Mexico: Claim of responsibility for two bombing attacks

Mexico: Claim of responsibility for two bombing attacks and contributions to the development of praxis against the industrial-technological system and civilization

From liberaciontotal, translated by war on society:

Communique:

September 2011. Mexico City

“The system is dedicated to fooling all aspiring revolutionaries and rebels. Its trick is so astute that, if it had consciously planned it, one would have to admire it for its almost mathematical elegance.”

First of all we would like to begin by pointing out something we believe to be of utmost importance. To begin we are not a formal and organized group, nor do we wish to call ourselves anarchists, vegans, environmentalists, nihilists, primitivists, or by any other ism, since to do so would be to fall into reductionism, to “attack” or to fancifully believe that we “attack the enemy,” but we would only focus on one reduced part of the problem, and thus would only satisfy our psychosocial-emotional necessities (as the leftists do in grand form), falling thus into the system’s game of irrationalism and in believing that we are standing against it, when the reality is much different and all we would be doing is fortifying the values of the industrial-technological system (ITS). But perhaps some will say “but direct action is reductionist since one only attacks a small part of the problem and thus does not attack all at once.” Our response to this is, of course, actions are greatly reductionist, for example: some individuals attack a biotechnology research center; in carrying out this action they are only focusing on that small center and thus cannot stop or change anything, perhaps only momentarily the center was attacked but nothing more, the other laboratories will continue operating as normal, perhaps with more caution and with greater security measures. Not even a large number of individuals spread all over the world in agreement to attack all the biotechnology laboratories would arrive at a real change since the industrial-technological system and all those who sustain it would search for a way to keep it alive without needing to use biotechnology as recourse for artificialization (remember that there now are endless technological ways to artificialize the wild). Thus we believe that actions are indeed reductionist in a certain way since they only focus on one small factor of the system; what we do not believe would be reductionist are the causes or arguments that are used to defend the action, so, we put forward the same example mentioned above, some will be able to argue that the action carried out against biotechnology is bad for human “health” (whatever that is) and because it threatens the life of animals and working in favor of the “powerful” with millions of pesos, dollars or euros–this argument would be falling into reductionism and irrationalism of two issues very well rooted in society since they only focus on some small, very reduced aspects, as “health” is, a very deteriorated idea in industrial societies since it only specifies individual and physical “health,” leaving aside the psychological and neural, and the “health” of the environment where we develop ourselves and one cannot be completely healthy living in a sick environment (artificial environment). Because it threatens animal life–here one would be falling into irrationalism because unconsciously one would be putting emotions ahead of reason, since one would be exalting this fear of death very well rooted in civilized societies, when the only thing that death is serving is an imminent process of self-regulation; and as for the latter, that of favoring some with money–this is the most serious problem of reductionism that the leftists have in making capitalism the principal and only problem out of all evils and believing that collectivizing the means of production would lead to a more comfortable life, leaving the real problem which is the industrial-technological system. To attack this (the industrial-technological system) or to make arguments against it is actually what we do not believe is reductionist since today the industrial-technological system and civilization are everywhere, and thus we consider these two as primary agents of the artificialization of non-artificial systems of self-regulation and of the domination of potentially free individuals. But why do we focus on these two and leave aside capitalism, questions of gender equality, minorities’ rights and similar aspects? This would not also be falling into reductionism? We will respond to the first question.

The industrial-technological system and civilization have created (involuntarily and unconsciously) an effect farce for all the activists and radicals who would like to stand against the system’s values, mediating individuals and making them believe that they stand for something, when the only thing they do is reaffirm the values of civilization and satisfy their own psychological needs–for example vegans who are in favor of animal liberation, many of them are people only in the “movement” to satisfy their psycho-affective needs (feelings of inferiority) responding only to emotional issues so that it’s common that when you ask a person related to animal liberation why they carry out actions in favor of their cause, they respond: “because animals are our friends,” “animals also have feelings,” “nothing justifies the killing of an animal” and reasons of this type, but they only use irrational justifications (sentimentalism in this case) such as the idea that animals are our friends (no matter what they do), when not even individuals within the same species associate in this way with others outside their pack, in many cases engaging in physical aggression and even death to defend their interests (food, shelter, territory, etc), so to believe that animals are our friends is irrational by exalting feelings of affection (friendship) known as empathy; they would believe that if one of us were in the wilderness and faced with carnivorous and hungry animal that it would leave us in peace because “it is our friend”–illogical, is it not? It happens in like manner with other alternative movements, better called leftism (feminism, classism, environmentalism, anarchism, communism, primitivism, etc.) which only seek to eliminate a small aspect of the problem, so that if the feminists (or whatever other group of leftists) achieve their goal the system still would stay on its feet since it would know how to assimilate that small “rupture.” It would keep women within its values, so this would produce the same as man, and artificialization would accelerate (something the system has already achieved); if the means of production are collectivized and capitalism does not exist, that does not matter much for civilization since technological progress would continue on its course without needing to utilize a symbol like money as a medium, and the process of artificialization of wild environments would continue on its course.

These are only some small examples to illustrate a little better the tendency against civilization and the development of the industrial-technological system, and it is these two which we focus on and so contest the continuation of research; and no, we do not believe that to solely attack these two aspects is reductionist since civilization is what has given way to large-scale (animal and natural) domination, so has artificialized everything in its path, and its accomplice has been and will be the development of technologies and industrialization, negating thus the self-assurance of potentially free individuals and impeding the development of their potentialities. This is why we believe that to attack the techno-industrial system and civilization itself is not reductionist since it is omnipotent and today is found in all aspects (food, shelter, social relationships, etc.) and to attack civilization is to attack a totality. For these and many other reasons we oppose civilization, but we don’t simply have anti-civilization ideas rooted in us; for us the theories have remained in the past, but we still continue to be congenial with some practical positions expressed by some theories; we are individualists and misanthropes, we despise mass movements and the humans who impede our free development and limit our potentialities and likewise those who artificialize wild nature; we autonomous individuals who aspire to the wild have come to realize the real problem that affects us today is civilization and the progress of the industrial-technological system.

By means of this communique we the terrorist cells for the direct attack – anti-civilization faction (CTPAD) claim responsibility for various attacks* made with explosives on governmental organizations and research organizations responsible for maintaining or helping sustain the industrial-technological system, deciding to directly attack those responsible, utilizing every means at our disposal. CTPAD have been operating in Mexico City for part of the past year with some small actions and others that are a little “bigger.” We have decided to remain anonymous for different reasons which we will expound on a little later, but by means of this communique we only wish to claim 2 attempts, precisely so that the government of Mexico City and the industrial-technological system know that the surge of radical individuals who oppose the technological system and civilization is not mere accident and that the “individualities tending toward the wild” are not the only ones committed to directly attacking those responsible for artificialization (speaking of individuals who oppose civilization and the industrial-technological system within the Mexican territory).

We claim responsibility for the placement of an explosive device in the facade of the INE (National Ecological Institute) located around the periphery at the border of the Tlalpan and Coyoacán districts, which we carried out in early April of this year. Why did we carry out this action? There are many reasons but we will offer our own.

The INE is a department of the government of Mexico City charged (together with other departments, research centers and universities, SEMARNART, INIFAP, SAGARPA, Monterrey Tec, etc) with the artificialization of natural systems utilizing biotechnology as the pretext for a “new and happy” (but we would say hedonist) world. This department is charged with granting the necessary permits for the experimentation and/or growth of genetically modified products–an example being the GM corn currently produced in Mexico.

Another reason to attack this institution is because INE promotes the use of renewable energies, called “green” by the leftists who favorably view all these ways of continuing to maintain the development of civilization and techno-industrial progress and are happy to accept (consciously or unconsciously, rationally or irrationally) these “alternative” methods of wind, solar or whatever other so-called “green” energy, remaining in the mere reductionist act of thinking that this will be “environmentally friendly” without thinking about what all this entails, for which we simply offer an example. Many “revolutionaries” believe that if in place of the use of gasoline (which is nothing but a derivative of petroleum) to propel a car, if electrical or solar energy were used it would be much better since it would greatly reduce the gasses that cause the greenhouse effect and thus would reduce global warming, but how many of these revolutionaries have stopped to think where automobile components come from? (or whatever other component implemented by the ITS) Of course! From the domination of what they call natural resources (which are nothing but systems of non-artificial self-regulation), the exploitation of mines, the felling of immense forests to be able to build roads and/or urban zones so that “environmentally-friendly” cars can travel, and due to the increase in the production of fossil fuels to be able to propel those cars, the production of tools and spare parts for the cars, the maintenance of roads, the construction of “recreational” and “living” spaces for those who reside and travel through the place and a long etcetera, and where does all this bring us? This is the maintenance and progress of civilization. It is for this reason (and of course many others) that we do not stay in the reductionist and leftist struggles of protecting the minority of “exploited” (if anyone knows how to differentiate who is one or the other please let us know, since to a great extent a worker, a woman, a person with different sexual preference or a different race actively participates in the progress of civilization and domination, “exploiting,” “discriminating,” and “depreciating” all those who they believe to be inferior in an absolute way, and for the most part all these “unprotected” individuals do so in a way that satisfies them), making martyrs of them demanding and proclaiming that they also have rights.

Presently there is a huge publicity campaign being launched “in favor of the environment” and this institution promotes it as if it were some new kind of drug for keeping everyone with mental debilities submissive; for this reason we decided to attack it, not only because it deceives with such publicity and microreforms, but because their only and specific goal is to continue the development of the techno-industrial system and thus maintain everything that civilization involves (values, governmental or non-governmental institutions, dogmas, canons, rules, etc, etc, etc–in sum, domination). But what is bad about renewable energies if they take care of and protect the environment? The answer is a little more complex than what appears in plain view, and it is not because “they benefit murderous capitalism” (we have said before that we have long since left aside those questions of capitalism), but rather because, as we have said before, they only serve the self-reparation of the technological system, or if this is not so, why has it been some decades while climate change did not interest the system as it does now? Because it has been some decades while climate change was not so threatening as now and if it was brought to completion, civilization would suffer greatly due to climatic deterioration (prolonged droughts, the deterioration of the poles, acid rain, nuclear fusion, etc, etc) and perhaps the imminent and inevitable collapse of civilization and not only of civilization but of all the individuals who inhabit the planet, so for this reason the system is trying to repair what it has itself provoked and to avoid the only possible cause of its own collapse (since neither do we believe that a revolution will finish the system).

We also claim responsibility for the placement of a false bomb in the IFaB (this is an institution charged with the investigation of pharmaceutical products and biopharmaceuticals) located around the periphery. We carried out this action in December, on the same day that the COP 17 [global climate summit - transl] began in Cancún. In this action we left a note explaining the reason (this note was signed terrorist cells for the direct attack) and then we proceeded to make a warning call to the police concerning the placement of a bomb.

Just as we attacked this institution, we also can attack any other organization that promotes these “alternative” forms of continuing to maintain the present system, such as the reformist groups, leftists, GreenPeace, SEMARNART, Animal Naturalis, etc., or those who artificialize wild nature by means of technologies.

But why wait until now to make a communique and make our existence known? As we said in the beginning, we do not call ourselves anarchists or whatever other ism (although we have ideas in opposition to civilization and the industrial-technological system, we only decide this to delimit and better extend our positions), and for this reason not finding a space of affinity where we could make our actions known, we decided to act without the need to communicate what we had done, in addition to which if we had published those actions or communiques on any internet page that was not in affinity, we would begin to relate ourselves with issues which we have (and intend to have) nothing to do with. Furthermore we do not want anti-civilization ideas and ideas against the ITS to turn into a “trend” or to begin to deteriorate as many theories have, as is happening with what presently passes as anarchism (for example), which can list as anarchists people congenial with anarchist ideas more rooted in leftism such as communism, feminism, environmentalism, veganism, primitivism, pacifism, etc, each with the prefix “anarcho-,” all the way up to the most revolutionary tendencies (whatever that means, since neither do we believe in revolutions) such as insurrectionalism, individualism, some nihilist positions, etc. And so someone who struggles for the dissolution of classes using the “consciousness of the oppressed people” as their method can be called an anarchist, or an anarchist who struggles against the system of domination by means of insurrectionalism and all that entails (sabotage, expropriations, attacks, etc), and under the circumstances we do not want the same to happen with ideas against civilization. So what was it that made us change our minds? Ultimately, we have seen some groups or individuals who put forward a posture truly in affinity–and more than in affinity, also rational and non-reductionist about the development of anti-civilization ideas–as could be the case of the “individualities tending toward the wild” (to give a specific example in the Mexican territory, as also in other parts of the world there are individuals with a critique of the technological system, although as we have noted, some still have entrenched social and/or revolutionary ideas) who, in a short span of time, have made themselves of note with attacks and critiques of the technological system, and this was what originally changed our minds about releasing communiques–the knowledge that there are other truly critical individuals who are not so gullible as to swallow the system’s farces and thus can each carry out corresponding actions against the technological system which are accompanied by a true critique against the progress of civilization.

So we want to conclude by remarking that we are not anarchists, nor are we revolutionaries or potential revolutionaries as Kaczinski put it (we do not believe in revolutions, but to speak on this would protract our statement even more, furthermore we believe that that topic of “revolutions” has already been addressed in one of the communiques of the “individualities tending toward the wild” and we are very close in these positions, only having some small questions to pose at some other time), but this does not mean we will remain with crossed arms or just be intellectuals, since to do this we would be falling again into a game of the system. We believe in violent direct action as a means of attacking a small part of the problem (we spoke on this question above), and thus we believe that property destruction is necessary since the centers for new technology research, the laboratories, and the universities are where tests are conceived and accumulated information is stored, and without this physical space the technologists and scientists would not have anywhere to develop themselves and develop new inventions, and it is necessary to attack those directly responsible for the artificialization of the wild since they are the ones who hold inside their heads the information and the potentiality for this artificialization to be realized.

We are not in the least afraid of the consequences our actions could have, from the destruction of some good material to the death of some person; even more than that, it would please us to know that as a result of our actions some technophile or individual responsible for artificialization had died.

Fire to the industrial-technological system and to civilization.

Terrorist Cells for the Direct Attack – Anticivilization Faction.

* translation note: We translate as “attack” CTPAD’s term “atentado,” which they use in reference to the actions they claim and elsewhere in the communique. The term could be translated as “attempt” or “threat,” but those would fall short in significance, since the actions they refer to are attempts on or threats to people’s lives which they clearly intend to instill terror.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,008 other followers

%d bloggers like this: