Arson at National Institute of Forestry, Agricultural, and Livestock Research in Mexico

From Culmine (March 3, 2011):

Communiqué from the Earth Liberation Front, Mexico:

We, the Earth Liberation Front, take responsibility for the arson at the Mexican Valley Experimental Field in Texcoco, Mexico State. The field belongs to the National Institute of Forestry, Agricultural, and Livestock Research (INIFAP), which is dedicated to the research and development of “improved technology” in the areas of agriculture, animal husbandry, and forest exploitation. For example, INIFAP has been responsible for the production of over 100 new genetic varieties of plants since 2005, greatly increasing the country’s crop production and therefore its demand for land to be deforested and polluted with pesticides and herbicides.

This year, INIFAP opened the National Center for Genetic Resources (CNRG), which is responsible for storing genetic samples of every species endemic to Mexico and Latin America.

The Scientists in this field argue that their project is beneficial to ecosystems, but if we analyze it, these people are really dedicating their lives to the creation of new types of organisms in the name of progress. If we leave such a great variety in their hands, will anything ever be out of their reach? INIFAP also carries out forestry research, which it uses to promote the increased deforestation of wild habitats. For example, two weeks ago INIFAP published an article about the timber industry, an institution that had developed “ecological” (note the quotes) furnaces for drying logs in the mountains north of Puebla. In its article, INIFAP made its hopes clear that these furnaces would lead to growth in the region’s forestry industry, thus threatening an environment in which all kinds of species coexist.

Therefore, we claim the following ecotages inside and outside this federal institution:

1. Leaving an incendiary device—made from three liters of gasoline, fuses for detonation, and air freshening pellets as delays—among hundreds of sacks of herbicide in a warehouse inside their facility.

2. Leaving another incendiary device—fueled by four liters of gasoline—at the entrance to the main building near the experimental field.

3. Leaving two incendiary devices inside two greenhouses outside and behind the facility.

4. Also leaving behind declarative and threatening graffiti—like “THIS TIME IT WAS FIRE, NEXT TIME IT WILL BE BOMBS,” “ELF,” “INIFAP = DESTRUCTION OF WILD NATURE,” “FLT,” “MORE GMOS, MORE FIRE,” among others—on the windows, floor, and walls of the main building; the walls of the other buildings; an INIFAP van; and the power generator.

We’ve struck again. We made use of months of thorough investigation to study the target, taking into account the shifts of the guards, who must have certainly been surprised to find out we were there that morning of February 27—leaping over their security fence, running through their parking lot, and turning our existence into a threatening aggravation to the projects of those who dream of total domestication. We infiltrated the institution itself as well as its fields, where the greenhouses were located. We shifted into action once again, our fire reigniting to damage and destroy the property of those who believe they own the planet on which we survive as the degenerate species of the technological-industrial system.

Keeping our imprisoned anticivilization comrades Adrián and Braulio in mind, we’re absolutely ready to make this type of attack a clear message to industries and institutions that implement technological development.

In another sense, the attack was a symbolic act directed at science and technology. To us, the action may have been of very little or no importance, but it was still necessary, since from our perspective it’s deplorable to sit around like mere passive spectators waiting for things to change. We don’t believe that this action is going to change reality right away, as that would make us either naive or overly pragmatic. But it does function as a desperate act of expression through which we signify that the reality we live in must be negated in its totality, and that the best negation is the destruction of whatever gives meaning to the establishment: “social peace,” normality, institutions, respect for property, etc. In this case, the destruction was directed at one of the major parts of modernity’s system of domination: techno-science. This time, the attack was on a federal government institution responsible for forestry research and biotechnology, among other things. As a pretext for its existence, we’re told that it is seeking a better life for the human beings who live in this country, creating acceptance of this kind of research among the populace. But, as we all know, there are also negative aspects, which to us have greater impact and are more unacceptable and than the benefits: the artificialization and domination of wild nature, especially of potentially free beings including human beings, plus the denial of the necessary autonomy for free human self-determination. On the one hand, the state grants itself the right and the obligation to provide its inhabitants with the means for their survival. On the other hand, the state isn’t even necessary, since it causes alienation whenever its subjects doesn’t find themselves directly immersed in activities that serve to satisfy their survival needs. This leads to numerous psychosocial problems, and of course generates the market as an intermediary, which in turn functions through the standardization of the massive present-day consumption that is deteriorating the environment. This is very much related to the institution we attacked, which attempts to make excuses for continuing its scientific barbarism by creating new technologies—in this case, biotechnologies that claim to solve the problems that science itself causes, fostering the idea that such ecosystem deterioration doesn’t matter as long as we have the science to fix it. Thus, a vicious circle is created that attempts to solve problems with more problems, under the pretense of a “better life.”

Our proposal is to negate the artificial reality that civilization has constructed, not indirectly, but by seeking a way of life that doesn’t involve domination—the most autonomous way of life possible within wild ecosystems and without intermediaries, especially those that are mere deceptions like science and modern dominating technology. Of course, this proposal won’t be accepted by most people, which is fine and even desirable, since among the problems posed by forms of social organization are the dominating structures conceived by mass societies. Therefore, we trust that people who have a truly critical and radical conscience will reflect on the real problems confronting us and act accordingly.

We continue to be the burning rage of a dying planet.

—Earth Liberation Front, Mexico