The contemptible sentiment par excellence. Mosaic of crystallized fears; mixture of herd stupidity and secular religiosity.
I mean the respect of collective beings; of the maleficent and deceptive metaphors that populate our social mythologies.
Stirner gives collective entities the characteristic name of “respectful personalities.” Moral idols, political idols, society idols, they float, like the specter of religion in Lucretius’ heavens; ghostly, vain, formidable.
Stendhal had already pointed out the respectful mania, the mother of all hypocrisies, guardian of all big shots and oligarchs.
The beatific social optimism of the crowd is only a form of that respectful mania. For the crowd, whatever kind of collectivity we might be dealing with – public administration, government body, the family – are always right against the individual. It is right for the very reason that it is a collectivity. The label “collective” suffices. The dogma of infallibility is thus secularized and socialized.
Oligarchs know this. They bank on the crowd’s capacity for respect, which gives an idea of the infinite, as does its stupidity.
The citizen is a respectful and irremediably religious animal; it now inclines to civic genuflection. It adores social fetishes just as the little dog Riquet in “Monsieur Bergeret à Paris” venerated doors, the table, and the kitchen chair.
Reproductive animal, the citizen venerates the fetish “marriage.” An electoral animal, he venerates that other fetish, the modern holy ampoule, the Civic Ballot Box.
With respect to crowds we oppose irony, pensive irony, of a cold smile and a clear eye.
* Palante specialist Stéphane Beau notes that this piece, which appeared in the December 1903 issue of the anarchist revue “L’Ennemi du people” was signed only GP. There is thus no guarantee that it is actually from the pen of Georges Palante, but the ideas expressed in it, and the form of their expression, are so clearly Palantian, that there is no real question as to its attribution.
A TEXT THAT CAPTURES WELL THE TYPES OF MISANTHROPES IT DESCRIBES WITH A PRECISE DISTINCTION, ALTHOUGH IN THIS TEXT THE MISANTHROPY REPRESENTED BY THIS SITE IS NOT FULLY, PARTICULARLY OR DISTINGUISHABLY EXPLORED. THE NIHILIST MISANTHROPY THAT HAS TOTALLY DEPARTED FROM THE IDEALIST CAMP AND DOES NOT HATE FROM A FALLEN OR YET TO COME IDEAL. IT IS BEYOND EXISTENTIAL MATTERS, IT EVISCERATES THE HUMAN CONDITION BOTH HATEFULLY AND COLDLY WHILE UNDERSTANDING THAT ONLY WITH EGOTISTIC ACTION CAN THE ILLUSORY WALL OF VALUES TRULY BE ELIMINATED. FOR WHAT? IF YOU DON’T KNOW I WOULDN’T CARE TO ANSWER THAT FOR YOU.
“What we need is hatred. From it our ideas are born.” – Jean Genet
“Where, I ask you,” cries Verneuil, “is the mortal stupid enough in face of all the evidence to claim that all men are born equal, in law and in fact? It was left to a misanthropist like Rousseau to put forward such a paradox, since, being extremely weak, he wanted to pull down those to whose level he was unable to raise himself. What effrontery did it take, I ask you, for this pygmy four feet two inches tall to compare himself to the model of stature and strength whom nature had endowed with the strength and figure of a Hercules? Is that not the same as comparing a fly to an elephant?” – Sade
One of the most generic understandings of misanthropy has been that it arises from a kind of disappointed idealism. The misanthrope is not so much a hater, but rather a jilted lover, à la Molière’s Alceste, that infamous cantankerous inamorato, whose unfortunate attitude had sprung from loving not wisely but too well. It’s the kind of assessment you get from a shrink or a Marxist: of course it isn’t what it blatantly is, it must be something else… A starkly different conception of the misanthrope emerges in Nietzsche, who recognizes in this figure that which can never be contemporary, that which refuses the community of significance and rejects the pseudo-reality of cultural life. Instead, the misanthrope is an untimely figure “lost in the present, waiting for the past, and haunted by the future.” In Deleuzean terms they would be the paradox, that which refuses the common sense of the world and remains resigned as a witness that never experiences anything – that which is always there but never caught in either being or becoming. Rather like a photograph or a painting.
In spite of the frequency of people hating, it tends to be lucratively pathologized, usually under the umbrella of some sort of phobia. This is clearly stupid. People scarcely hate because they fear, but they seem to pathologically fear hate. And this fear is a deep one because when confronted with hatred, people are confronted with the limits of what constitutes being a person. As soon as there is doubt cast on this sacred definition, usually one furnished and policed by the state, a certain uneasiness arises. This is the result of the fact that one’s humanity, and certainly that of any imaginary Others, is nowhere near self-evident. The pathological and totalitarian insistence on the broadness of humanity has become the backbone of the contemporary academic and artistic economy. Anything that transgresses this imperialism of subjects is immediately stigmatized. Generally this is termed the unhuman, sometimes the demonic, likewise we might call it the perverse, either in Deleuze’s sense or in that of E.A. Poe.
Now deceased, but once professional human hater, Florence King, schematized misanthropes into two basic types. First was that of the naked intellect, who could passionately hate humanity and coolly vivisect it, relishing the surgery. “The misanthrope of the naked intellect hates people straight down the line with no exceptions and no regrets. Regarding mankind as hopeless, he tends to be apolitical. Regarding mankind as loathsome, he tends to be an apolitical arch-conservative, a purely temperamental stance whose sole purpose is hands-off apocalyptic revenge. Presented with Thomas Hobbes’s assessment, ‘The life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,’ he replies: ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’” She contrasts this with the tender misanthrope, a Rousseau type who hates humanity too, but clings to optimism, sure he or she could love humanity if only encountering it in some ideal and uncorrupted variety. Real, authentic, people are all that is required for the cure. They project this onto the oppressed of all shapes, stripes and spasms whose pathos rescues them from the sickness of artifice. If only we eliminated inequality, they suggest, these real and good people could come to the fore. And the only way to reveal their real authentic goodness is to save them from the world of artifice and science, from all the discriminations that are piled up on their humpbacks and inflame their goiters. Without all of that art getting in the way, we could finally see that the derision cast on these creatures is only a vile prejudice and they are actually beautiful and tender souls. They are more beautiful than art, and they don’t even need to be cured of their ills by science because that would be caving to a horrible aesthetic prejudice masquerading as medical treatment. Misanthropes don’t care for misanthropes, but no one hates them more than these sentimental haters. In both cases, there is a type of idealism at play that is both fuelling and feeding off of disaffection with the species. In his look at Victorian-era misanthropes, Christopher Lane describes the idealistic variety succinctly:
The ensuing strain touches on psychology and philosophy. As truculent idealists, misanthropes are society’s conscience and scold. Like revolutionaries, they question what we expect from other people; unlike revolutionaries, they can’t stand other people. Dismissing the idea of harmonious coexistence, misanthropes scorn fellow feeling, to say nothing of loyalty, conformity, and altruism. Ignoring Enlightenment philosophers who claimed that humans rationally would pursue pleasurable activities, many nineteenth-century misanthropes realized they would experience more happiness spoiling other people’s.
Some, such as David Konstan, have argued that the misanthrope stands as the representative of an ideal that had been betrayed. We might say they are a kind of rigid formalism trapped in an organic body and left to the ridiculousness of a society in flux.
There are, of course, misanthropes who hate people because of the misery that people cause, either to their own species or to the non-human world at large. Such people may identify themselves as anti-natalists and volunteer themselves for extinction. But a more cynical misanthrope might suggest that their uncomfortable knitting together of delirious compassion and self-congratulatory loathing is little more than a reduction to absurdity of the most asinine elements of liberal mythology. And it is. Suicidal volunteerism is only one or two peanuts short of welfare advocacy. There is a kind of Buddhist misanthropy here – a condemnation of life because it is suffering. Dolorism, by contrast, affirms the misery of life. In the Occident, this was crystallized in two distinct brands of Christianity, one which extolled the virtues of misery and sought their increase to gain knowledge of divinity; and one that condemned suffering as an evil to be extinguished through acts of mercy. The history of aesthetics, with their enrichment of the capacity for intensification, can be squarely placed in the Dolorist camp, though, unlike suffering (actively or passively), few have ever acknowledged either the aesthetic or ethical superiority perpetuating misery. The history of art institutions, theory, and publicity have largely been founded on obscuring this fact and overcoding its residue in terms more amenable to our phenomenal fancies. But stripped of the fantasies encased in social signalling, it may be best to recall Dostoevski’s suggestion that the only thing societies have ever done is increase the variety of sensations to suffer.
There is also a middle road between what appears to be the Scylla and Charybdis of misanthropy. That’s when the idealistic misanthrope loses their idealism. This can either turn to a pure venting of spite and vitriol, the Timonist manner of misanthropy, or something more dejected. Although King insists on the passion of misanthropy, even among its coldest adherents, the hatred of the species can wear some out. Eventually, they might realize that people are not worth the bother of hating. And while relishing their misery may offer some tangential pleasure, unless you possess a profoundly sensitive palate, what you have to endure for that meagre taste of sadism isn’t quite worth it. Unlike pleasure, which is tediously finite and gets boring fast so it requires aesthetic laws to make it tenable, suffering seems more genuinely infinite: there never seems to be nearly enough of it and it can be exponentially increased.
What resulted from Rousseauist misanthropy was people going on crying jags in the woods and then writing about it to their friends. Today they use social media or go to political protests. Unfortunately, many of them also attend art schools. Even more unfortunately, artist-run centres and state funding seem to exist to foist them on the public. To continue with King: “Only a tender misanthrope could screw up the world as Rousseau did. The misanthrope of the naked intellect, disdaining such categories as real people on the grounds that if indeed they exist, they must be even worse than the other kind, has no wish to liberate the repressions of a species that he already finds intolerable. If he must share the world with people, he wants them to be as decorous and self-controlled as possible. He is thus an Age of Reason unto himself who, for purely selfish motives, places humanity on a pedestal and holds it to the highest standard of behavior. Ironically or not, the misanthrope of the naked intellect is the true friend of mankind.” Driving the irony home, she notes that “Madame Bovary, the work of a misanthrope, is the most user-friendly novel ever written.”
In practice, one might argue, that whether you love or hate really does not make any difference. Or, to paraphrase a dead Irishman, there are two kinds of people who become socialists: those who hate the poor and those who love them. The Rousseauists have, for the moment at least, won out on monopolizing hatred, doing so not too wisely but too well. Soon, any other variety of loathing untempered by the hypocritical sadism of compassion mongering and moral blackmail may indeed be illegal.
Stealthy like the puma, on Monday August 7th we boarded a bus transporting masses and herds. We look at the faces of the passengers: there are 8 or 9 of them, and they all have the same face. They are all dominated by dirty society, worn down from the work that gives them artificial progress and false comfort. We don’t feel sorry for them, they’re all the same. They disgust us, their very existence perpetuates the same hyper-civilized society that enslaves them, the one that destroyed the natural state. This society annihilated our ancestors who did know how to live in the wild.
We carried a contraption with us. We had tested it before, leaving nothing to chance. It’s simple: two bottles filled with gasoline, a boiling mixture, a bulb, a clock with modifications that gave us time, and a switch as the safety. We left it under a seat and we sat in the back. We calculated the time and got off before it went off. Even though people were not burned, the damage we caused was more than what was expected. This time luck with on our side: the fire reached the electrical wires and lit a business on fire that turned out to be a hardware store!! Three birds with one stone: the Transantiago bus, the power line, and the store where more machines and chemical products were sold! Attention, the next ones could be those who use them!
This time the place we attacked was planned so that it coincided with an avenue where they are building a new corridor of the Transantiago and new metro lines, where more vehicles that carry imbeciles will occupy spaces that once were wild. This time it was the north of the city, before it was in Providencia, tomorrow it could be in any part of this dirty capital that we choose.
And lastly… No press, it was not a malfunction of the bus, don’t be stupid… this time more direct in the eye! No police-prosecutors-judges-government-whatever, don’t use the cliché statement, “causes that are still being investigated”. You were no match for the dudes from ITS-HMB, nor for the S.I…. now you don’t want to open more cases that you won’t be able to solve. This was our work and we take responsibility for it. Come at us from wherever, you won’t find us. Look for us on you security cameras, you won’t find us there because there were none. We planned this well and we aren’t prepared to transform ourselves into symbols, we would rather die first. We are already in hiding, stalking other prey.
Vengeance! The wekufes accompany us, and the darkness keeps us.
War against human progress!
Sincere complicity! Long live the Mafia of Extremist Individualists!
Whatever its form, anarchism, the “libertarian creed,” is basically a bad dream that laments political conflict and seeks the end of the intrusion of individual interests and self-assertion in social life. It is a fantasy that, sooner or later, appeals to morality and the internal police of conscience to repress and renounce the self by “respecting” the interests of the other.
The exhortations to morality, conscience, right, and respect in the “libertarian creed” tend to favor the strong and powerful over the weak and powerless, contrary to the intentions of the anarchists. The anarchist appeals to liberty, conscience, and morality function as a form of social control by marginalizing the weak and gullible from the war of each against all.
The fact to be borne in mind is that whether one “should” or “should not,” the strong natures never do. The powerful allow “respect for other’s interests” to remain the exclusive foible of the weak. The tolerance they have for others’ “interests rests” is not “respect” but indifference. The importance of furthering one’s own interests does not leave sufficient energy really to accord much attention to those of others. It is only when others’ interests thrust themselves intrusively across one’s own that indifference vanishes: because they have become possible allies or obstacles. If the latter, the fundamental lack of respect swiftly defines itself.
Part of what enables domination, or the stratification of rich and poor, powerful and weak, is that the rich and powerful have been able to convince others to renounce themselves and their interests. History and society are the domains where the rich and powerful assert and fulfill their interests while proselytizing the poor and weak about liberty, rights, and respect. History and society record little more than the “respect” the rich and powerful have for their neighbor’s interests. The rich and powerful succeed because they are concerned only for the imposition of their interests wherever their whim or purpose is focused. “Their success has been proportional to the unformedness of the characters with which they have had immediately to deal.”
For egoists, the decentralization and pluralism of democracy is an advantage because compulsion, the imposition of interests, can be exercised from an increased number of centers. The multiplicity of laws does not signify the oppressiveness of the state, as Proudhon, Tucker, and anarchists complain; instead it indicates the detailed channels through which interests are imposed and potentially fulfilled.
It is too vague to say that democracy represents the liberty of the people: rather one would say democracy represents the increase in the number of people who are prepared to take liberties (i.e., per persuade by personal violence), with the people who refuse assistance in the furthering of the audacious ones’ interests. It is the increase in the number of those who have the courage and ingenuity to become in an open and unequivocal fashion the tyrants we all are subtly and by instinct. It is part of the trend toward human explicitness. Continue reading →
The century that just passed is without a doubt that in which pessimism found its most numerous, its most varied, its most vigorous and its most systematic interpreters. In addition, individualism was expressed in that century with exceptional intensity by representatives of high quality.
It could be interesting to bring together these two forms of thought, dominant in our era; to ask what is the logical or sentimental connection that exists between them, and to what degree pessimism engenders individualism and individualism engenders pessimism.
But the question thus posed is too general. There are many kinds of pessimism and many kinds of individualism. Among the latter there is one that in no way implies pessimism, and that is the doctrinaire individualism that issues from the French Revolution and to which so many moralists, jurists, and politicians of our century are attached. This individualism could take as its motto the phrase of Wilhelm von Humboldt that Stuart Mill chose as the epigraph of his “Essay on Liberty”: “The grand, leading principle, towards which every argument unfolded in these pages directly converges, is the absolute and essential importance of human development in its richest diversity.” Individualists of this kind believe that all human individuals can harmonically develop in society, that their very diversity is a guarantee of the richness and beauty of human civilization.
These individualists are rationalists. They have faith in reason, the principle of order, of unity, and of harmony. They are idealists: they have faith in an ideal of social justice. unitarian and egalitarian, they believe, despite individual differences and inequalities, in the profound and real unity of human kind. These individualists are “humanists” in the sense that Stirner gives to this word: solidarists, socialists, if we take this latter term in its largest sense. Their individualism is turned outwards, towards society. It’s a social individualism, in the sense that it doesn’t separate the individual from society, which they don’t place in opposition to each other. On the contrary, they always consider the individual as a social element that harmonizes with the all and that only exists in function of the all. We will not insist upon this individualism, which obviously implies a more or less firm social optimism.
The individualism we have in mind here is completely different. This individualism is not a political, juridical and moral doctrine, but a psychological and moral attitude, a form of sensibility, a personal sensation of life and a personal will to life.
It is impossible to fix in a definition all the traits, all the degrees, all the nuances of this psychological disposition. It affects a special tone in every soul in which it makes itself known.
We can say that as a personal sensation of life, individualism is the sentiment of uniqueness, of individuality in what it has of the differential, the private, and the un-revealable. Individualism is an appeal to the interiority of sentiment, to individual inspiration in the face of social conventions and ready-made ideas. Individualism implies a sentiment of personal infallibility, an idea of intellectual and sentimental superiority, of inner artistocratism. Of irreducible difference between an ego and an other, the idea of uniqueness. Individualism is a return to the self and a gravitation to the self.
As personal will to life individualism is a desire to “be oneself,” according to the wish of a character from Ibsen (Peer Gynt), a desire for independence and originality. The individualist wants to be his own maker, his own furnisher of truth and illusion; his own builder of truth and illusion; his own builder of dreams; his own builder and demolisher of ideals. This wish for originality can, incidentally, be more or less energetic, more or less demanding, more or less ambitious. More or less happy, too, according to the quality and the value of the individuality in cause, according to the amplitude of the thought and according to the intensity of, the will to, individual might.
Be it as personal sensation of life or as personal will to life, individualism is or tends to be anti-social: if it is not so from the start, it later and inevitably becomes so. Sentiment of the profound uniqueness of the ego, desire for originality and independence, individualism cannot help but provoke the sentiment of a silent struggle between the individual self and society. In fact, the tendency of every society is to reduce the sentiment of individuality as much as possible: to reduce uniqueness through conformism, spontaneity through discipline, instantaneousness of the self through caution, sincerity of sentiment through the lack of sincerity inherent in any socially defined function, confidence and pride in the self through the humiliation inseparable from any kind of social training. This is why individualism necessarily has the sentiment of a conflict between its ego and the general ego. Individualism becomes here a principle of passive or active inner resistance, of silent or declared opposition to society, a refusal to submit oneself to it; a distrust of it. In its essence, individualism holds in contempt and negates the social bond. We can define it as a will to isolation, a sentimental and intellectual, theoretical and practical commitment to withdraw from society, if not in fact – following the examples of the solitaries of the Thebeiad and the more modern one of Thoreau – at least in sprit and intention, by a kind of interior and voluntary retreat. This distancing from society, this voluntary moral isolation that we can practice in the very heart of society can take on the form of indifference and resignation as well as that of revolt. It can also assume the attitude of the spectator, the contemplative attitude of the thinker in an Ivory Tower. But there is always in this acquired indifference, in this resignation or this spectatorial isolation, a remnant of interior revolt.
Sentiment of uniqueness and more or less energetic expression of the will to personal power; will to originality, will to independence, will to insubordination and revolt, will to isolation and to withdrawal into the self. Sometimes also will to supremacy, to the deployment of force on and against others, but always with a return to the self, with a sentiment of personal infallibility, with an indestructible confidence in oneself, even in defeat, even in the failure of hopes and ideals. Intransigence, inaccessibility of internal conviction, fidelity to oneself up to the bitter end. Fidelity to one’s misunderstood ideas, to one’s impregnable and unassailable will: individualism is all this, either globally or in detail, this element or that, this nuance or that predominating according to the circumstances and the case.
Individualism, understood as we just expressed it, that is, as an internal disposition of the soul, individualism as sensation and will is no longer, like the individualism of which we spoke above, like political and juridical individualism, turned outwards and subordinated to social life, to its constraints, its demands and obligations. It is turned inwards. It places itself at the beginning or seeks refuge in the end in the unbreakable and intangible interior being.
To say that there is a close psychological relationship between the individualist and pessimist sensibilities means almost stating the obvious. Pessimism supposes a basic individualism. It supposes that interiority of sentiment, that return to the self (almost always painful) that is the essence of individualism. While optimism is nothing but an abstract metaphysical thesis, the echo of doctrinal hearsay, pessimism is a sensation of lived life; it comes from the inner, from an individual psychology. It proceeds from what is most intimate in us: the ability to suffer. It predominates among those of a solitary nature who live withdrawn into themselves and see social life as pain. Thoroughbred pessimists, the great artists and theoreticians of suffering, lived solitary and as strangers in the midst of men, retrenched in their ego as if in a fortress from which they let fall an ironic and haughty gaze on the society of their kind. And so it is not by accident, but by virtue of an intimate psychological correlation that pessimism is accompanied by a tendency towards egotistic isolation.
Inversely, the individualist spirit is almost fatedly accompanied by pessimism. Does not experience as old as the world teach us that in nature the individual is sacrificed to the species? That in society it is sacrificed to the group? Individualism arrives at a resigned or hopeless noting of the antinomies that arise between the individual and the species on one hand, and between the individual and society on the other.
Life doubtless perpetually triumphs over this antinomy, and the fact that despite it all humanity continues to live can appear to be an unarguable reply that refutes both pessimism and individualism. But this is not certain. For if humanity as a species and as a society pursues its destiny without worrying about individuals’ complaints or revolts, individualism does not die for all that. Always defeated, never tamed, it is incarnated in souls of a special caliber, imbued with the sentiment of their uniqueness and strong in their will to independence. Individualism suffers a defeat in every individual who dies after having served ends and surrendered to forces that are beyond him. But he survives himself through the generations, gaining in force and clarity as the human will to life intensifies, diversifies and becomes refined in individual consciousness. It is thus that is affirmed the dual consistency of pessimism and individualism, indissolubly united and interconnected.
Nevertheless, it is possible that this psychological tie that we believe we have discovered between pessimism and individualism is nothing but an a priori view. If instead of reasoning about psychological likelihoods we consult the history of ideas of the 19th century we will perhaps see that the relationship of ideas that we have just indicated is neither as simple nor as consistent as at first appears. We must penetrate in detail the different forms of pessimism and individualism and more closely analyze their relationship if we want to arrive at precise ideas.
Several months have passed since the Wildfire Cell (at the end of its previous phase) signed its last communique, and while we do not give any “justifications” for our motives, we feel it is worthwhile to point out that we have maintained this period of silence for purely strategic reasons.
Anyway, we have already made it clear enough that we have not claimed responsibility for every attack which we have carried out. As well as being a tactical choice in order to continue and intensify our chaotic and criminal projects without leaving so many identifiable traces for the hounds of civilized law and order, we speak of things only when it makes sense for us and pleases us to do so.
However, given some recent events, we individuals feel it is time to say a few things, and it would seem that a few things will have to be repeated for the miserable idiots who we will be addressing shortly.
We havent gone away, as some so clearly would have hoped. Oh no, quite the contrary! As we have continued to experiment, develop and grow as individuals and as a criminal organisation, our network has continued to spread across several countries in Europe. Here and elsewhere across the oceans, more and more disillusioned and bitter individualists continue to come into the misanthropic and eco-extremist fold with weapons drawn, abandoning whatever dregs remained of their former ideological associations, to confront the grim and pessimistic reality and dive headlong into the nihilistic abyss of the attack for the sake of attack.
It fills us with profound satisfaction whenever we learn that our crew has carried out more and more violent attacks, wild arson sprees, expropriations and other criminal misdeeds, which given the varying natures of these crimes naturally includes both decisive and indiscriminate attacks. Like the feral individualists who lurked on the sidelines and mingled amongst the packs of yapping dogs in Hamburg before seizing the opportunities to run amok, burn countless cars and loot some stores, spreading a bit of disorder and chaos throughout the smouldering wreck of the city.
(Shock, horror! Not everyone at the G20 summit was there with some morally-defensible philanthropic intent? If this surprises you, you are an idiot, and if this notion disturbs you, be sure to dial 325 to snitch us up to the anarcho-cops. I’m sure they’d be pleased to hear your complaints. If they’re not too busy conducting another pitiful sermon to denounce all the Egoist demons and iconoclastic turncoats who desecrate the dusty tombs of their beloved Saint Anarchy, or frantically masturbating over news of a couple of slashed tyres or some pretty pieces of cloth hanging from public bridges, that is.)
It also pleases us equally to read the words and hear of the attacks carried out by various groups and individuals, who, whilst not directly related to our network or entirely aligned to our declared personal war, have gone on the offensive without any hope of success, leaving smoking ruins out of offices, communications towers, random vehicles and the homes of the hyper-civilized in France, the UK, Denmark and more. Sending strength to our feral accomplices wherever they roam.
We also return greetings and encouragement to the groups of ITS and all the others who aim their bombs, bullets and blades at technological mass-society in all of its manifestations, from the CEOs of earth-raping corporations, the disgusting machinery, the loyal workers and whichever bastard citizen happens to get in the way.
Speaking of 325 and the now maggot-ridden corpse of the Informal Anarchist Federation, its celebrities, priests, monks and worshippers…
We do not care to “tally” and “categorize” our actions so as to fill the webpages of the “autonomous media”. We do not want to confine our wild passions to the confines of some “rational” explanation, broken down by dates, locations and so on. All of that so as to be “accepted” by people who we dont give a shit about? So that any weak-minded idiot will be able to “comprehend” the abyss that seperates us from them? Not a chance.
We dont give a fuck if some “revolutionary” media-circus censors our heretical deeds and communiques, our propaganda efforts continue in various underground publications (which do not exist on the internet), and we dont need wretches like 325 to coordinate our groups and communicate. Our uncivilized and informal war is our own, and we know fully well who our enemies are. Your indignation stirs only laughter in us.
Darko Mathers would be turning in his grave if he’d seen what a bunch of pathetic, whining, ideologically-constipated, moralistic shits you lot have become. You clowns are the new fucking indymedia! Oh wait, shit, we forgot, only you are allowed to mention certain dead people, lest their “good names” be tarnished by those outside of your little club. Though as others have already mentioned, in the past some were more close to your circles than you might care to think. Watch your backs, you snitching little cowards. Your actions have consequences.
The fire “spoke”, the mania to light vehicles has not left us, nor will it ever.
In the early morning of the first day of August, we lit a trailer on fire in the alternate avenue of the Via Lopez Portillo, around Fovissste, in Ecatepec, Mexico State.
Our device consumed the entire accursed machine. The flames were unleashed and expanded threatening the surrounding houses that also deserve to burn. It would not have mattered to us if the slumbering citizens came out hurt, intoxicated, or whatever, since all in this repugnant society deserves to lie in smoldering ashes.
With this first act we declare to the authorities that we’re back. We are going to unleash a wave of indiscriminate / selective arsons sooner or later. So don’t be surprised if this picks up…
Our devices are designed to burn and some minutes afterwards to detónate. So we recommend that heroic citizens should be aware of the consequences should they try to put out the Great Consumer.
Because we hate the loud, disruptive, and harmful machines, symbol of despicable human progress:
Fire and explosives against civilization
With the Wild at our side!
Courage to criminality!
-Individualists Tending Toward the Wild (Mexico State)
“Do not wait for everyone to like you, but to get tired of hating you”
We continue the attacks against religious places undertaken by the brothers of Popocatzin Clan on July 14 with their thunderous package-bomb that left a serious injured in Mexico City, egoistically we claim the responsibility for the following actions during this week:
Leaving a package-bomb inside the Great Temple of Jehova Witnesses located on the avenue Lopez Portillo, in front of the mexibus station De la Cruz-San Mateo, in the town of Coacalco, Mexico State.Incendiary Device composed of gasoline, napalm and other flammable materials detonated on the door of a catholic church located on the Avenue Lago de Guadalupe, in Atizapan, Mexico State.Brother accomplices, let the acts speak instead of words!
Let the anti-humanistic threat of the ITS groups, of the Terrorist Nihilists groups and antisocial individuals continue despite any obstacle!
Fire, bombs, bullets, threats and knives against the representatives of EVERY religion, including the “elite” bureaucrats from the satanist churches!
The steps of war and confrontation of our ancestors accompany us in the ambush!
Death to the moral of the attack!
¡Axkan kema, tehuatl, nehuatl!
Individualists Tending Toward the Wild (Mexico State)
“I prefer nothing to be true before any of you being right, before your truth is right.”
Our path has become uncomfortable, nauseating, despicable, and the other pejoratives that the humanists never tire of hurling at us. The acts of ITS as well as its words don’t stop offending the great horde of anarchist sons of leftism. It seems that they can’t confront the terrifying fact of the Death of Anarchism. They can’t let go of the rotting corpse, they weep without any consolation, just as the crowd of women cried in their great sorority for the staggering body of Lesvy Osorio who was killed by our sisters and brothers who lurk about the horrible streets of Mexico City. This murder provoked such indignation that even the most radical leftists vowed to “kill the eco-extremists,” while a tear streamed down their cheek provoked by the death of some woman they didn’t know. What a beautiful and altruistic world!
Why weep for the hyper-civilized world and its humans?! How many tears do we humans deserve, who in our condition of homo sapiens have done nothing but drive the Earth into this debacle. We don’t deserve any tears, we deserve extinction. But the human drinks, eats, breathes, fucks, sleeps, consumes, lives… feeling himself God, the most luminous and indispensable thing in existence. Those anarchists with noble hearts who claim to be anti-anthropocentric but deny and fuss over indiscriminate attack that harms “innocents” are nothing but hypocrites. Does not the hyper-civilized feel like God? Or is that only a habitus of the powerful? It’s as if the young man of the poorest neighborhood didn’t dream of driving a Lamborghini, or of wearing gold chains and having ten women in his bed. That’s unfortunate for those who believe that: there are NO innocents. Civilization in this techno-industrial epoch has molded the human, educating him and making him docile when he is believed to be violent. He becomes a servant who smiles because it says he’s free, that is, it has made him hyper-civilized.
We eco-extremists don’t see innocents at the moment we attack. It should be pointed out that the attacks have become more indiscriminate each time. We have become blind men who have abandoned hope and have opted for the misanthropic. Supporting this Tendency that walks on the road of misanthropy we claim responsibility for: Some days ago we abandoned another explosive envelope with even more black powder in it than the one that exploded on that young girl Michelle on the Alameda Zaragoza last April. This time again we abandoned it in ANOTHER public place: in the Venustiano Carranza Forest in the city of Torreón. We don’t know what happened to the envelope. We think that it was found by the police who patrol the area, or it could be that one of these days the badly intentioned device explodes on another curious girl like Michelle. How misogynist are all of those eco-extremists who place bombs that detonate on women! Poor people, if they only knew…
For indiscriminate attack!
Let us take the road of misanthropy!
All hope is dead!
We do not see men or women, only a mass of hyper-civilized!
An accomplice embrace to ITS groups in the south and the new groups that share our words!
Strength to the sharp theoreticians in the United States who respond and silence all of the “big talking anarchists,” strength to our brothers in Central Mexico who have made the anarchists of that part of the world tremble!
Individualists Tending Toward the Wild-Torreón
Flint Point Hidden Clan
From the hell of 42 degrees centigrade, Torreón, July 2017
I was having a conversation the other day and the topic of bombings came up, much to my excitement I will admit. The conversation eventually wound its way into a discussion on the motivations of bombings and beyond this into a discussion of extremist violence in general. As the conversation unfolded and afterward as the thoughts continued to ferment in my mind I started to see that there is a deeply rooted instrumentalism in our modern attitudes toward violence. How many times have we seen people crying “Why? What was the point of this?” after some shooting, some bombing, etc.? Lamenting the apparent mindlessness of the violence, for it served no conceivable ends. And it seemed to me as I continued to dwell on this point that our deeply rooted instrumentalist perspective is one of the causes of discomfort with regard to the manner in which much of the violence related to eco-extremist action unfolds. Continue reading →