Add new comment

Eco-extremism clearly rejects many of the exact same things that green anarchism does, but who is an eco-extremist based on Attassa, Attassa #2, and many of the other texts than i have read? An eco-extremist is someone who kills people (ANY person) because people are pathetic. ITS did not call themselves eco-extremists ( i don't think ), but they theoretically are because they say that killing humans, any and all humans, as some sort of a wild rebellion, is desirable.

You said it: eco-extremism is based on the murderous activities of indigenous people, the "noble savage" fallacy that most anti-civs subscribe to, and the green anarchist fascination with how people can live without civilization.

In my own readings of the murderous activities of indigenous people, none of them said "humans are pitiful, lets kill them!", no, it was either based on some basic rage or inclination towards violence, as is the case with most murders in general, or it was some sort of warlike activity for resources, some sort of defense of lands, revenge, attempt to wipe out another culture, all the normal reasons. The yanomani developed a warrior culture, where manly aggression and violence were/are(?) prized. Yes there are parallels, but parallels are not equations. Just because Abe Carbrera talks about the yanomani does not make them eco-extremists. I have just as much "rightness" or authority to make such statements as you do. You are clearly not an expert on talking.

So people are violent and murderous, that does not make anybody an eco-extremist, eco-extremism is an ideological invention seemingly coming from Americans and Europeans.

I'm not fucking erasing shit you goddamn...sigh...if i insult anybody it might get erased. I'm just saying you have to be a fool to think that eco-extremism or the people who practice it (if they exist...) really have some sort of uniquely indigenous property. Most likely, in my estimations, a self-proclaimed eco-extremist is a shameless by-product of modern society.

We are all indigenous! Retroactively claiming some sort of genetics or heritage to make an ideology sound more appealing is green washing! Saying that people exclusively human, and everyone else is exclusively in-human, is foolishly trying to draw a line in the sand where one doesn't even exist!

Likewise, saying "EE is indigenous" is just the same thing as saying "EE is not indigenous", but your reaction to my latter statement is comical and shows that you are in some way trying to defend somebody, not exactly sure who! The eco-extremist authors? They don't need defending, as we don't even know who they are. The innocenct and oppressed indigenous people across the world? Aw! How cute!