Some Context for Issue Six

1      INTRODUCTION

In recent years the Mexican terrorist group Individualidades Tendiendo a lo Salvaje (ITS) has grown from a lowly group to an international eco-terrorist tendency. They have birthed a successful ideology, unique, but inspired by Ted Kaczynski, the nihilist terrorists (especially in Europe), the indomitistas based primarily in Spain, and others. They have also likely been influenced by the wildists, particularly this journal, Hunter/Gatherer, a connection that has far-reaching consequences for me, as I am the editor of this journal and the main author. So in this issue I’ve published a conversation I had with one of the propagandists for the eco-extremist tendency, in which we discuss paganism, the eco-extremist notion of “indiscriminate attack,” the idea of revolution, and several other points of contention or possible contention between myself, other wildists, and the eco-extremists. The conversation is illustrative, but I have some thoughts now that it is over and I have had some time to reflect on it.

This issue of the newsletter is a collection of several essays explaining my thoughts and, occasionally, the thoughts of others working with Wild Will. However, because the events the articles are responding to have been so obscure, I am providing the present editorial for context: background regarding ITS, background regarding indomitistas, and background regarding wildism. The other articles will elaborate on specific concepts and any changes in the wildist position, so I encourage readers to pay close attention to the entire issue. It is an important landmark, signaling a change in the newsletter’s direction in many ways.

2      SOME BACKGROUND

Several years ago when I left high school, I became a homeless anarchist and during that time was introduced to the works of Ted Kaczynski, also known as the “Unabomber,” an experience I write briefly about in the essay Ted Kaczynski and Why He Matters. The pointed arguments in the man’s manifesto convinced me (unsettling for me when, halfway through it, I learned of the author), and, more important, put words to many of the problems I had with the world around me. In response, I began several failed projects and then started one that stuck, The Wildernist, which I used as a means to get connected with some of Kaczynski’s associates in Spain—the editors ofÚltimo Reducto (UR), Anonimos con Cautela, and Isumatag. Eventually I succeeded, and my conversations with the groups, especially UR, benefitted me profoundly: made me more exact, more rigorous.

Around this time, I learned more about ITS. My knowledge until that point went only as far as this: they were a terrorist group in Mexico who had been inspired heavily by Ted Kaczynski, differing from him only in that they didn’t espouse revolution, and who had produced eight communiques, which I had read. Some missing pieces of the puzzle quickly revealed their origins. First, I learned that the main project of the Spaniards thus far has been translating Kaczynski’s works into languages other than English. The Portuguese version finished up just as I had started corresponding with the group, which explains why Kaczynski requested a Portuguese-English dictionary from me several months before. But the Spanish version had been finished by UR long ago—and published right around the time that ITS appeared on the scene. In the back of this edition was an essay by UR, “Izquierdismo,”which I translated for the second issue of The Wildernist.

All this indicated, just as we had all suspected, that ITS was a group of amateur criminals who found the ideas appealing, but who were responding primarily to Kaczynski’s call for revolution—and in disagreement with it. UR himself voiced these suspicions in his critique of ITS (translated by War on Society), written right around their fifth communique, and which marked a drastic change in their discourse, as one can observe by reading the sixth, seventh, and eight communiques. Later, the suspicions were confirmed when ITS published their fullest critique of the indomitistas to date, “Algunas respuestas sobre el presente y NO del futuro” (translated by War on Society). They note that they were indeed influenced by UR and Kaczynski, and that they vigorously disagree with the idea of revolution, preferring instead to act now as terrorists. Only later would they explain the ideological foundations of this view, which I will explain more fully later on.

The indomitistas, especially UR, are not fans of ITS, and they do not want to be connected to them. Indeed, UR seems to view ITS as a thorn in his side, not a tolerable splinter group. In general, I agreed with him for some time, and still find some eco-extremist groups to be eye-roll inducing at best and incredibly harmful at worst. Nevertheless, I noticed that the eco-extremists continued to use language and terms that the indomitistas had been using and that I had made known through my popularizing them in The Wildernist: progressivist, humanist, etc. I also became weary of UR. While brilliant, he is difficult to work with, sometimes naïve, unnecessarily incendiary… To illustrate, one might note that his critique of ITS—a terror group—began with a note on their grammatical inconsistencies. And in his critiques of my own writings, he would take great, exaggerated issue with phrases like “more or less” because of their ambiguity. It was getting to be a bit much, and I felt I could be more effective as an autonomous actor. So I broke away. The result was Hunter/Gatherer, a growing wildist network, a new editor of The Wildernist, and several other projects, like Blog for Wild Nature.

As the wildists grew, we changed our discourse in places that we disagreed with the indomitistas, such as the ubiquitous use of the ill-defined term, “leftism.” Instead, we used the terms “progressivism,” “opportunism,” and “humanism.” To our surprise, ITS followed suit. Other aspects of our language also appeared in ITS’ communiques, magazine, blogs, and texts. It seemed that even if there were disagreements, some eco-extremists read and were influenced by the newsletter and the wildist tendency.

2.1     THE INDOMITISTAS

The best word to describe the indomitistas is “picky”—in fact, not all of them even like the term “indomitista.” Attempting to outline their beliefs is an exercise in futility, because inevitably some small aspect will be wrong, misstated, or not stated just right, to which some individual, probably the editor of Último Reducto, will respond saying in an exaggerated manner that the outline was damaging to their cause. So it should be enough to say this: much of wildism and eco-extremism was influenced heavily by the indomitistas, but the indomitistas themselves do not consider themselves wildists or eco-extremists. If any reader would like to know more, they are free to contact some of the groups by visiting the indomitista websites linked to near the beginning of this piece.

2.2     THE ECO-EXTREMISTS

2.2.1      The First Phase

The eco-extremist story begins in 2011 with a lone Mexican terror group, Individualidades Tendiendo a lo Salvaje, most often translated as “Individualists Tending Toward the Wild.”[1] The group was responsible for a number of attacks on Mexico’s Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Universidad Politécnica del Valle de México (UPVM), and other universities, explicitly targeting those involved in the development of nanotechnics. Their first communique explains that nanoscience is a good target because it is one of the core infrastructural sciences of the 21st century, along with artificial intelligence and biotechnics, and as such it will benefit many other industries, like medicine or surveillance apparatuses. The group wrote that they were against these industries because they are against industrial society itself, citing as justification the destruction of wilderness, animal testing, and the subordination of the individual to the collective abstraction of “humanity,” among other reasons.

Most of what ITS wrote was unoriginal. Some of the ideas were lifted straight from Ted Kaczynski’s “Industrial Society and Its Future” (also known as the “Unabomber manifesto”) as well as the ideas of the indomitistas. Their arguments against the industrial way of life mimicked Kaczynski’s, and their emphasis on reasoned argument and their criticism of “leftism” copied elements from UR’s writings. Their style was similarly influenced: their communiques were long, almost ranty; they made ubiquitous use of footnotes; and so forth. (As mentioned before, this sometimes had a comical effect because of their occasional scientific inaccuracies and their decidedly non-academic and incendiary tone.) They also had obvious anarchist influences, substituting the o or a in gendered words for x, and they seemed at least marginally influenced by egoist and individualist theorists like Stirner, Nietzsche, and even Ayn Rand. In all, they began as a sort of hodgepodge of loosely related ideologies, often contradicting themselves. From those who speak Spanish, I hear that this is likely due to the obvious fact that at least two people were writing the communiques. But perhaps just as relevant was their newness to the game: they may have gotten away with a few crimes, but they were ultimately just amateurs to both terrorism and articulating non-progressive anti-industrial sentiments. That eventually changed, but it was how it all began.

The one unique aspect of the group’s ideology was their critique of “revolution.” It was unique in two ways. First, all other notable, related, and non-progressive anti-industrial ideologies still spoke of revolution (I refer mostly to the indomitistas, Kaczynski, and the wildists). Second, although some anarchists have critiqued revolution—most notably the insurrectionists—the critiques usually do not share ITS’ philosophical foundations, particularly their pessimism and fatalism, at least not without falling into inaction. ITS, on the other hand, held no hope for revolution but still acted as some of the most extreme eco-radicals to date. Right or wrong, on this front they were offering something new.

Their second communique explained their perspective on revolution in a somewhat convoluted manner. Not until later, with the publication of “Algunas respuestas sobre el presente y NO del futuro,” would it be articulated with elegance. Nevertheless, the ideas gave me pause.

The arguments were fourfold. First, the communique argued that revolution is a “leftist” concept, which to them meant a concept belonging to the dominant ideology of industrial society. Not only has it historically only lead to more Progress, it also requires a level of organization and management that doesn’t at all align with the group’s individualist values.

Second, the group contended, a revolution against industry was obviously impossible. Here they spoke specifically of Kaczynski’s proposals for an international and global revolt against industrial technology. If he was out of prison, “he would realize that now people are alienated more with the use of technology and that they have even put it on an altar as their deity, their sustenance, their own life. As such, the concept of ‘revolution’ is completely antiquated, sterile and out of date…”

Third, even if a revolution were to occur, it would not be caused by the revolutionaries themselves. This couldn’t even be done through mass education, since the masses are deluded and complacent.

Fourth and finally, they argued that even if revolution were to occur, and even if it was caused by the revolutionaries themselves, this would not ensure anything. To hope for a revolution as some sort of messiah is to set oneself up for disappointment. Since they are inherently unpredictable, any one that occurs is unlikely to fulfill promises made before.

Why then, does the group act? In their fourth communique, ITS explains:

It is worth mentioning that ITS do not expect to destroy the Industrial-Technological System as such (although we would want to, it would be a very utopian vision and outside of reality), but rather to try to destabilize and discredit the advance of the technological nightmare as much as possible, an objective we believe to be achievable due to the conditions which Mexico is experiencing as a semiindustrial country in the process of development.

Furthermore, they continue, they need no justification other than their own “instincts,” their own values, their own desire to live in a wilder world. Acting on these desires violently, they write, is just as a legitimate as talking about it, even more so, because the civilized only condemn violence for the problems it causes for industrial production and efficiency. The only reason to publish communiques is to reach those who share their wild instincts. In this way, they can spread the force of their attack, but without any hope that the docile masses will somehow be changed by terrorist words.

These communiques went on for several months. Notably, the fourth communique was a very long summation of ITS’ take on UR’s philosophy, borrowing concepts like “the power process,” and “allegados,”[2] emphasizing reason, psychologizing “leftism,” and so on. Interestingly, they spoke strongly on two matters they latter reneged on: first, they declared Nature as Absolute Reality, denying the existence of anything supernatural, like spirits; second, they criticized “amoral” positions, arguing that this was irrational, and that their morality was a reasoned one in line with nature. Both of these are defining elements of UR’s discourse.

All this caught UR’s eye, and after the group’s fifth communique, he issued a critique (translated by War on Society). In it, he condemned ITS’ incendiary tone, their grammatical errors, their philosophical inconsistencies, some of their oversimplifications (such as the slogan “Nature is good, civilization is evil”), and, most importantly, their arguments against revolution. It is the latter that would prove to be the main sticking point, at least in ITS’ eyes, for in response, they issued a “self-critique” in their sixth communique, generally admitting error, but maintaining that revolution was impossible.

The struggle against the Techno-industrial System is not a game that we should win or lose, defeat or be defeated; this is what many have still not understood and it seems that many are still expecting to be “recompensed” in the future for the current actions of “revolutionaries.” One must accept that many things in life are not recompensed, that many tasks and/or ends are never achieved (including Autonomy) and the destruction of the techno-system by the work of the “revolutionaries” is one of them. …That is why ITS sees in terms of what is tangible, palpable and immediate, and this immediate thing is the attack with all necessary resources, time and intelligence against this system. We are individualities in the process of achieving our Freedom and Autonomy, within an optimal environment, and together with it we attack the system that quite clearly wants us in cages, obeying our wild human instincts. With this we apply ourselves as individuals in affinity to try to keep ourselves as distant as possible from leftist and civilized concepts, practices and ideologizing.

Then, a brother of one of ITS’ victims published an article in the scientific journal Nature. ITS had made it big. They responded to the article in their seventh communique, arguing—correctly—that it was completely worthless, a regurgitation of the sterile platitudes we’ve come to expect from progressivists (e.g. “it is not technology that is the problem, but how we use it”). Other critiques were also published in Nature,[3] as well as a few other major periodicals, and to all of them ITS’ responded well, pointing out the holes in the opponents’ arguments and stressing, repeatedly, that they were not anarchists or leftists or anyone other than themselves, ITS. Slowly, one could see the group gaining some direction, some form, and their attacks, too, were becoming more effective.

By 2014, ITS published their eight communique, claiming responsibility for a few attacks, and shortly after they entered a “new phase,” greatly expanding their reach and influence.

2.2.2      Reaccion Salvaje
Figure 1. The photo Reaccion Salvaje released with their first communique.

Figure 1. The photo Reaccion Salvaje released with their first communique.

After a little more than three years of criminal-terrorist activity, the group “Individualists Tending toward the Wild” (ITS), begins a new phase in this open war against the Technoindustrial System…

So began the first communique of Reaccion Slavaje (RS). In it, RS explicitly distinguishes itself from theindomitistas (apparently also frustrated with that group’s pedantry) citing the argument about revolution as the primary difference (although there are several more). “…we do not consider ourselves revolutionaries, we do not want to form an ‘anti-technological movement’ that encourages the ‘total overthrow of the system,’ we do not see it as viable, we do not want victory, we do not pretend to win or lose, this is an individual fight against the mega-machine; we don’t care about getting something positive from this, since we are simply guided by our instincts of defense and survival.”

Also in the communique are the seeds of two concepts that will come to define eco-extremism as it exists today: reference to past ancestors and the adoption of their “warrior legacy”; and the notion of “indiscriminate attack.” The first is indicated by their reference to “ancestors” and the at the time mysterious symbol behind the two men in a photo they released with their first communique (see Figure 1). Later it would be revealed that the symbol is a reference to the Teochichimeca people, who resisted the Christian civilizing project from the thirteenth to the sixteenth centuries. Much of eco-extremist discourse and praxis after that point would be inspired by the Teochichimecas and other primitive peoples who fought against civilization, even unto death. The notion of indiscriminate attack, more complicated and nuanced, will be discussed another time and is covered in my conversation with MictlanTepetli.

Not only did RS signal an expansion of eco-extremism in Mexico and later Europe; it also signaled a more “professional” kind of terrorism. Unlike the ITS of before, RS had a blog, El Tlatol, at least one propagandist, and it produced several publications, primarily published by Ediciones Aborigen. The only publication to make it into the current phase of ITS is their tendency’s magazine, Regression, but it is well-produced—at least as well produced as the publications put out by the Jihadi movement.

Furthermore, the eco-extremist modus operandi expanded: rather than just targeting technicians, eco-extremist cells would target property and infrastructure, as well as some symbols of Progress and humanism. These targets included a Telmex cell phone tower, the Tunel Emisor Oriente (meant to prevent flooding in the city), several universities, an engineering society, and the Commission of Human Rights. All this, and the groups managed not to dilute their ideology and praxis, like the US eco-terrorists, known as the ELF, who over time digressed from highly effective arsons to attacking car dealerships and other things.

RS’ propaganda was the main indication that it had “grown up,” realizing, among other things, that the media attention given to terrorism is one of its primary strategic benefits. Because of this, RS cells and their propagandists did a number of interviews, some quite good, and all clarifying the anti-industrial ideology taken by the group. As a result, they successfully distinguished themselves from both primitivists and anarchists, and over time they found affinity with some nihilist terror cells in Europe, who adopted aspects of eco-extremist discourse.

Part of this propaganda campaign involved outlining the differences between eco-extremism and the indomitismoof Spain. Once again, the main sticking point was revolution.

Initially, the group issued a text entitled, “Respuesta Indirecta,” which the El Tlatol blog clarified was a response to the critiques of Anonimos con Cautela (AC) of South America, and UR. This text was simply a compilation of AC and UR’s critiques with some excerpts from ITS’ sixth communique.

Then, the group issued a more thorough, explicit response, “Algunas respuestas sobre el presente y NO del futuro” (translated by War on Society), which was primarily a response to Ediciones Isumatag’s (EI) criticism, “Algunas ideas sobre el presente y el futuro.” Although EI’s critique of ITS was measured and reasonable, the core arguments were inane, boring, trivial. EI wrote that ITS was in reality a leftist tendency, was inspired by an ineffective anarchist strategy called “insurrectionalism,” and was defeatist—nothing fundamentally different from what UR or AC had already said, and often flat-out wrong. The RS response pointed all these things out, also fully explaining, for the first time, their case against revolution as something possible and, more important, as something desirable. By far it is the best original text that RS has produced. It makes the following points:

Kaczynski proposes an international revolution against industrial society, pointing to the French and Russian revolutions as models, and explaining that although these revolutions failed to institute their new society, they succeeded in destroying the previous one. RS does not deny these arguments, but points out that the international proposal is unrealistic: both the French and Russian revolutions, and indeed all revolutions, have been confined to a local geographical area. The only successful international revolution, RS writes, was the industrial one.

Kaczynski also argues that our condition is like that of a poor man being dominated by a stronger one. While the strong man is strong and the weak man is weak, the situation stagnates. But if the strong man becomes sick, the weak man has an opportunity to kill him, and indeed he should. In a similar way, if industrial society is weak, revolutionaries who have prepared beforehand can kill it, even if such a thing seemed impossible just several years before. However, RS points out, there is not just one strong man, but many, and they will all try to take the place of the former guy should he die. Of course, this is the same with every revolution, some of which were nevertheless successful; but RS’ point, I think, was that there will be no “final” revolution, not in one region and certainly not across the globe. Thus, while revolutions may be part and parcel of the extremist defense of wild nature, they are not the hope, not the legitimating element, and really not the focus at all. In my discussion, for instance, the propagandist MictlanTepetli wrote that eco-extremists would of course contribute to a regional revolution in Mexico should that come to pass; but that means nothing particularly significant, since there is no telling how the revolution will end. It simply is, and in the meantime, in the present, the eco-extremists will continue to act in accordance with their values.

With this text, I began to regard eco-extremism as a serious eco-radical tendency. Their arguments were now sophisticated, their actions undiluted, and their propaganda effective.

2.2.3      The Second Phase of ITS

Unfortunately, RS broke apart instead of continuing to grow, and ITS was reborn in a “second phase.” The first communique of this new phase was disappointing, directly contradicting some of ITS’ previous positions and not, in my opinion, in a good way. This was true in two particular instances.

First, ITS wrote, “We have tossed in the waste bin the rationalism and scientism of our first communiques. Now we rejoice in our pagan roots and we create gods from our personal dwellings in nature and from its cyclical processes.” This, it seemed to me, was a grave mistake. Although I sympathize with animistic paganism as a metaphor, philosophical naturalism (also known as “materialism”) was not something I was willing to relent on. For one thing, it is true; for another, it has far-reaching consequences for every other aspect of eco-radicalism as I understand it, including my philosophical pessimism, my nihilism, my fatalism.

Second, ITS wrote:

We don’t distinguish between “good” or “bad” attacks in this war. We salute acts by groups who burn cars, those who detonate bombs in institutions that assist in destroying the Earth, as well as those who send mail bombs to blow up important people in populist and humanist organizations. We salute those who attack indiscriminately this compromised society, just as we rejoice in the arrows that pierce the bodies of loggers in the Amazon and surrounding places. It fills us with joy when tornadoes destroy urban areas, as well as when storms flood and endanger defenseless citizens. The same is the case when we see those who freeze to death in the cold winter, or when we see people wounded in earthquakes, for these are responses and reactions as well to the Technological System and civilization. We learn from nature and its violent reactions. Nature doesn’t stop when faced with subways, or rural or urban buildings. It doesn’t respect the common citizen or the scientific specialist. It is relentless, it destroys everything in its path without consideration for morality. With this, we are personifying in animist style Wild Nature, because in our pagan belief, nature is the Unknown Force of the first hunter with the same color skin as the earth, who with the first gatherer woman with braids of feathers, dances over the corpse of modernity and shakes the minds of those who feel in their gut the moribund beating of the Earth. They are dark beings with the characteristics of the Coyote and the Deer, with the scent of Moss and Mesquite, with eyes of Flame and Voice of Thunder; those that begot free man and woman, both wild, the same who have possessed our minds to continue on the war of our ancestors.

…which read like the writings of a mentally deranged person. As any reader of my discussion with MictlanTepetli will note, I maintain this is the case in several respects, and I remain strongly critical of the eco-extremist term and concept of “indiscriminate attack,” something I will more thoroughly address at a later time.

The only other notable development during this period, which is the current phase of eco-extremism, is the internationalization of ITS and its eco-terrorist tendency. Since the beginning of the second phase, several attacks have occurred in Chile and Argentina, several more in Rome and other places in Europe. One might also note other, anarchist terror groups like those belonging to the Federazione Anarchica Informale adopting eco-extremist discourse. The tendency, no doubt, is growing, and may quickly become the most formidable radical political force apart from the Jihadists. There’s no ignoring them anymore.

2.3     THE WILDISTS

When wildism began, it was simply an approximate translation of the Spanish indomitismo: the two were synonymous. Sympathizing with Kaczynski’s politic and the politic of UR, AC, EI, and the others, I joined up with them and formed The Wildist Network, translating much of UR’s work and putting all of Kaczynski’s public writings online in one place. However, as has been noted, this network eventually broke apart, and from that point on “wildism” became something altogether separate from indomitismo. For instance, no more would wildists speak of “leftism,” a term I always found unnecessarily ambiguous and inane. Instead, I would speak of humanism and progressivism. Also, although I considered revolution in the traditional sense as a possible course of action, I was not committed to it.[4] The first question, I argued, was the one regarding values, and to answer it I published “The Foundations of Wildist Ethics” in a new journal, Hunter/Gatherer, spending my time until now clarifying the ideas, spreading them, and slowly moving into strategy.

In truth, the wildist ideology does not differ much from eco-extremism. The discourse is nearly the same: humanism, nature, wildness, progressivism, artifice, individualism, and so forth—they all appear in wildist and eco-extremist texts and mean approximately the same thing. The arguments were also similar: There is no objective morality, so the concern is not some objective moral imperative, but the individual’s will and the values that will produces; since wildist individuals have indomitable spirits, wild wills, they reject the imperative to modify nature, especially the humanist imperative, and seek to rewild in the most extreme way their values allow. This means rejecting all aspects of civilized life, especially industrial life, like roads, electricity, planes, and so forth. It also means rejecting the humanist imperative to care for all humans equally; instead, wildists insist that an individual should not have to care for more than what he does naturally, before artificial regulations and modifications.

With the publication of Hunter/Gatherer’s first issue, wildism became the work mostly of myself and a man in the Netherlands, Jeremy Grolman. Since then, several students in different US states have started their own projects; a biologist reviews our literature for mistakes regarding scientific matters; some conservationists and environmental activists abroad have helped out and identify as wildists; and a handful of anarchists and eco-radicals have helped expand our reach in the media.

The goals of wildists have been to get the philosophy into academia and to build a student base from which we can launch effective attention-grabbing actions against research activity in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and related fields. This, it is hoped, will help internationalize non-progressive eco-radical ideas. I predict in an essay entitled “Organization” that this will encourage self-motivated individuals and groups to further globalize the ideology, and I have strongly supported linking actions to The Rewilding Program, proposed by The Wildlands Network, so as to be the “bite” to certain conservation proposals that would benefit eco-radicals and the wild world they care for.

In other words, other than country-specific differences in strategy, the only major gap between wildism and eco-extremism has historically been the wildist attitude toward movements and revolution, but this attitude has changed. And while no wildist supports the notion of “indiscriminate attack” (to my knowledge) this is not a majorgap simply because the notion is not an absolute element of eco-extremism, some cells not using the term and some seemingly critical of it. Paganism is a similar matter Because of this, there needs to be a reevaluation of the relationship between wildism and eco-extremism, something that this issue hopes to be.

3      CONCLUSION

The relationship between eco-extremists and wildists is complex. They are motivated by largely similar ideologies due to the common influence of the indomitistas and Kaczynski, but they have remained separate tendencies mainly because of their positions on movements and revolution. Because this primary sticking point has been resolved, as this issue’s article “Revisiting Revolution” will explain, it is time to reevaluate the relationship between the two. That is the role of issue six of Hunter/Gatherer. Because the newsletter operates on a rolling-release model, individuals involved with Wild Will will discuss responses to each article and issue out a concluding editorial explaining any changes in our direction. In the meantime, please send any thoughts to me, the editor, at johnfjacobi@wildism.org.

[1] The first and last words, however, lose their full meaning in translation: individualidades could also be translated as “individualities”; and lo salvaje could also be translated as “savagery,” especially when applied to human beings, as is often the case with Romance languages. (Consider the French sauvage, the Italian selvaggio, or the Portugueseselvagem.) These double meanings are significant, given the eco-extremist ideology.

[2] Wildists still use a derivative of the allegados idea, using the English term “relations.” See “Relations and the Moral Circle” and “The Individual and His Relations.”

[3] See, for instance, “Anti-Nanotech Violence” by Chris Toumey and “Nanotechnology: Armed Resistance” by Leigh Phillips.

[4] It has been a common misconception that I insist on revolution. To the contrary, as I noted in a private email to UR, I have for a long time been wary about both the term and concept, which is why no article on The Wildernistmentioned the term after “The Revolutionary Importance of Science.” I did not, however, want to dismiss the idea outright like many anarchists have.

Leave a Reply