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.

Advertisement

Anti-nanotech bomb claim by Individualists Tending towards the Wild, Mexico

Mexico: Individualists Tending Toward the Wild claim responsibility for package bomb that wounded two professors [full communique]

From liberaciontotal, translated by war on society (…Please follow links to the info about the outcome of the group’s first package-bombing attempt, and to their first communique. Please note that their second communique is not yet translated to English):

Claim of responsibility and analysis against technology and techno-industrial Society in the wake of the bombing that wounded two professors of the prestigious and private educational institution (Spanish link):

Communique:

The continual advancement of technology will worsen the situation.
The more the system grows, the more disastrous will be the consequences of its failure.

Revenue directly attributable to nanotechnology has been growing at levels of 42% between 2006 and 2011, and by the end of 2011 is estimated to generate revenues of more than US$19 billion (a).

This is only one fact that demonstrates that they are prostrating themselves to the gaze of the devastating nanotechnological progress with more emphasis on Mexico.

As has been mentioned before (b) (c), this country positions itself together with Brazil as one of the two most viable options for investing in nanoscience within Latin America. For this, they have put in the university engineering classes and courses whose end is the professional preparation of moldable minds that not only want to acquire a paper to accredit their studies, but also truly desire to contribute with their scientific studies to the development and rise of nanobiotechnology, to acquire what the system wants: The total Domination of all that is potentially free.

But let’s stop a little and think, What are the true motives that lead scientists to get involved in this new technological nanorevolution (d)?

Many of the scientists will say it has been to “help humanity.” But deeper within these simplistic excuses are hidden psychological needs that are called surrogate activities. Surrogate activities (e) refer to all those acts or tasks that aim to reach an artificial end and not a real one.

The scientists say that they create carbon nanotubes, for example, to make life more comfortable for humanity, but the true reason that most of them (f) do this is because they feel a strong emotional commitment to the branch in which they develop; that is, they do not do it so humanity lives “better” as they have always claimed, but rather for a vague personal and psychological realization, so that, with this, we arrive at a swift and irrefutable conclusion, most scientists base their research on their twisted psychological needs, on their surrogate activities.

Continuing with the theme, in Mexico there are 650 nanotechnologists and the figure rises (g), in addition to the the growing interest of young people to go into that area. Several factors (which we have explained in the above paragraph and in footnote f) drive more “new” minds to have the commitment to sustain this type of technology while today the fatal and desolate outcome that it will have in the future has not been publicly discerned.

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry Harold Kroto said that “The Governments of Europe and the United States devote large sums of money to nanotechnology to investigate, for example, how to make their planes invisible,” and, “If we could go back to 1910, we could avoid having researched chemistry in the twentieth century and could have avoided napalm or the atomic bomb” (h).

Here, Harold knows and clearly states that an environmental or human catastrophe will be presenting itself, as happened in the 1900′s after having researched chemistry.

And who knows what failures nanometric technology will have when it covers every corner of this artificialized life?

Some scientists have already realized the catastrophic consequences that could result from the aberrant fusion of nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, molecular electronics and robotics.

The ever-increasingly acceleration of Technology will lead to the creation of nanocyborgs that can self-replicate automatically without human intervention; this is obviously a worrying fact for these scientists who for years have given their entire life to the creation of human self-destruction.

One such scientist is the American Eric Drexler, one of the best molecular engineers in his country and promoter of nanotechnology in the international world.

He has mentioned, highly shaken, the possible spread of a gray plague (gray goo in English) (i) caused by billions of nanoparticles self-replicating themselves voluntarily and uncontrollably throughout the world, destroying the biosphere and completely eliminating all animal, plant, and human life on this planet. The conclusion of technological advancement will be pathetic, Earth and all those on it will have become a large gray mass, where intelligent nanomachines reign.

This realistic scenario was not invented by we who are opposed to technological progress, surprisingly, it has been raised by one of the best scientists in the history of the United States.

Dear Auntie Civ: You’ll just have to die

Ask Auntie Civ -- the world's first anti-civilization advice columnist!

Dear Auntie Civ,

I am wondering how a post-civilization society will be able to handle chronic illnesses like Crohn’s disease. You see, I have Crohn’s disease and the only treatment that works for me requires me to go to a hospital every few weeks to get a 2 hour IV treatment.

Of course, my situation is kind of a Catch-22. Crohn’s is most likely caused by some kind of environmental factor in so-called developed nations (my guess is it’s the food, but who knows). So it looks like civilization gave me Crohn’s, but I can’t survive without civilization.

I’ve met a lot of Primitivists who have flat-out told me I’ll have to die for their utopia, to which I’ve quickly replied, “fuck you.” Surely there must be some kind of way to do away with civilization without asking me and comrades with similar sicknesses to die.

Thanks,

– Chronic Illness

Dear Chronic,

I’m so sorry to hear you have Crohn’s Disease. Derrick Jensen, the guy who wrote Endgame and popularized a lot of this anti-civ philosophy, also has Crohn’s. I have a similar condition myself.

You wrote,

“I’ve met a lot of Primitivists who have flat-out told me I’ll have to die for their utopia”. Please tell me more about that. How many “primitivists” have you talked to? What did they say about this “utopia”?

From your letter, it sounds like you’ve talked to one “primitivist” who was kind of a jerk, and you’re misrepresenting what s/he said.

I’d like to hear more about these kill-off-the-weak-and-sick eugenic “utopians.” Because, you know, that’s fascism, and I will call them out.

About your question: I’m here to advise people who understand and appreciate the reasons why we need to dismantle civilization. I’m not here to argue about whether that’s desirable. I suggest you learn more about the subject and then try again.

– Auntie Civ

Dear Auntie Civ,

I by no means meant to misrepresent your philosophy or the anti-civ movement as a whole. I actually quite like it. Like I said, there’s a lot of evidence that would suggest civilization is a factor in diseases like mine, Derrick’s, and yours.

My question is grounded in the assumption that other sick comrades have come across the population-control crowd (although there are few of them, the internet has certainly given them a new platform that makes them seem larger than they are) and that they have also had bad experiences with people who lack a basic understanding of an anti-civilization stance while calling themselves primitivists or anti-civilization.

I thought the sickness question would be a good one for you to answer so that this misunderstanding can be curbed. I do see how my question may have sounded antagonistic, but I honestly believe this is a question a lot of sick Anarchists deal with at some point, and I’d rather they heard a good answer than someone basically saying, “Shit, sucks for you.”

Civilization is unsustainable, but the (few) Greens that say I just have to die post-civ, and the (few) Reds that say we need to try to hold on to industrial civilization as we know it, are both Anarchists who have no imagination when it comes to creating sustainable alternatives to civilization and capitalism. Since I see how my wording failed, and I really do think this is a worthwhile question for you to answer, let me rephrase.

——–

Dear Auntie Civ,
I am wondering how you think a post-civilization society will be able to handle chronic illnesses like Crohn’s disease. You see, I have Crohn’s disease and the only treatment that works for me requires me to go to a hospital every few weeks to get a 2 hour IV treatment.

Of course, my situation is kind of a Catch-22. Crohn’s is most likely caused by some kind of environmental factor in so-called developed nations (my guess is it’s the shitty food, but who knows). So it looks like civilization gave me Crohn’s, but it also looks like civilization is keeping me alive.

There must be a way that sick comrades like me can be against the civilization that gave us these illnesses without being self-destructive. Thanks,

– Chronic Illness

Dear Chronic,

Thank you so much for editing the letter. I assume you live in the US, so let me ask you this. What happens to people who don’t have private insurance or public assistance? If you lost your insurance, got cut off the government program, spent all your money, and there was no charity hospital, what would you do then?

What I’m getting at – in my slow way – is that civilization is not the universal rock-solid foundation that many privileged folks take for granted. Insurance companies go bankrupt, states and cities cut programs, and people become “illegal” for whatever reason. I expect to see more of that in the coming years.

Meanwhile, millions of people are dying around the world – and in America – from preventable illnesses, because it’s just not profitable to care for them. They’re not getting any benefit from this great and mighty civilization of ours. In fact, their misery subsidizes the health care that you and I receive. US health insurance corporations cull the poor and weak and sick from their rolls, so you can enjoy the best health care in the world (as long as your insurer gets your monthly premiums).

Socialized medicine is not much different. The Canadian government, for example, rakes in billions of dollars in royalties and taxes from mining companies. Along with wholesale destruction of ecosystems, Canadian corporations profit from poisoning people at home, exploiting them abroad, and murdering them if they get uppity. Their taxes and income keep the health care system going – at least until the commodity price of minerals falls, the cost of oil rises, or people revolt.

So this is a good time to ask oneself: Where does my privilege come from? At whose expense?

Civilization is going to collapse, because that’s the end result of over-exploitation and population overshoot. We’ve exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet, and there’s no way back (short of fantasies of colonizing another planet, and that ain’t going to happen.)

There won’t be any magic formula to trump that reality. There isn’t going to be any “utopia” after the collapse, either. I’m afraid it’s going to be brutal, and I have to keep reminding myself that the system is brutal now, just not for me, because I have the privilege of living in a rich country. I know what kind of violence is carried out in my name — not only against people, but all living things, right down to micro-organisms in the soil. That’s why I say this culture hates life. But life will win.

If civilization was sustainable, if it wasn’t killing the planet, we wouldn’t be advocating for an end to it. There would be no need. The problem is, civilization is unsustainable. That means it can’t be sustained, so it will come to an end. The collapse is already starting. I know many cling to a desperate belief that some magic solution will come from technology or spiritual transcendence or raw vegan spirulina diets. (Much like someone who’s been diagnosed with fatal cancer.)

I’m sorry. There is no solution. That’s the bitter truth. We must rescue what we can.

As you noted, civilization sets up a Catch-22: it’s killing us (and everything else) but we depend on it to live. But even though I depend on it, I can’t defend it. Where I’ve put my energy is defending the land, the water, the climate, the air – because without those things, *no one* will survive the coming centuries.

Love,

Auntie Civ

Auntie Civ,

Thanks for the response. I think the thing that was hardest for me, and is hardest for others, is that by acknowledging that civilization is going to collapse we have to confront that we may die. Or rather, we’re going to die, at some point anyway. I realize that no one is asking me to die. That’s just what happens when you’re sick, old, or standing under the wrong rock. Anyways, the response was very nice. If I come across any more loud, belligerent eugenics folks I’ll let ya know so you can call them out.

– C

Introducing the Ludd-Kaczynski Institute of Technology

Luddites Smashing Loom

An Anti-Civilization / Post-Civilization Think Tank

From Ludd-Kaczynski Tech:

The Ludd-Kaczynski Institute of Technology is an open, decentralized, autonomous, incorporeal think tank of ludic neo-luddites. We are anti-ideological, meaning that rather than serving our ideas, our ideas serve us. We explore themes including but not limited to anti-civ, post-civ, green anarchy, primitivism and anarcho-primitivism, etc., but hold to no pre-established canons or conventions therein, beyond the point which they are useful to us in achieving total collective liberation for all beings and the Earth itself.

Though we question and discuss the inherent nature of technology, we are not ideologically anti-technology, by which we mean we recognize that the master’s tools can indeed be used to bring down the master’s house, and that a radical critique of technology will always hinge upon specific semantic articulations of the word (and concept of) “technology.” Ideological adherence to one specific, static semantic definition and understanding is not only unnecessary, it is also inhibiting of critical thought. Well-defined yet differing semantic understandings and definitions can come in extremely useful in equally different contexts. Words and language are a tool—a technology—and a very malleable one at that. Only in adherence to semantic rigidity do we decrease our potential to use this tool subversively.

In the context of global climate chaos, ecological instability and collapse, and the eminent demise of industrial civilization (including the social consequences that come with it), the important question is perhaps the level of technology—defined in this case simply as externalized tools—appropriate in creating and perpetuating a truly egalitarian, liberated, and ecologically sustainable mode of living upon this planet.

For a discussion regarding the potential contradiction, if not outright hypocrisy, of utilizing technology to spread anti-technological arguments and critiques, we recommend An Open Letter on Technology and Mediation.

Contact us at ludd-kaczynski-tech (at) riseup (dot) net

ludd-kaczynski-tech.webs.com

Anarchy Against Civilization!

Far too many times, we as anarchists can get locked into ideology and blueprint making rather than thinking critically and acting to meet current challenges. The idea of challenging capitalism and the state was one that was relatively new to western civilization when the first people to be called anarchists in a political sense first put forth their ideas. We should not be satisfied to stop there. They didn’t face issues such as climate change, neo-liberal globalization, or peak production. That doesn’t mean we can afford to ignore those issues. Most early anarchists didn’t challenge extraction, economics, technology, domestication, agriculture, mass society, or civilization but that should not bar us from doing so.

What is civilization?

Civilization can be defined as a way of life based around growing urbanization and the social relationships that result. Urban areas, also known as cities, are defined as populations so dense as to require the importation of the means to sustain the city itself and its population.

Upon an initial landbase, a city is built, including houses, businesses, government buildings, infrastructure, etc. This gives people a place to live, but not the means. Because of this, the civilization must seek out external landbases to exploit in order to harvest the resources to keep it going, to build and maintain houses, bridges, roads, sewer lines, water lines, electrical lines, public transportation, food for restaurants, clothing for the stores, luxury items for the civilized, personal transportation, entertainment, and so on ad infinitum.

Eventually, as cities grow and populations increase and the civilization requires more and more external land to provide the civilized with goods, the civilization will run into land with people on it, usually people whose way of life depends on that land. When the civilized encounter such people, they usually have the option (if they aren’t killed outright) of working highly exploitative jobs to provide goods or services for the civilized on their traditional lands, moving to the cities to find work, or fighting back.

Because most civilized people do not grow their own food or make their own clothing or build their own houses, access their own water… because the civilized pass these responsibilities on to others, some kind of exchange must take place. As the demands of civilization increase, more and more land is needed to produce goods and services for the civilized. Eventually this means that the civilized will run into traditional communities or other civilizations sitting on top of the land they wish to exploit…

Civilization always views the natural world as “natural resources.”

Ask Auntie Civ: Why do environmentalists eat meat?

Ask Auntie Civ, the world’s first anti-civilization advice columnist!

Dear Auntie Civ:

Thanksgiving is here, which prompts me to ask about a matter that’s been bothering me for quite some time, namely, why are environmentalists and the social justice crowd not on board with vegetarianism?

To be fair, I’m not talking about people with allergies or sensitivities, whose eating options are narrowed for reasons not of their choosing. Instead, I’m recalling the countless environmental meetings where meat and dairy products are served without question, often at the expense of animal-free offerings.

As early as 1971, we had books like the Diet for a Small Planet, exposing the degradation and social injustice of mass meat consumption. There have been hundreds of books and documentaries highlighting the health, environmental, and social equity benefits of animal-free eating.

Currently, we have the book Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, who questions why we treat our individual companion animals with such reverence, while we imprison and slaughter sentient beings by the millions, under conditions that make Guantanamo Bay look like a spa.

What’s with the social justice and solidarity people who still endorse this system? Some even try to excuse themselves on the basis of the existence of local, humanely-raised meat, even though they are not motivated to seek it out.

Humane considerations aside, factory farming is a colossal contributor to global warming, pollution, and resource depletion. Do you see any hope for change?

– Anne

Dear Anne,

Thank you for your passionate and articulate letter! But I can’t give you any false hope. If we all quit eating meat tomorrow, would that stop the tar sands from dumping millions of gallons of toxic waste into the Athabasca River? Would it prevent the destruction of millions of hectares of old-growth forest? Would it clean up the Texas-sized island of plastic garbage in the Pacific Ocean, slow down the extinction of the mountain caribou and the spotted owl, or reverse runaway climate change?

In North America, pre-contact societies hunted extensively. Did they wipe out the buffalo, the salmon runs, the sea lions and the great auks? No, the “civilized” colonists did that.

The Evolution Will Not be Televised: A Green Anarchist Reply to James J. Lee

Yesterday an unusual story arose out of the usual static emanating from the news media. A middle-aged man stormed the Discovery Channel headquarters in Maryland, USA and took hostages. A standoff ensued between the man and police, ending when the police killed the man, Jason J. Lee. Not long after the situation was brought to a head, Lee’s manifesto came out. Evidently Lee held some very singular views regarding civilization, and demanded the Discovery Channel air programming elaborating his views.

Lee has already been stuck with the dismissive label of insanity by those who wield unseemly degrees of control over common discourse—the very capitalist media he targeted. Doubtless Lee was possessed of an unstable psychology. In the coming days the capitalist news media will thoroughly flesh out his psychological profile, and use this as an excuse to avoid examining his odd philosophy. Soon the news cycle will move on to some other events and Lee will leave the common consciousness as quickly as he appeared.

Before that happens, I have decided to seize the moment and compare the theory and actions of James Lee to those of Green Anarchism. Though clearly the work of a troubled, desperate and erratic mind, Lee’s manifesto raises many important points too often excluded in common discourse. His manifesto bears many similarities to Green Anarchist thought, yet is obviously uninformed by the rich theoretical tradition that has developed within the Green Anarchist milieu in the past few decades. In this essay I will attempt to demonstrate that, though Lee’s personal views do not appear to have been coherently processed in his own mind, that they are but one manifestation of a trend which is quickly growing in ranks. I call this trend the anti-civilization movement.

END:CIV Premise 3

Download (MP4 51MB)
Transcribe / Translate

This short piece explores the third premise of Derrick Jensen’s “Endgame”

Wild Roots Feral Futures 2010

The 2010 Wild Roots Feral Futures will take place for a seven-day duration, a quarter moon cycle, from June 19th-26th (from the First Quarter Moon on the 19th through the Summer Solstice on the the 21st to the Full Moon on the 26th) in the foothills of the mighty and wild San Juan Mountains of Southwest Colorado.

We are looking for folks of all sorts to join us and help facilitate workshops, conflict resolution and management, direct action and medic trainings, wild food walks, and much more! We will be focusing on many things, including but by no means limited to anarchist theory and praxis, unpacking privilege, decolonization, rewilding, ancestral skills, indigenous solidarity, direct action, forest defense, security culture, civil disobedience, hand to hand combat, survival skills, evasion tactics, green anarchism, anti-civ, post-civ, star watching and navigation, maps and orienteering, shelter building, and whatever YOU care to bring and provide. But we need everyone’s help to make this as safe, positive, and productive a space as it can be. Our own knowledge, skills, and capacities are limited. We need YOUR help!

Auntie Civ: How to bring it down and why

Meet Auntie Civ, the world’s first anti-civilization advice columnist!

Hi kids, it’s your Auntie Civ here. I want to say you all deserve a huge shout-out for your amazing efforts! It’s hard work, challenging the stifling conventions of this destructive society, not to mention preparing for the collapse of civilization (and even helping it along a bit!) I’m moved by the passion and resourcefulness and dedication of the happy bands of ruffians diving in dumpsters, hopping trains, and living in the woods. The sheer exuberance of these semi-feral young people puts a song in my cynical old heart.

Now, I can’t hop trains anymore because of the arthritis, but I can help in other ways. I’ve learned a few things over the decades and I’d like others to benefit from my experience. There’s a lot at stake, and I know the struggle can be overwhelming for even the bravest soul. Please, get it off your chest. Ask Auntie Civ anything — whether it’s free advice, anti-civilization insights, or funny stories from the bad old days, I’ll reply to everyone and post the best questions and answers here.