomb planting (while caring fuck all who dies from it) and doing nothing supporting 'proxy murder' grow the fuck up--- the world isn't so simple that taking life easily is laudable. i don't care how many fancy communiques these people write- anarchists shouldn't support them or piss away time giving legitimacy to things they write by masturbating over their discourses,

bookfair nihilism > eco-strugglismo

It's true that every time any radical does anything significant, the discourse around it is filled with crap as everyone and their grandma chimes in but you'd think it should be pretty obvious to these folks which criticisms are serious.

Random murder; like firing a gun in to a crowd or steering a speeding car on to a sidewalk full of people. WHY? What's the goal? To make civilization even more insane while it thrashes around?

Also the repeated claims of not being anarchist while taking a bit of trouble to acknowledge and criticize anarchists, as if these people perceive themselves to be winning a pissing contest even though they keep emphasizing that they don't share goals with anyone. Why are we supposed to care why you do anything if you keep insisting that you don't have to explain or justify?

"-Reading NT’s criticism it seems like he is confused about what we, the defenders of the eco-extremist tendency, consider to be Indiscriminate Attacks. Putting a bomb in a bum’s cardboard box or lighting a Street vendor’s cart on fire is not what we are talking about when we mention “indiscriminate attacks”. Indiscriminate attacks are when we place a bomb in a specific place, a factory, a university, a particular house, a car, or institution where our human or inanimate target can be found, without regard as to whether an explosive can harm bystanders. Indiscriminate Attack is setting fire to a place of symbolic significance without worrying about whether “innocent people” will get hurt, in order to strike out at Human Progress. Indiscriminate Attack is what ITS has been doing since 2011 which was outlined at the beginning of this text: it’s sending package-bombs without regard for “collateral damage”, always having the objective of destabilizing, terrorizing, and spreading chaos in a society that cannot think for itself."

I don't know where it says "random murder". And I double-checked the Spanish and it doesn't say that either.

No, it doesn't say "random murder", why would it? That's just the logical conclusion when saying "Yeah, we use bomb attacks and don't give a fuck who draws the short straw." At that point, you're splitting hairs over the difference between "without regard for collateral damage" and my phrasing.

Reminds me of a similar issue in Greece where they burned down a bank and later found out there were two employees inside who died. I feel slightly different about that one because it was acknowledged as unfortunate, whereas these fuckers are doubling down.

Like they said in a previous communique, there's a difference between putting a bomb in the box of a random homeless person and targeting a specific thing like a university employee or a bus. Why do anarchists care about academics? Or bank employees? Could it be that they support the existence of universities and banks? Do they imagine an anarchist utopia that somehow has a giant, fossil fuel based public transit system? Serious questions.

"Why […] care about academics and bank employees?" Care about them? No. Care if they die a violent death? What kind of a person doesn't even react to the violent death of other human beings? I'm calling bullshit on all this nonsense.

Even IF there was anyone around here who's a a real-life hardened killer (yeah right), ain't no fucking way they'd be so flippant about the whole thing, reeks of 4/chan, nihilist, we-are-so-clever adolescent garbage. Go play outside kids.

You don't even know them. They are half way around the world, and you wouldn't have heard about them if not for the internet and globalized mass society. ITS/RS (and I) said nothing about not reacting. But why desire to save them? You don't know them and they have contributed to the oppression of themselves and of everyone they know and more, and they are not interested in stopping. They are literally the enemies of those who want freedom. Less so than bosses, scientists, and politicians but still enemies. If someone was attacking you directly, you'd fight back (at least, I hope...) So why doesn't the logic extend? The whole thing reeks of christianity and liberal humanism. Somehow people haven't learned that killing humans who cause you harm is something that has been done since before we started writing things down, at least until god and liberals told us not to. Shitting on ITS/RS supporters for not killing is also absurd. We pretty much all live in societies where killing for any reason, except when done by the state, is both terribly condemned and accompanied by extreme consequences.

Also, every commodity interaction valorizes/upholds/is causally linked to the harming of strangers. The idea that someone *crosses the line* in some way by doing an act like this smacks of innocent/guilty dichotomies of Christianity and humanism. If someone's going to play the moral responsibility game, at least play it fairly - we are all responsible for the world being what it is by that understanding.

If you want to know what reeks of contemporary Christian crusader values then it is definitely ITS who believe that collateral damage is acceptable as it is offset by the greater good of attacking civilization - a very similar mindset to another bunch of idiots who think it is okay to carpet bomb whole countries regardless of collateral damage in the interests of the greater good.

Do you seriously believe ITS are interested in the greater good of humanity? They are only interested in themselves and they do what they do because they desire to and because to not do so would make them feel even worse. They align with wildness because they desire to, not because they elevate it as the greater good. That's primitivism (and a christian argument)

You don't understand, we are with Wild Nature AND extramoral! Sticks and stones and everything nice, that s what little nihilists are made of.

"The leftist and anarchist can criticize eco-extremist action with more integrity, so the reasoning goes, because they too reject the violence of capitalism and the State. Aside from that, however, they create a fantasy world where “the guilty”, rich parasites who they have tried and sentenced to death in their own minds from the comforts of their talk-shops, are killed indiscriminately and even with cruelty, not taking into account that the bourgeoisie too are also husbands, fathers, sons, daughters, etc. And of course, they expect that violence to be minimal, as Revolutions have historically been dainty tea parties where the innocent never, ever get hurt…"

Talk about fantasy world with your neopagan/primitivist revival romantic pipedreams, or how killing a few scientists is going to make civilization collapse.

But sure I won't stand in your way from playing Rambo insurgency... in Mexico. Have fun and die young, like the rest of the ultra-violent warm-blooded dimwits over there. Couldn't care less... I got a civilizational MACHINE to fight against.

That is not what they are arguing is the effect of their actions.

What they are arguing over is one or two gigantic straw men built up and against "anarchists" as a whole, as they are putting all the anarchists in the same box as the Left. This is a non-debate over non-issues.

You're in FULL blind denial here.

Lol. Your post is a straw man in and of itself, fucktard. I (and OP) were talking about what they argue is the effect of their actions. I was not talking about any argument they have with anarchists (which they also probably have, but I don't give a fuck, and it's not at all relevant to the two following comments). They don't think civ will collapse from their actions, as OP claims they think. They are just doing what they do because they can, because there is nothing else that can't be recuperated. They have no delusions that it might accomplish something great, and depending on what the "great thing" might be it is likely not even desirable. So, how are your reformist actions going? Do you have your freedom yet? How many years has it been?

"So, how are your reformist actions going? Do you have your freedom yet? How many years has it been?"

So your answer when someone's showing you you've been building a straw men is... to build more straw men. Cool story bro.

Doing things "just because they can" sounds shallow as fuck in terms of theory. Way more, actually, than the Occupy retards. Here's to Bellamy.

If you paid attention to any theory, you'd know that's the only way to do anything and not have it be co-opted. If you are not interested in that, all actions you make are reformist by nature. It's not a straw man.

True, that principle is not a straw man. It's complete stupidity.

I suppose that eating or paying board games are "reformist" too, because they are serving an intelligible purpose or goal. On the other hand, it's impossible to recuperate, even less manipulate aimless dim-witted youngsters driven by intense emotions. Right.

It's a stretch but i guess eating could be recuperative if you use the energy from the food to do reformist actions. But in general no, those things individual/communal activities and are playing and can have immense value to the individuals doing them.

"The poet Robinson Jeffers once stated that cruelty was the most natural thing, yet civilized man makes it out to be contrary to nature"

Surely not under a capitalist violent totalitarian rule like the US or Mexico. But thanks for the mental desecration of relying on old naturalistic doctrines that use "nature" as ideological legitimation of human behavior. Malthus is back on its feet!

Oh an also that's so Brilliant of you to be quoting Stalin as another cheap excuse for your practice.

This text in itself is a rather amusing farce on what is the worst possible form of eco-terrorist insurgency (beyond maybe blowing oil wells in the ocean or derailing oil trains in a wild area). I'll read it to my accomplices for the lols.

ITS should fuck off critics considering critics (whatever moral bullshit this critics take out from some FBI psychological hole) is organized by FBI and other informants. don't forget that even obama declared war on "eco-terrorists", it means FBI and other countries kiss in ass Obama and realize his ideas (protection of corporations from militants). ITS rocks and they should continue (and they should never use internet or phones if they want to stay free birds).

You're a paranoid idiot who sees the smallest form of self-critique and analysis of the relation of practice with anarchist strategy and theory as "secret service/FBI" conspiracy. Or tell me how the ITS couldn't be a ploy by the Mexican pigs and/or the CIA to fuck up anticiv anarchist insurgency with about the same loonie crypto-fascist insurgency you've had in Europe before. There's more indications leaning towards this assumption than against it.

Too bad they're not as good at destroying straw men as they are at destroying actual, living humans. All they can think to say about their feckless, childish brutality is that anyone who has any issue with it is a pro-civ leftist ideologue. If they don't want to deal with what people are actually saying then we shouldn't listen to their endless chest-thumping either. In a few more years they'll be crying to a judge about how sorry they are, anyway. Unless they actually manage to set up an ISIS like territory, becoming yet another gang of political opportunists availing themselves of climate chaos.

I'm sure you'll feel nice and safe once the cops catch these bad people.

I know you're just being a sarcastic prick but obviously most people accidentally killed in these attacks have not been nor will they be anarchists. Why is not being a sociopath being equated with wanting these folks in prison? The issue is clear... stop killing indiscriminately and then expecting anarchists to give a shit about your nasty manifestos.

What tells you they aren't cops themselves? They sure expressed how rock-hard convinced they were to not being ever caught for what they did. Beyond drug cartels and cops, I don't see how else can have such conviction about their own safety.

Cops coming to sabotage your A-news com box and also your grungy free spaces where you serve dumpster-dived food.

What's your issue with dumpster-dived food?

Oh wait lemme guess... Filthy anarchist scavengers didn't pay for it? They should hunt/gather? Just do it yourself, cop.

Nothing it's just the truth tho.

Not arguing that one. Just your moral interpretation of which is better.

LMAO muh good feelz. Maybe we should pray a rosary for them...

diversity of tactics? anyone?

How about the boston marathon, that the diversity you want? that shit rocked.

Christ, ITS are lame these days. Seems like hardly a week goes by this year without them getting butthurt on the internet by anarchists and now they start to troll a-news like the rest of us. Fuck, where is the mystique? Haven't you got better things to do than care what we think?

It turns out they have a savvy English-Spanish translator PR man who knows the fucking difference between indiscriminate murder and random murder, and ITS didn't mention no random murder, no sir. Glad that's cleared up.

Once yor crew gets in too deep you lose irl contact with the world amd the internet is yr only social outlet

" a savvy English-Spanish translator PR man "

That's the nicest thing anyone has ever said about me. Thanks, fam.

It helps that I am a paid agent provocateur here to ruin your trolling of solidarity actions no one cares about.

Thanks for translating this.

Anarchists are well-known for their stellar mental health.

You seem to have some inflammatory beef with the "anarchists". What about the pigs, the controlled Left, the nationalists, the numerous fascist gangs of different guises and narratives, the Mexican capitalist drug/sex slave cartels, and those more privileged capitalists robbing and raping the land?

And you do appear to be forcibly avoiding the fact that the latest violent anti-tech attacks in Mexico were carried by anarchists.

if they don't care whether we (a-team) care, then why do they keep trying to clarify their position so hard? if they are truly at war and not intending on losing then why don't they want to convince others to join the fight? if they are truly at war why are they using such a limited range of tactics? if they are truly at war why do they focus on symbolic targets? why do they anthropomorphize nature by ascribing intentions to "natural disasters"? why do they pretend their position isn't routed in the very tendencies they are bad-mouthing? what makes their position amoral and how is that different from other anarchist manifestations which claim the same thing? why do they think their positions are only worthy of critique if that critique is also applied to other tendencies?

It's certainly hard to understand how they simultaneously reject “Nature is Good, Civilization is Evil” while also being unequivocally for "Wild Nature", often personified as you said. An ungenerous reading would say that they think just excising common moral words like "good" and "evil" is sufficient to eliminate the morality-based analysis entirely, but I'd like to think they would have a more nuanced understanding than that. Does anyone know if they have clarified this somewhere else?

Oh yes, as long as they're killing random people with a consistent phrase usage in thier manifestos that we can have a nuanced understanding of... the exact location of your heart bellamy is clearly of no importance... as long as your intellectual rigor is standing at attention.

the mind and body aren't separate, so quit with that binary. and, they're not killing random people. they're talking about bystanders, collateral. tobacco kills about 5 million random people a year. but, i suppose that holocaust is acceptable in your eyes?

Tobacco is a powerful protective essence, an important medicine and spiritual ally.

and collateral bystanders of an indiscriminate attack are random .
and what anarchist supports the industrial cigarette market?

"We aren’t anarchists ..."

Thank fucking goodness. Less chance of these nutters making actual anarchism look bad with this hyper-primmie nihilist bullshit. Bunch of sociopathic attention-seekers.

I really wonder what is the purpose of them writing these communiques. They say that they dont want others to join them or do as they do, which i dont believe at all. And they are constantly stating that they are not anarchists, primitivists, nihilists etc. instead of trying to find common interests and spreading their ideas. I know they want to be their own thing and all, but to me if they want the state gone they are anarchists and if they object to absolute values they are nihilists. Its seems they are afraid that any discription or comparison of them and other ideas or groups will take away their individuality. I guess the next thing that they will write is that they are not humans.
It is my understanding of communication that by their act of writing these communiques they want something from other people. So what is it?

Besides all this i dont appreciate the neopagan thing that they have going on.
Their actions though are very inspiring. Something simmilar is going on in europe and other parts of the world with ccf and the fai/fri thing (well. minus the indiscriminate attacks). I dont know what the ITS position on these other groups is or if there is any potential or need for internationally/intercontinentally coordinated actions. But i certainly like to see those nihilist ideas and acts spreading.

Mostly so that people can leave dumb questions in the comment boxes, for lulz

The neopagan thing does suck but I think it's only one individual or cell who is claiming that direction, not the rest of them.

I don't think they are saying they don't want anyone, just that they don't care if someone joins or not (just putting it out in case anyone wants to or is interested) and that they don't want someone to join who is not up to their standards. They say they'll support anyone who does the same thing

"doing the same thing" means doing shit... or at least putting action on the same level than theory, or caring to translate theory into action.

So Bellamy's singled out by default. Sorry, Bellamy, no secret handshake for you.

What? Why is actions based off of theory bad? What are you doing that is better?

Also, I'm not Bellamy if that's what you mean.

Sorry for the confusion... it was sarcasm pointing at Bellamy's openly expressed love for putting theory, especially unpragmatic theory, on pedestal next to their concrete field of realization. Of course I want actions based off of theory, though sometimes taking action out of intuition, instead of waiting for some philosopher to tell us right from wrong, is also very crucial.

I have nothing in particular against intuition, actually, except when it moves one to make unreferenced assertions with a dose of ad hominem.

Actually, I would say - in agreement with most anarchists, I imagine - that praxis consists of theory and practice in a reciprocal relationship with one another, and that separating either from the other is a fetish.

first order theory is where practice intends to harvest what is promised by the theory [the common model is the thermostat where practice aims to use theory to reduce the gap between an actual and desired state of affairs].

second order theory does not necessarily aim for control; e.g. the woman who starts screaming uncontrollably and smashing things may be doing so to disrupt a group of mechanical sheep whose actions are engendering proxy suffering, ... the goal being not control, but to disrupt the established pattern so that a new and less toxic pattern may form.

here 'second order' non-control oriented approach is a crude way to try to move from a mechanical m.o. to a relational transformation m.o. chances are, it will lead no farther than to a revised mechanical m.o.

"“Euclidian geometry is . . . the simplest, . . . just as the polynomial of the first degree is simpler than a polynomial of the second degree.” . -- Henri Poincare

ITS isn't even real.

You've all been trolled by some bookfair nihilist hipsters.

I'm getting pretty suspicious of this myself ...

If i remember correctly Goldstein was just an elaborate ruse to draw out dissidents. Reading this stuff combined with real world surveilance and misinformation efforts can really make you paranoid.

Most likely, yes... And somebody(s) related to the Brilliant.

Can anyone link to like … ANY actual evidence that this ITS group is anything but an elaborate ruse/trolling campaign? You know, media coverage of attacks they claimed responsibility for or anything other than their stupid masturbatory communiques?

Starting to doubt anyone who had anything to do with the handful of claimed attacks is writing any of this garbage getting posted lately. Even if there's any truth to it, and it's not just a psy-ops by the gov't, that leaves a loner shithead with delusions of grandeur.

LMAO don't blame others for the fact that you can't use the Internet and you can't speak Spanish:

OMG, it's all a conspiracy bro. There are obviously circles within circles LOL! And 9/11 was an inside job!!!

This took about thirty seconds to find, and it's written by a famous journalist. People certainly seem paranoid - must be the chemtrail toxins making everyone crazy.

"we reject the reality that they are imposing with ALL their advanced science." -- ITS

science brings with it a 'semantic reality' which is nothing like the physical reality of our actual, natural, relational experience. thus ITS is correct in rejecting the 'reality' that Western civilization is imposing through the 'advancement of science'.

Nietzsche said as much, and Zerzan is touching on the same point with his view that;

“The dependence on language is pointing at the moon and seeing instead the finger” -- John Zerzan

Mach made the same point, saying that science is 'economy of thought', a neat way of organizing our observations that should not be confused for reality;

"“We … should beware lest the intellectual machinery, employed in the representation of the world on the stage of thought, be regarded as the basis of the real world.” – Ernst Mach

science-built reality is 'semantic reality' and NOT physical reality and scientific non-reality has become our daily fare through Western education and communications. the semantic reality that politicians and scientists present is the reality we are now using as the reference for our individual and collective behaviour in the industrialized world. it orients us to making things happen in ignorance of the greater reality of relational transformation. this is nuts and it is a runaway nuttiness. amongst those who intuit this are some who feel that extreme action is necessary to disrupt the relentless 'pushing/imposing' of the ersatz operative reality of the scientific thinker.

as mcluhan says, what is physically real is 'transformation' of the 'medium'/habitat we are living in. science tells us diddly squat about that. we have underway thousands of science-based high tech programs designed to achieve specific things. every one of them has 'side-effects' which means that science is not dealing with physical reality [the semantics of logical propositions are not the physical reality of our natural experience]. when has science every predicted the transformation of the medium we are included in? yet relational transformation is the physical reality that we experience. science is about understanding things in the constrained [logical] terms of 'what things do' and how we can use that kind of limited understanding to make particular things happen the way we want them to happen. N.B. the world in which ['things are happening out there'] is semantic reality which is not the transforming relational continuum of our situationally included experience.

we could list every scientific achievement known and show that none of them are dealing with the physical reality of our experience, ... i.e. they are achievements expressed in language composed of intrinsically incomplete logical propositions. to say that science put a man on the moon is the same sort of incomplete doer-deed logic as science's claim that it can make pesticides that kill mosquitoes. these are 'logical [semantic] realities' that do not tell us how the relational medium we live in is being transformed by our actions. Meanwhile, our inclusion in a transforming relational continuum is the physical reality of our actual, natural experience.

there is a suggestion in the telegraph article of a coming 'singularity';

"the frightening thought of Singularity – the point at which computers become smarter than us, and therefore are able to make smarter versions of themselves "

smartness is not intuition, and it is intuition that lets us go beyond binary logic to non-dualist understanding [awareness of inhabitant-habitat one-ness (general relativity)].

the 'singularity' is more likely to mark the point at which thinking-machines discover how to fuck up the transforming living space medium in ways we have never before thought of. when will the first computer operated by a sovereign state whose politicians and military believe their computerized state is independent of all other computerized states, transcend its binary circuitry and contradict such unreal yet logically impeccable human assumptions?

the reality in which scientific achievements are realized, is not 'the physical reality of our natural experience', but it is being pushed on us as the official 'operative reality' of Western civilization.

Wasn't blaming anyone, for the record. I'm a stupid gringo, guilty. It's just hard to reconcile the snarky attention-seeking of these communiques with people who don't care about maiming and killing random strangers? But then again, aside from the one shooting, I've always felt bombs were a coward's weapon, especially when it's soft targets.

So it wasn't an inside job... Thats fucked up. So basically a bunch of guys with cell phones and box cutters an hijack two airliners and take down 3 skyscrapers in about 10 seconds.

I guess I gotta rethink the value of faith and how it gives such superjesus powers.

why are you so angry Art?

How is a group of people doing something contrary to others while hiding themselves not a conspiracy?

For a recent anarchist attack against major promoters of GMO research in Mexico, that actually happened and was not related to these clowns above:

Wow, deGrasse actually conflates cultivation with GMOs. Fuckwit.

So many ignorant anarchists who like to go on an on talking shit and they cant even use the internet read what they reference. I translated that, and it has everything to do with those "clowns above". Círculo Eco-extremista de Terrorismo y Sabotaje is one of the many groups that have stemmed from RS.

At the end of the day however, ITS and their actions are just a repackaged version of strugglismo.

I write this as a contribution to the debate here, but not with ITS or their blind supporters. I don't think anarchists have much to do with people who willingly accept the concept of collateral damage in order to justify their laziness (ITS, why use the quotes? How's your "collateral damage" different from the one that comes with US drone strikes in Yemen and elsewhere?), given that many have done similar things and successfully avoided hurting or killing bystanders.

Anarchists have been and continue to attack power violently, with effort (more or less successful) not to hurt bystanders. That may not be clear for a dumbshit journalist, but an anarchist of practice in Mexico can not ignore such a fact, because many have expressed it clearly in words and demonstrated in actions -- that is why ITS rhetoric against anarchists is nothing but demagogy.

No one is innocent in the mass murder that is this civilization? Of course, but you too, and whatever action you might accomplish, it will not purify you of this guilt. But, most importantly, what this "Everyone's guilty" rhetoric does is muddle the waters: state employees are considered the same as legislators, people who vote the same as the elected, CEOs the same as their secretaries and postmen the same as the ambassadors to whom they deliver the packages (I'm thinking of a postman in Italy who blew up his fingers delivering a package to a Chilean embassy, if I'm not mistaken, sent by FAI; an accident on which the authors commented in their communique that it's OK because the postman, he too is responsible... Why not shoot postmen instead of nucleocrats then?) Saying that no-one is innocent is saying that no one is really responsible once the curtain of imposture falls: the real enemy -- those who play an essential and not a disposable part in one aspect of power or another -- is left hiding behind a mass of people who contribute in different ways but are not directly responsible. In other words, there's a big difference between non-innocence and direct responsibility. Many things and many people are subject to radical critique, many are to be despised, but this is not the same as saying that all of them deserve to die.

Finally, if one is "amoral", on what grounds does one defend this "Wild Nature" as ardently as some others defend aborted embryos or their Prophet? For me these are essentially ethical questions: capitalism is unacceptable because exploitation of one human (or non-human) being by another is not acceptable in a very ethical sense, even if I don't accept it from a strictly egoistical point of view; the State and patriarchy are unacceptable for a similar reason that I don't accept coercion in everyday life, so I see no reason to justify it on a large scale. My opposition to science and technology is also profoundly ethical and stems from similar reasons. So if we define ethics as a judgement that each of us elaborates individually and morality as a system of dogmas that we ourselves have not defined, where does ITS stand in this case with their religiously undefined "Wild Nature"? If you are smart enough to use the word "amoral", you are smart enough to see that doing away with words such as "right" and "wrong" does not do away with morality. Also, accepting death of an innocent (or a non-innocent as you'd like to see other people but not yourselves) does not exactly make you amoral. Quite the contrary, some people, quite many in fact, kill precisely in the name of morality -- and ITS is still to prove that they are not doing the same.

Yup, that last paragraph hits the nail on the head. Morality IS NOT a set of dogmas, contrary to (some) christians and others. It's the reactions of others to actions. Amoralists ignore this at their own risk.

Again, it makes more sense to see these things as emanating from power and preference. There is no transcendent ought or is to turn to outside of human/individual preferences. All this morality crap is just a rhetorical, reified, roundabout, mediated way of discussing preferences. The winner gets to arm his/her preferences with might and rhetoric.

Morals are spooks that ignore is-ought. Ethics are simply preferential guidelines of a given social/individual code of conduct. At the end of the day all is power and preference in an amoral world.

Where do these ethics come from though? Are they innate? Do they not come from observing or second-hand knowledge of social interactions? I get that morality IS a spook (a generalization), but unlike you, I don't see spooks as necessarily bad things. They can be (that's a moral judgement I make on an individual basis), but they are also the very basis of social discourse. You can never step in the same river twice, but I still understand what the Rio Grande is and why referring to it is useful.

I don't see them as necessarily bad things either. I simply want what is mine out of them. They are first and foremost preferential and I prefer preferences to be a for-self affinity based set of affairs not tied to a legitimized power source. Referring to Rio must have primary use for me.

It is strange to see you speak in stirnerite postulates, because that is the exact opposite of what makes Stirner's works valuable. Ego too can be a spook, you know.

The question is not the absolute definition of Ethics and Morality. The question is on what grounds do we, anarchists and anti-authoritarians, base our judgements and our consequent actions. Do we base them on dogmas, on undefined notions such as "Wild Nature"? Or do we base them on something reflected, something we have elaborated starting from our own experience and analysis (something we have made "our own" as your papa would say)?

Replacing "conviction", "idea" or "ethic" with "preference" doesn't clear anything up, because it doesn't explain on what grounds do you prefer something (for example reciprocity) rather than something else (for example exploitation), or neither does it explain why you prefer "preference" to "morality".

I would think the take home from Stirner through Nietzsche and the pomos is that language and reality are groundless and meaningless outside of the beholder. Post nihilst preferences are not meant to generally clear things up for a thought form. They clear things up for the individual. There is only preference and the power you have to actualize it given that is, ought, mine and thine never line up in any given reality.

Ok, glad to know all of that. Also, if you want to buy some penis enlargement pills, please let me know.

I don't need them.

no, for reals: show us how big it is.

I know you, Sir, are tripping or something, but I think it should be noted that your arbitrary definitions of ethics and morality do not even oppose themselves. Which means that one may as well have a "preference" (a "guideline"?) to be a moralist in the worst sense of the term. Which, again, leads to an already classical abuse of individualism to justify absolutely anything, including one's own servility and bigotry.

I highly recommend that you reread your philosophical masters, this time using your own head.

What do you want, a structural reference of rejection? It's down to you yours and who you associate and affinitize with to reject morality. I reject it because it is not conducive to an anarch orientation of unmediated individuation. There is also a difference in degree of existing moralists on the one hand and a system of morality on the other, the latter of which is subsidized by a given unified belief structure. The opposite of unchecked individualism. Morality needs the existence of reified collectivity to come into existence as a general system.

Nothing of what I am saying should be hard to understand if you simply under stand the is-ought gap and the overall fact that, again, is, ought, mine and thine will never hermetically hook up on a general level.

I have no trouble at all understanding what you're saying and I'm still convinced that it's complete, beside the point, even dogmatic nonsense. You fail to see the question here and I'm guessing it's because revolt, its methods and its ethics (even preferences!) do not concern you beyond narcissistic conceptual gibberish.

Are simply means to rearrange power. So yes, you are right that I don't have much interest in most revolt and revolution. Insurrection on the other hand...

If you're waiting for an insurrection without revolt, maybe try to make syndicalism thine?

Revolt on the other hand(if it is to be interesting-which most of the time it isn't-needs insurrection).

Nope, there are aesthetic means which surpass violent reformist revolutionary methods, and syndicalists are mostly philistines when it comes to creating radical paradigm shifts.

And where I'd like anarchs/anarchy to primarily go.

Seems we're on the same page here.

Western morals are based on logical certainty. logical certainty in regard to human behaviour is achieved by (a) imposing the notion of 'independent being' on the author of a behaviour, and (b) assuming that the present depends only on the immediate past. this sets up a logically certain view which obscures the physical reality wherein the roots of what unfolds in the present, and the ripples that continue to spread and infleunce, are not limited to 'here' and 'now' [so also says Heraclitus with his river as transforming relational continuum]. in other words, the above assumptions synthetically 'localize' the author of a result in an abstract absolute space and absolute time reference frame. after isolating authorship, step two is concensus (jury) judging of whether an action is meritorious or reproachful.

" “How false is the supposition that an action must depend upon what has preceded it in consciousness ! And morality has been measured in the light of this supposition, as also criminality. . . . The value of an action must be judged by its results, say the utilitarians: to measure it according to its origin involves the impossibility of knowing that origin. But do we know its results ? Five stages ahead, perhaps. Who can tell what an action provokes and sets in motion ? As a stimulus ? As the spark which fires a powder-magazine ? Utilitarians are simpletons —“
“... an action in itself is quite devoid of value ; the whole question is this: who performed it? One and the same ” crime ” may, in one case, be the greatest privilege, in the other infamy. As a matter of fact, it is the selfishness of the judges which interprets an action (in regard to its author) according as to whether it was useful or harmful to themselves (or in relation to its degree of likeness or unlikeness to them).”— Nietzsche on ‘Morality’ and ‘Herd Behaviour’ in ‘The Will to Power’

the semantic reality in which we speak in terms of 'authors' of 'actions' and 'knowable results' that are then used as the basis for judging merit or reproach is just that, a 'semantic reality' which differs radically from the physical reality of our actual, natural relational experience.

as you rightly say;

I get that morality IS a spook (a generalization), but unlike you [sir einzige] I don't see spooks as necessarily bad things. They can be . . . but they are also the very basis of social discourse

the problem then becomes that social discourse portrays a 'semantic reality' constituted by "local authors" of "known results" that is nothing like the physical reality of our actual, natural experience. the downside of orchestrating social behaviour on the basis of this 'more certain' semantic reality is the applying of reproach and punishment to those through whom relational dissonances visibly manifest, although the dissonances are engendered upstream in the relational continuum e.g. by imbalances in wealth and power.

so, you are right about 'spooks' being "the very basis of social discourse", but such "spook-based social discourse", ... since Western civilization puts its 'semantic reality' into an unnatural precedence over the physical reality of our experience, is what is fucking us up ["language is bewitching our understanding" -- Wittgenstein].

Agree with your two posts...good to see something interesting written on Anews comments...

You're also completely on drugs but that's another story, dude.

I meant disorder's posts !

Pfew! For a moment you scared me. Not like I was on my way to punch you in real life tho. Plane tickets to your place might be a bit expensive too, so...

*Insects chirring, birds chirping in the distance* I'm appalled by the theory of genetic characteristics over-riding the ability of individuals to create unique original habitats. In the modern industrialized nations, Hobbes's archaic arrogance still dominates the hoi polloi's ignorance of the abstract conceptualization of autonomous alternatives, modern capitalist schooling has misdirected identity goals into a solely materialistic status seeking mono-desire, which metaphysically cannibalizes itself by enslaving itself to a herd mentality, which is the surrender of ones own power to authority.
I'm an old fucker *dramatic rhythmic theme playing* Any 21st century anarch youth considers the Luddites as archaic proto-Marxists and that Freudian psychology is the projection of a materialistic Marxist mother-fucker.
*distant giggling* Well we've moved on,
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past" -- George Orwell, 1984.
*distant sirens sounding*
'The victor will never be asked if he told the truth"

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Enter the code without spaces.