Suspect behind Saturday’s deadly bombing at a Palm Springs fertility clinic as 25-year-old Guy Edward Bartkus, a resident of Twentynine Palms, California.

Law enforcement sources confirm that Bartkus is believed to have carried out the powerful explosion that injured five people and left him dead at the scene.

In a disturbing development, federal investigators revealed that a tripod-mounted camera was discovered near the blast site, suggesting Bartkus may have attempted to livestream the attack.

The vehicle was a silver Ford Fusion sedan, plate 8HWS848.

The FBI has classified the incident as a deliberate act of terrorism.

“Make no mistake, this is an intentional act of terrorism,” the FBI stated during a press briefing.

Though authorities confirmed they had identified the individual responsible, they emphasized that no additional suspects are currently being sought.

The bombing occurred at approximately 11:00 a.m. on Saturday, near the American Reproductive Centers located at 1199 N. Indian Canyon Drive, just north of East Tachevah Drive and near Desert Regional Medical Center.

In the aftermath of the attack, federal agents executed a search warrant at Bartkus’ residence on Adobe Road in Twentynine Palms.

He reportedly shared the home with 63-year-old Dianne Bartkus, believed to be either his mother or grandmother.

No social media presence for the suspect has been found, and his motive remains unclear.

An audio manifesto allegedly recorded by Bartkus before the incident has also been recovered and is currently being analyzed by authorities.

The individual identified as Guy Edward Bartkus, who perpetrated the bombing of a Palm Springs fertility clinic, recorded an audio manifesto prior to the act, detailing his motivations.

In this recording, Bartkus articulated his rationale for the bombing and his subsequent suicide, centering on a fundamental objection to existence without prior consent and a broader philosophical stance against procreation.

Bartkus initiated his statement by asserting his anger at being brought into existence without his explicit consent.

He anticipated the counter-argument regarding the impossibility of obtaining consent from a non-existent individual but argued that this very impossibility underscores the ethical impropriety of procreation.

He likened the act of bringing someone into existence without consent to the act of non-consensual sexual activity with an unconscious person, dismissing any attempts to rationalize the former as “retarded” and “childish.” He clarified that his use of such terms was not ad hominem, as it followed the articulation of his argument.

Expanding on his core grievance, Bartkus described life as an unwanted imposition, akin to a “life drug” that individuals are pressured to consume.

He recounted a lifelong disinterest in experiences deemed typical or desirable by others, expressing frustration at the societal pressure to engage in these activities. He characterized this pressure as analogous to children coercing others into drug use, albeit with life being a more potent and harmful “drug.”

Bartkus further elaborated on his analogy of life as a drug, stating that the inherent nature of life necessitates a constant pursuit of needs and desires to avoid a state of deprivation.

He argued that this pursuit, driven by the brain’s mechanisms, renders the endeavors of life “stupid” and indicative of a lack of intelligent design in evolution. He pointed to the suffering of innocent creatures as evidence against the notion of an intelligent design, asserting that life is a consequence of circumstance rather than intentionality.

He described life on Earth as a “nasty game” and a “zero-sum game” where the default state is one of deprivation, and the best outcome is merely the cessation of this deprivation. Referencing the philosopher Gary Inmendham, he stated, “There is no care.

There’s only the whip,” suggesting that all perceived pleasures are simply the absence of pain or unmet needs. Bartkus lamented the pervasive harm and suffering inherent in this system, which he found increasingly unbearable with greater awareness. He viewed individuals as being largely powerless to alter this fundamental condition, effectively living as “slaves to a DNA molecule.”

Bartkus then addressed the concept of suicide prevention, characterizing it as an act of “pushing life” – the unwanted “drug” – onto individuals, particularly when a peaceful means of ending one’s life is sought. He argued against the validity of such intervention.

In a notable point, Bartkus theorized a connection between suicidal ideation and mass shootings, citing data from The Violence Project indicating that suicidal crises often precede mass violence. He posited that the provision of a “right to a graceful exit” could potentially prevent a significant number of mass shootings.

He criticized the current legal frameworks for assisted suicide as inadequate and overly restrictive, deeming them a “fake right to die.” He refuted the “slippery slope argument” against a universal right to die, comparing it to similar objections raised against other human rights like free speech, and argued that the potential for misuse is outweighed by the fundamental right to self-determination, particularly given the non-consensual nature of being brought into existence.

He expressed disdain for arguments suggesting that suicide by violent means is an acceptable alternative, highlighting the unpleasant realities of such methods.

Turning his attention to in vitro fertilization (IVF), Bartkus vehemently opposed it as the “epitome of pro-life ideology” and intrinsically wrong due to the inability to obtain consent from the future individual. Identifying as “anti-life,” he expressed animosity towards IVF clinics and their personnel, asserting that ignorance of his philosophical objections is not an acceptable excuse for their practice. He drew a parallel to holding individuals accountable for harmful actions regardless of their intent or understanding.

Bartkus further criticized the “life games” promoted by society, such as consumerism and participation in systems he deemed exploitative (e.g., factory farming).

He expressed a sense of alienation and disgust with these societal norms. He reiterated his central argument regarding the non-consensual nature of birth, stating, “Children cannot consent to being born; therefore, you do not have consent to the act of bringing someone into this world,” a premise he found “reminiscent of rape,” highlighting a perceived similarity in the underlying mindset.

Bartkus expressed concern over the censorship of his views and related topics online, suggesting that algorithms and shadow banning are used to suppress these discussions.

He acknowledged that while such manipulation is not entirely effective, it nonetheless impedes the dissemination of his ideas. He specifically mentioned the extreme censorship on platforms like YouTube and alleged the banning of terms like “antinatalism” on Twitter.

He concluded his detailed explanation by reiterating his opposition to pro-life ideology, which he characterized as inherently harmful and incapable of producing objective good. He also expressed his rejection of transhumanism. Identifying as a “pro-mortalist” (though disliking the term due to potential misinterpretations), he clarified that his stance is one of favoring non-existence over the continuation of a life he perceives as inherently negative.

He asserted that his actions were a necessary means to draw attention to these critical issues, given the censorship he experienced online. He emphasized that his motivations stemmed from a concern for all sentient beings and the suffering he perceives as pervasive. He clarified his veganism as a stance against preventable harm, acknowledging that the harm caused by nature is more extensive but arguing for human responsibility to mitigate the harm within their control.

In a final addendum, Bartkus addressed potential criticisms of pro-mortalism as “evil,” arguing that pro-mortalists do not create death but merely advocate for its earlier occurrence to minimize suffering.

He posited that parents, by bringing individuals into existence, are the ones who initiate the process that inevitably leads to death, thus labeling them the “real killers.” He concluded by asserting the simplicity and rationality of his arguments.