Tag Archives: Chahta-Ima

Indiscriminate attacks? What the fuck’s wrong with you?

Traducción del texto de la revista Regresión “¿Ataques Indiscriminados? ¡Pero que chingados les pasa!”.

Traducción a cargo de “Chahta-Ima”


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

Introduction
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.

 

Conclusion
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

(The Americas) Fifth Communiqué of the Individualists Tending Toward the Wild – 2016

Comunicado original en español publicado el 02 de marzo 2016.

Traducción del comunicado número cinco de ITS, en el cual se posicionan como un grupo eco-extremista internacional.

Traducción a cargo de Chahta-Ima.


“Fungi, algae, and ferns produce spores that can travel many miles until they find a viable environment in which to reproduce themselves.
W.

I
Since 2011, what is now called eco-extremism has passed through various phases. Most of these have been on Mexican soil, and in these phases its followers have confronted many problems, threats, investigations, criticisms, defamations, discussions, disputes, and splits. These have affected our ideological foundations as well as our initial praxis.
In that year ITS was born. Our first attack was against a nanotechnologist of the Polytechnic University of the Valley of Mexico. At first we thought of spontaneously claiming responsibility for the act in a manner indistinguishable from the rest of the anti-civilization groups in Mexico.
However, we decided to continue to distinguish ourselves.

For three years we branched out with our attacks into seven states in the central and north-central regions of the country. We learned, we consolidated ourselves, we self-criticized, we deepened our understanding, and we prepared. After an extraordinary effort we gave ourselves the task of uniting related groups that had acted with similar principles in years past. In a non-sectarian manner, we brought forth the project known as “Wild Reaction” (Reacción Salvaje – RS). When the right moment came, it was decided to dissolve this project so that individualists who formed part of the factions of RS could continue to wage war on their own. Nevertheless, these groups continued to have the same vision against civilization and the technological system. From the dissolution of RS came the “Pagan Sect of the Mountain,” “the Eco-Extremist Circle of Terrorism and Sabotage,” “The Indiscriminate Faction,” “Ouroboros Nihilista,” and the other groups that do not claim responsibility for their attacks but remain active. Those groups have been doing their own thing since the dissolution of RS, which fills us with great pride and is evidence that eco-extremism is expanding on Mexican soil.

II
It seems like these spores have traveled many distant miles, and we have encountered enthusiastic complicity in South America. Having found fertile soil, brave individualities have sprouted forth; with these we share the desire for attack, and fraternally join with them in word and act.
Individualists commit themselves to strike firmly against the technological mega-machine. We will use any means necessary and at hand to attack structures and our human targets. We shall carry out these acts with arson, bombs, threats, and firearms.
We have birthed this international project of attack in the shadows. We are committed to coordinating and perfecting our complicity against the techno-industrial system. With pride we report that fellow individualists in the south have branched out with the terrorist initials of ITS. They have also adopted their own names and initials to identify their attacks, since we are savage individualists.

III
We have thus declared a new phase of the war against all that represents and sustains the advance of civilization and progress. This war was begun thousands of years ago by our ancestors who savagely defended their austere lives. They pointed their ancient arrows against Christian flesh, opposing civilization and waging war to the death. With pagan pride we recover this
spirit in the present, as well as all of the wisdom, tenacity, and commitment of those primitive and anonymous lives. We revive them in the present attack against civilization.

IV
Our actions are our own. We do not want nor will we permit them to be portrayed as “normal criminal acts”, nor that they be presented as some sort of “conspiracy”. Here is where the importance of claiming responsibility for our acts comes in. It is in this manner that they will
encourage more eco-extremist groups to grow in other parts of the world that will also strike heavy blows against civilization.

V

“Before self-interested and candid ethics, I prefer sabotage, I prefer terrorism with its clear, nefarious logic. Before sober rhetoric, and the serene obstinacy of sabotage, I prefer the uncalculated and unthinking human violence of one who fires without taking into consideration the legal ramifications.”

A.

We consider as enemies all those who contribute to the systematic process of domestication and alienation: the scientists, the engineers, the investigators, the physicists, the executives, the humanists, and (why not?), affirming the principle of indiscriminate attack, society itself and all that it entails. Why society? Because it tends toward progress, technological and industrial. It contributes to the consolidation and advance of civilization. We can think of all who form part of society as being mere sheep who do what they are told and that’s it, but for us it’s not that simple. People obey because they want to. If they had a choice and, if it were up to them, they would love to live like those accursed millionaires, but they rot in their poverty as the perennially faithful
servants of the system that enslaves us as domestic animals.

“… we invite them to look under their seat to see if there’s anything under it once they sit down in whatever vehicle they are traveling in. Whenever there are wounded or dead civilians in attacks against civilization carried out by radical individuals or groups, or even if this occurs in the context
of a natural disaster, it will be beautiful in our eyes.
T.

For some time now we have refused to be bound by the pedestrian morality of revolutionary action. We will give no quarter to anyone or anything, our acts will not be accompanied by warnings nor do we delegate responsibility. We assume the consequences of our actions, ALL OF THEM.
We are against the decency and Christian scruples of some who don’t want any collateral damage. To them we say, “before any bystander (ANY), a thousand times us.” The masses deserve no consideration. He who insists on looking out for his own well-being should be vigilant of the fact that a bombing could happen at any time.

Nothing, absolutely nothing guarantees that bystanders will not get hurt. In fact, our attacks are designed to cause the greatest amount of harm possible. And if more lives are taken in these attacks than we anticipated beforehand, so much the better. We can say this without hesitation or guilt because we are totally convinced of what we think and the life we have chosen, and we have shown this with concrete actions. Before any obstacle we know how to act. All possible “collateral damage” is not a “calculation error” and it is not “the price of the struggle”. It is a choice: a
conscious and desired CHOICE.

“For the Indiscriminate Terrorist, moral and ethical fault does not exist. All of that is contained in the rational calculation of the act, one which says “no” in threatening a victim or mutilating him, but perhaps without intending to harm the person who suffered the attack with an explosive
device.”

N.

We have already said in our first communiqué that we are Wild Nature. We learn from her since her reactions are violent. Nature doesn’t halt before urban or rural buildings. She does not stop for bystanders or scientific specialists. She doesn’t let up, she destroys everything in her path without consideration of Christian morality, rolling over the tantrums and discomfort of the usual suspects…

The discomfort of SOME at the expansión of eco-extremism is tangible, as is the discomfort at the spreading of our words and acts from north to south. Let them talk, come what may, they will get angry first and then they will start praying. We will continue EVER FORWARD!

“You may think these acts are ineffective; you may think them the obsessions of crazy sociopaths, or what have you. We’re not trying to change the world, we would rather see it all go up in flames. And if you don’t see that the destruction of the Earth, of the rivers and mountains, of the forests and oceans, is the real insanity, then we cannot help you, nor would we care to. Just duck when you see us coming.”

C.

With the devastating force of wild nature on our side:
Let the war continue!
Before the silence, our bombs!
Against all that is artificial and for all that we have been losing!
For the increase of politically incorrect terrorist criminality!
Down with revolutionary morality, death to equality, death to humanism!
In extreme defense of wild nature!

 

Individualists Tending Toward the Wild – Mexico
-Ouroboros Silvestre (formerly Ouroboros Nihilista”)  / Mexico State
– Clandestine Group, “The Fury of the Lynx” / Mexico City
-Regresion Editorial Group / Michoacán

Individualists Tending Toward the Wild – Chile
-Uncivilized Southerners / Santiago

Individualists Tending Toward the Wild – Argentina

-Wild Constellations – Buenos Aires

Daños colaterales: Una defensa eco-extremista de la violencia indiscriminada

Traducción del texto de “Chahta-Ima”, emitiendo su posicionamiento sobre la violencia indiscriminada eco-extremista.

¡Muerte a la moral cristiana del ataque!

¡Que se chinguen los políticamente correctos!

¡Adelante con los atentados indiscriminados!

¡Por la generalización del conflicto extremista contra el sistema tecnológico y la civilización!

¡Por la conspiración eco-extremista, incontrolable y salvaje!

¡Nada detiene la furia de la naturaleza, entonces, que nada detenga los atentados de los eco-individualistas!


Siendo un propagandista eco-extremista, me doy cuenta de las reacciones de los lectores anarquistas e izquierdistas al leer acerca de las acciones de ITS y otros grupos eco-extremistas. La primera reacción suele ser de repulsión. ¿Cómo puede ser que los eco-extremistas ejecuten atentados contra la gente y la propiedad, como incendiar  autobuses o mandar paquetes-bombas donde se puede dañar “civiles inocentes”?, ¿y si un niño se encuentra cerca del explosivo, o qué tal si la secretaria del científico, también una madre y una esposa, abre el paquete y muere en vez del científico?, ¿de dónde viene esta obsesión con la violencia nihilista, donde se mata a los inocentes?, ¿esto no ayuda para la “causa” por la destrucción de la civilización?, ¿no es esto una muestra de que los eco-extremistas están mentalmente perturbados, tal vez están enojados con sus padres, necesitan tomar sus medicamentos, son unos marginados, etc.?

Pero la verdad, la oposición de los izquierdistas, anarquistas, anarco-primitivistas, y varias otras clases de personas que se oponen a la violencia eco-extremista, es hipócrita, es hipocresía al nivel de que Nietzsche y cualquier otro pensador adepto pudiera refutar. Puesto que la civilización, tal como cualquier ideología, se basa en la violencia indiscriminada, y en el esfuerzo de esconder esta violencia de la luz del día.

Vamos a hacer los cálculos: La oposición a la violencia eco-extremista se puede considerar desde el punto de vista de la regla de oro cristiana: “trata a los demás como quisieras que te traten a ti”, “no te gustaría que alguien explotara una bomba en el autobús en donde estás viajando”, “no quisieras perder los dedos en una explosión, o que alguien dispare balas en tu cabeza cuando solamente estás trabajando para salir adelante”, “todos tenemos el derecho de trabajar y ganarnos la vida honestamente”, ¿verdad?  Pero la probabilidad de estar cerca de una explosión eco-extremista es mínima, tienes más probabilidad de ganar la lotería. En comparación, la probabilidad de morir en un accidente de coche es mucho más alta, la probabilidad de morir de una enfermedad causada por comer comida procesada, como cáncer o cardiopatía, es aún más alta.  Uno suele decir en último caso, alguien murió de “causas naturales”, pero por otra parte si alguien muere a raíz de un ataque  —“baja civil”—  en la guerra eco-extremista es una tragedia. Esto es algo absurdo.

Por supuesto, una condena a la violencia eco-extremista en este caso, es una aprobación tácita de la violencia del Estado o de la civilización. Para el liberal burgués, “la violencia terrorista” es horrible, puesto que solamente el Estado puede determinar quién debe perder la vida (por ejemplo, si alguien vive en Yemen o Afganistán debe de temer más a los accidentes automovilísticos, que a los “drones” que lanzan muerte diariamente, pero no hay ningún inconveniente porque todo fue aprobado por la democracia yanqui.) Por otra parte, parece que el izquierdista o el anarquista tienen más derecho de criticar la violencia, puesto que se oponen al Estado y el capitalismo. De todos modos todavía inventan fantasías donde toman poder, y ejecutan a los parásitos ricos que han sido juzgados y sentenciados a muerte en sus reuniones, y los matan de una manera cruel y sin piedad, no tomando en cuenta que los burgueses también son padres, hijos, esposos, etc. Y obviamente, la violencia en dicha Revolución será la más mínima posible, puesto que, pocos inocentes han muerto innecesariamente en un levantamiento popular…

Nos chocamos con la Gran Ilusión de la Civilización, que nos obliga a preocuparnos por gente que nunca vamos a conocer, a tener empatía con el ciudadano abstracto, el compañero, y un hijo de Dios. Debemos inquietarnos viendo un autobús quemado, o una oficina destruida, o los vestigios de un artefacto explosivo dejado fuera de un ministerio de gobierno. Estamos obligados a preguntarnos cosas como: ¿Qué sucedería si mi hija estuviera enfrente de ese edificio?, ¿y si mi mujer estuviera en esa oficina?, ¿si yo fuera ese científico muerto y cubierto de sangre en el estacionamiento? Bueno, si fuera así, ¿qué cambiaría? Pero en realidad, no estabas allí, entonces, ¿por qué te estás inventando esa película?

¿No es esto la gran narrativa de la civilización, que todos estamos involucrados en este asunto? Es mentira, porque no lo estamos. Eres un eslabón más de la cadena, y si la Gran Maquina de la Civilización escoge rechazarte, serás echado al basurero. No tienes agencia personal, la moralidad es una ilusión. Solamente cubre la violencia y muerte necesaria para producir la comida que comes y la ropa con la que te vistes. Es perfectamente aceptable que numerosos animales mueran, que quemen los bosques, que pavimenten los campos, que millones se hagan esclavos en fábricas, que se erijan monumentos a las personas que destruyeron los mundos de los salvajes, que sacrifiquen los sueños y la sanidad mental de los que viven hoy para obtener un “mejor mañana”, pero por amor de Dios, no dejen un bomba enfrente de un ministerio del gobierno, ¡eso no lo aguantamos!

Aquí te presento la clave de tu liberación: no debes nada a la sociedad, y no tienes que hacer lo que te pide. Esas personas que son asesinadas en el otro lado del mundo no se preocupan por ti, y nunca lo harán. Eres una persona más en sus números de Dunbar: serás un titular en el periódico y serás olvidado. Identificarse con la muerte de un ciudadano o un “hijo de Dios” a miles de kilómetros de ti, es la manera en que la sociedad te manipula para que hagas lo que se te ordena: es una herramienta para tu domesticación y nada más.

El poeta estadounidense Robinson Jeffers escribió que, la crueldad es algo muy natural, pero el hombre civilizado la cree contraria a la naturaleza. Los europeos observaron que algunos  grupos indígenas del norte de la Alta California, eran los más pacíficos a la vez los más violentos: pacíficos porque no tuvieron guerras organizadas, violentos porque usaron la violencia para solucionar problemas interpersonales. Los que se oponen a la más fervientemente violencia eco-extremista, están defendiendo el derecho exclusivo del Estado y la civilización de determinar cuáles, entre los seres humanos, deben vivir o morir. Las personas con esta actitud son propiedad exclusiva del Estado, entonces ¿cómo se atreven los eco-extremistas, a desafiar ese derecho absoluto que ha estado desde hace diez mil años, las leyes que determinan la vida y la muerte?

Termino este discurso con dos citas (¿apócrifas?) de Iosif Stalin, la primera es: “No se puede hacer tortilla sin romper algunos huevos”.  Los que se oponen al eco-extremismo dirán que estamos sacrificando la vida de inocentes para establecer nuestro Paraíso en la tierra. Cualquier persona con la mínima inteligencia que lea un poco, se dará cuenta que esto es mentira. El eco-extremismo no busca romper unos huevos para hacer una tortilla, más bien quiere destruir la caja entera, y si algunos huevos se quiebran en este acontecimiento, ni modo. ¿Cuantos huevos se quiebran en una finca industrial cada día?

La segunda cita de Stalin es: “Una única muerte es una tragedia, un millón de muertes es una estadística”.  ¿No es esta la lógica de la civilización, del izquierdista y del anarquista? Pretenden ignorar que el mundo está siendo destruido por la civilización, se perturban poco por los salvajes que murieron defendiendo la tierra de sus ancestros, se hacen un videojuego en su imaginación donde estrangulan a los capitalistas dormidos en sus camas, pero si ven un autobús quemado o un laboratorio destruido, gritan, “¡Dios mío, qué barbaridad!

Tal vez crees que estos actos son pocos efectivos, tal vez crees que son unos actos de sociópatas, o lo que sea. No queremos cambiar el mundo, preferimos verlo consumido en llamas. Y si no vez que la destrucción de la Tierra, de los ríos, montañas, bosques y océanos, es la verdadera locura, no te podemos ayudar, y no queremos ayudarte. Solo agáchate cuando nos veas llegar.

Por: Chahta-Ima

Collateral damage: An Eco-Extremist Defense of Indiscriminate Violence

Filoso texto de “Chahta-Ima”, afirmando su sólido posicionamiento eco-extremista, y criticando duramente la moral cristiana de los radicales politicamente correctos que se oponen a la violencia indiscriminada.


Merely being an eco-extremist propagandist, I am forced to pay attention to reactions of anarchist and leftist readers to the actions of ITS and other eco-extremist groups. The first reaction I encounter is usually one of disgust. How can eco-extremists carry out indiscriminate acts against property and people, such as burning buses and sending mail-bombs, where “innocent bystanders” may also get hurt? What if a child was near a bomb, or what if the secretary to the scientist, a mother and a wife, opens the package and gets killed instead? Why this obsession with nihilistic violence, where innocent people get killed? Isn’t this ineffective for helping to destroy civilization? Doesn’t this just show that the eco-extremists are mentally disturbed, probably angry at their parents, off their medications, outcasts, etc.?

Really, the opposition of leftists, anarchists, anarcho-primitivists, and any number of people who react negatively to eco-extremist violence is one of great hypocrisy: hypocrisy of the level that Nietzsche and any good manipulator of words could easily dissect. For civilization, and any ideology really, is based on indiscriminate violence, on hiding dirty laundry and sweeping dirt under the rhetorical rug so no one can see it.
Let’s start with the numbers game:
Opposition to eco-extremist violence can be approached from the view of the Christian “Golden Rule”: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” You wouldn’t want to be blown up on a bus. You would not want to have your fingers blown off, or have a bullet put in your head when you are just “doing your job”. Everyone has the right to work and support themselves,
right? But your chances of being on the business end of an eco-extremist blast are minuscule: you probably have a  better chance of winning the lottery. On the other hand, your chances of crashing your car, or being hit by one, are astronomically higher by comparison. Your chances of dying
early of cancer or heart disease due to the consumption of processed foods are even higher. Yet those two last causes of death are “perfectly natural”, while being “collateral damage” in a war to defend nature itself is somehow a tragedy. Cry me a river.

Of course, what such condemnation means is a tacit approval of state or civilized violence. For the bourgeois liberal, “terrorist violence” is horrible because only the State can designate people who need to be killed (if you lived in Afghanistan or Yemen, for example, you would have more to fear than just cars; you would also have drones raining down death on you from the skies. But that’s okay, because U.S. democracy approved this.) 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…

What we are confronting here is the Great Hologram of Civilization: one that compels us to care about people we never will meet, to have deep empathy for the abstract citizen, comrade, or child of God. We are supposed to get upset at the sight of the burning bus, or the destroyed office, or
the leftovers of an incendiary device left outside of a government building. We are supposed to go over scenarios in our head: “What if my daughter was in front of that building? What if my wife was in that office?
What if I was that scientist lying in a pool of my own blood in a parking lot?” Well, what if you were? And to be honest, you weren’t, so why are you playing that film in your head?

Isn’t that the great narrative of civilization: we are all in this together? That’s a lie, because we aren’t. Your life is merely a cog in a great Machine, and should the Machine decide to spit you out, you will be spit out. You have no agency, your morality is an illusion. It just covers up a lot of violence and death that went into making the clothes on your back and the food you eat. It’s alright for massive numbers of animals to die, to burn down forests and pave over meadows. It’s okay to enslave people in factories, to erect monuments to those who buried the worlds of
wild savages, to sacrifice the dreams and sanity of those alive today for a better tomorrow. But for the love of God, don’t place a pipe bomb in front of a government ministry! That’s going too far.

Here’s the key to your liberation: you owe society nothing, and you don’t have to do what it says. Those people who get killed on the other side of the world don’t care about you, and they never will. You are just one digit too many in their Dunbar’s number: at most you will be a headline and then you will be forgotten. Your identifying with the death of the “citizen” or “child of God” hundreds and thousands of miles away is a way to manipulate you into doing what society wants: it’s a tool of domestication, and that’s it.

The poet Robinson Jeffers once stated that cruelty was the most natural thing, yet civilized man makes it out to be contrary to nature. Some tribes in what is now northern California were observed by the Europeans to be the most peaceful and the most violent at the same time: peaceful in that they had no organized warfare, violent because that’s how they settled
inter-personal disputes. Those who cower in disgust at individualist acts of violence are really defending the right of the State and civilization to have exclusive power of life and death over civilized human animals.

They’re its property, so how dare those eco-terrorists impinge on that right, as well as the right of 10,000 years of civilized law and order to decide who lives or who dies!

I end my rant with two (apocryphal?) quotes from Joseph Stalin. The first is: “You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.” Of course, that is what the opponents of eco-extremists will always say: we are sacrificing the lives of innocent people to make our own version of Eden. Anyone with half a brain and a little reading comprehension will know that’s bullshit.
Eco-extremism doesn’t seek to break eggs to make an omelette: it seeks to destroy the whole farm, and if eggs get damaged in the process, that’s just the nature of the beast. How many eggs get broken on a factory farm a day?

The second quote from Stalin is: “One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.” And is this not the logic of civilization, of the leftist and anarchist? They can shrug off a whole world being butchered by civilization, they can wave off the deaths of savage peoples who did nothing but defend their land, and they can play video games in their heads of strangling capitalists in their beds, but when they see a bus on fire, or a lab blown up, they scream, “Won’t somebody think of the children!?”

You may think these acts are ineffective; you may think them the obsessions of crazy sociopaths, or what have you. We’re not trying to change the world, we would rather see it all go up in flames. And if you don’t see that the destruction of the Earth, of the rivers and mountains,  of the forests and oceans, is the real insanity, then we cannot help you, nor would we care to. Just duck when you see us coming.