Atassa, ITS, and Why Ecofash are Losers

Well, this is certainly a very niche topic to discuss on only my second ever post. But, if you're actually reading this, I'm assuming you're probably a leftist who is familiar with all the divisions and sects among anarchism and socialism. I will try to give a very basic explanation of these topics, so if you already know what I'm talking about, then this shouldn't be too much of a waste of time.


Let me make one thing straight: ECO-FASCISTS ARE ABSOLUTE GARBAGE. I will from now on refer to them as ecofash, because that's what they fuckin are, they are not eco-terrorists, they are not-eco-extremists, they are not eco-warriors. They have not spiked trees. They have not stood up to the Forest Service. They haven't done any agitation or organizing, they haven't been beaten by the cops, they haven't burned down hunting lodges or lumber mills or freed animals condemned to be vivisected. All they've done is murder innocent people. They barely have anything to do with leftism, or even environmentalism. They kill without purpose, without any hope of a better world. They give no quarter, and they deserve none. 

There are a couple of different ecofash groups, but I will mainly be talking about ITS, Individuals Tending Towards the Wild (in Spanish, Individualidades tendiendo a lo Salvaje). Atassa is the name of a collection of essays, poems, and communiques written by Ecofash, some of whom merely believe in that ideology. Others have personally carried out murders. A full transcription of it can be found here: https://archive.org/stream/AtassaReadingsInEcoExtremism/Atassa%20-%20Readings%20in%20Eco-Extremism_djvu.txt

There is an important distinction between ecoterrorists and ecofash. Ecoterrorists have conducted a wide variety of direct actions, including spiking trees to prevent logging, arson against luxurious and wasteful hunting lodges, arsons and bombings of logging operations, and occupations of forestry to prevent logging. While I do not condone bombing - it's rather extreme, and it can lead to innocent deaths (as far as I know, ecoextremists have never done this - only ecofash have). The arsons I am a little more sympathetic towards - I still have a little anarchist in me from back in the day, and besides, who doesn't enjoy a little property damage? The tree spiking and occupations I have nothing but unconditional support for - although I am not exactly on the spectrum of eco-socialism or eco-anarchism, I very much sympathize with those brave enough to stand up and fight. In a similar vein, while I am not a vegan, I have much respect for the Animal Liberation Front and their operations.

Ecoterrorist - someone who commits acts of terrorism for the cause of environmentalism. I don't think that's a very fair description; spiking a tree is not terrorism, occupying a forest is not terrorism. The real terrorists, the people who are actually murdering innocents, are the cops and the fascists who have only grown bolder in the last few years. But ecofash...they are on a whole different level. I don't even want to call them terrorists - not because they don't deserve it, they most certainly do, but being a terrorist implies having some sort of concrete cause or ideology, something consistent and logical and sustainable. Ecofash have no such thing.

Let us first examine the ideas of ecofash, so we can all better understand why they're complete fucking garbage. You're probably already familiar with concepts like anti-civ and post-civ. While I don't share their goal of the end of modern civilization and industry, I will gladly recognize them as quote-on-quote "valid" ideologies. I've discussed theory with a couple anticivs, and they're great people. Ecofash, however, are an extreme perversion of anticiv thought. Anticivs are usually also post-leftists, which is why they don't believe in the possibility of an intentional revolution, be it socialist, anarchist, or anticiv. Rather, they believe that the environmental destruction our species has caused - and the conflicts they create - will inevitably lead to worldwide catastrophe, be it ecological, global or nuclear warfare, or all three. In this sense, anticivs are passive revolutionaries - while they are not lazy, as they educate and spread their theory like most leftists, they do not support using violent means to bring about a revolution. Some anticivs do support certain nonlethal operations carried out by actually decent groups, such as the Earth Liberation Front, but an important distinction between anticivs and ecofash is that anticivs don't want to kill anyone. The ecofash, though...put simply, they are monsters.

"Eco-extremism is a tendency that seeks to recover the wild. It exalts one’s ancestral warrior instincts and declares war on all that is civilized. Eco-extremism is embodied in individual eco-extremists hiding in plain sight who emerge with cold ferocity at the opportune time. The eco-extremist is an individualist in that he defies the prohibition of the collective or community, any community, to fight, injure, maim, or kill. No collective has the authority to tell him or her what to do, as they have all forfeited their (non-existent) authority with their continuous war against Wild Nature. Along with the renunciation of the collective is a renunciation of hope or any “future primitive.” Eco-extremists believe that this world is garbage, they understand progress as industrial slavery, and they fight like cornered wild animals since they know that there is no escape. They look death in the eye, and yell, “Hoka Hey!” (Today is a good day to die.)

"Eco-extremism thus posits a pessimism concerning human endeavors and achievements, whether these are physical, spiritual, or moral. That is why it opposes civilization, especially in its techno-industrial manifestation. Modern civilization seeks to subjugate all to itself, and its hubris is its downfall. Eco-extremists seek to be instruments of that downfall, though they do not believe that they can bring it about themselves."

"Indiscriminate attack: The modern progressive mind objects to indiscriminate attack since it has not yet been able to shake off Western morality. For eco-extremists, acting indiscriminately is one of the primary methods of attack. To attack indiscriminately is to strike a target without regard for so-called innocent bystanders or collateral damage. While eco-extremist individualists usually take aim at targets that are significant to the techno-industrial society (government ministries, universities, transport vehicles), individualist terrorists do so with the intent of inflicting the maximum amount of damage, and this includes human casualties."

I hope these excerpts from Atassa can give an adequate introduction to ecofash theory. Basically, ecofash believe they can "return to nature" by destroying civilization itself - every single aspect of it. Although, like post-left anticivs, they do not believe in conducting a traditional revolution, and do not even believe in their own capability to personally bring about an end to civilization, they paradoxically decide that they should murder people anyway. They admit they have no faith in the possibility of conducting a successful anticiv revolution, they admit they are an outcast extreme in an already niche ideology. Yet they continue their attacks of indiscriminate murder.

"It is a product of the contradictions of our time, of the haziness of anthropological scholarship, of the renunciation of political action, and of the contemporary ideological impasse. This tendency knows that this impasse will not be solved by better philosophies or moral codes, but only in the destruction of all that exists, including the “hyper-civilized” (i.e. all of us). Techno-industrial society is a problem that should have never existed in the first place, and all of the defects and contradictions of eco-extremism as an ideology are the result of society’s contradictions reflected as in a distorted mirror. There is no solution. The only appropriate response is fire and bullets. This attitude puts the eco-extremist at odds not only with the authorities of techno-industrial society, but also with other so-called radical groups. There are no “call outs” or expressions of solidarity in eco-extremism. There is no attempt by eco-extremism to morally or philosophically justify itself. Innocence or guilt never enter into the eco-extremist calculus."

"Theoretical eclecticism is only countered in the eco-extremist with single-mindedness in violent attack. The eco-extremist has cast off his or her affinity with the hyper-civilized and sees virtually everyone as an enemy. These individualists have come to value attack more than their very lives, as countless other warriors and savages have done before them. They don’t ask for help from those whom they have come to see as at best useless, and at worst the hated adversary worthy of death. The eco-extremists are already on the radar of the authorities of the countries where they operate, and beyond. They are under no illusion that they will be able to evade them indefinitely."

"Suitable recruits to the revolutionary movement will include only those who are prepared to abandon the old values and morality and adopt in their place the revolutionary values and morality. The revolutionary message needs to be addressed to and designed for, not the general public, but the small minority of people who have the potential to become committed members of the revolutionary organization." [Author's note: fuck this vanguardist bullshit.]

"On June 28th, the only ITS group that had not taken responsibility for anything to that point, namely, ITS-Mexico, stabbed an UNAM worker, leaving him to die on the grounds of the most prestigious campus in the country, the University City."

"On the 19th, ITS-Argentina took responsibility for the poisoning of numerous bottles of Coca-Cola that they left in the refrigerators of two shopping centers in Buenos Aires, a formidable 

attack against the lives of hyper-civilized southerners."

"With complicity as well with all who take responsibility for savage and hidden attacks, for the unknown and the mayhem, the chaos and nothingness. For those who have decided to carry out physical criticism and not remain in obscurity. For those who mock, who enjoy, and who are passionate for explosives and arson. For the bomb threats where hundreds need to be evacuated. For those who carry out bloody crimes and who leave wounded victims. For those who instinctively thirst for destruction. For those who don’t get discouraged by failed attacks and who learn from their mistakes. For the anarchist terrorists, for the amoral, indiscriminate attackers. For the impertinent uncivilized murderers, for the serial pyromaniacs, for the anti-social people who use dynamite, for the criminals and thugs, for those who feel blood in their veins and act in fury and/or have fun at night demonstrating their disdain. For those who unwind themselves in uninhibited fashion during an attack."

Now that we have established what makes ecofash complete and utter garbage, let us dive deeper into their ideology. The above excerpts shed light on their basic principles, opposition to civilization, and deplorable tactics. The following excerpts will demonstrate their obsession over and fetishization of "primitive" cultures, and will explain why their views are utter fucking nonsense. I want to point out that I am not critiquing any of these indigenous societies; rather, I am including descriptions of them, taken from Atassa, in order to give background.

"Boys in Yanomami society, Clastres observes, are “encouraged to 

demonstrate their violence and aggression. Children play games that are 

often brutal. Parents avoid consoling them. The result of this pedagogy is that it forms warriors." The missionaries have failed utterly to dispel their love of violence. Guns given as gifts by the Salesians, with the stipulation that they be used for hunting and nothing else, are quickly integrated into the Yanomami war machine. “Try to convince warriors to renounce an easy victory’’ Clastres writes, ’’These are not saints." The presence of firearms of course makes it possible for larger scale massacres. Clastres points out, however, that it is common practice to invite a tribe to feast with the intention of slaughtering them all. Such acts are never forgotten and blood feuds are passed down through the generations. In a day with twenty-one hours of leisure time, there are ample opportunities to cultivate animosity for one’s enemies."

What follows is an anthropologist's thesis on the nature of warriors among "primitive" societies. While there is obviously nothing wrong with studying such cultures, and again, I am not criticizing these cultures, the mistake made by ecofash is the gross exaggeration, romanticizing, and fetishization of them.

"The thesis that Clastres is best known for is simple: the permanent state of war that one finds in most indigenous societies is a strategy, deliberately employed, to retain territorial segmentation and prevent the development of the State or monolithic culture. Tribal war resists globalization. Clastres: The war machine is the motor of the social machine: the primitive social being relies entirely on war, primitive society cannot survive without war. The more war there is, the less unification there is, and the best enemy of the State is war. Primitive society is society against the State in that it is society-for-war."

"No matter where we look among primitive communities we will find violence blazing forth like a torch in the dark night. For all the cultural variations and nuance, this one thing appears to be universal. The myth of the peaceful primitive is pernicious. As we will see below, part of the reason this myth exists in the first place is the absence of an understanding of what war means outside the context of our own stunted and repressed conceptions of violence. Clastres writes: "one image continuously emerged from the infinite diversity of cultures: that of the warrior.” What is the meaning of this figure? How do we explain or understand the universal love of war? What does it mean for our society to have turned its back on this primal force, to abandon it to be the work of robots or sterile corporate employees? We have lost "the spectacle of our free warlike vitality.” And it has been replaced by a most murderous and vile peace."

"In these texts Clastres refined his idea that warfare and torture were deliberately implemented by primitive communities to prevent the emergence of the state or other hegemonic powers and thus to prevent radical inequality. The violence imposed almost constantly on all members of society reminded everyone of their place: The law they come to know in pain is the law of primitive society, which says to everyone: You are worth no more than anyone else; you are worth no less than anyone else. The law, inscribed on bodies, expresses primitive society’s refusal to run the risk of division, the risk of a power separate from society itself, a power that would escape its control. Primitive law, cruelly taught, is a prohibition of inequality that each person will remember...The key point to be made about war in the tribal context is that it itself is a goal, it is a response to a need."

"This is the complexity of primitive society: there are enemies and there are allies. The former necessitates the latter. And these categories are always in flux: a community never launches into a war adventure without first protecting itself by means of diplomatic acts — parties, invitations — after which supposedly lasting alliances arc formed, but which must constantly be renewed, for betrayal is always possible, and often real. Such alliances are created and maintained primarily through the exchange of women, who are also accumulated as spoils of war. This paradox, the exchange of women in securing alliances and the capture of women in war, illustrates, for Clastres the disdain toward exchange economy. Why should we trade for women when we can simply go get some for ourselves: “the risk [of war] is considerable (injury, death), but so are the benefits: they are total, the women are free.” [Author's note: the dilemma of whether or not we - you, me, whoever is reading this - should impose our cultural values (in this case, in relation to the rights of women) on "primitive" societies is a very complicated question. I will not give an opinion at this time, but I will say that one of the many reasons I oppose a return to a "primitive" state of humanity is that it is very possible women would be reduced to little more than a commodity, a spoil of war, to be raped and thrown away. This is unacceptable.]

"War is a way of preserving the community.The cohesion, permanence, and stability of primitive life are all achieved through an unending state of war. This does not mean, of course, that we are always warring, but we are always at war, we are always about war, we always are war. The permanence of war in primitive society creates the image and idea of totality upon which all else depends. My identity is preserved through war. I am different because of war. I exist at all through war. To maintain the uniqueness and separation of identities and communities is not a byproduct of war, it is the purpose of war."

"While it is true that we can say that primitive man is by definition a warrior, it is no less true that not all men are equally called to their task. The core of the war-making men is made up of those who have become enflamed by their passion for blood and glory. These are men who have devoted themselves utterly to violence and the pursuit of honor. They exist for nothing else. Every man is a potential warrior but not everyone fulfills this destiny. Clastres puts it thus: "All men go to war from time to time...some men go to war constantly!' Clearly when a village is attacked, it can be assumed that all men will act as warriors. But it is this special class that must engage in warlike activities even in times of peace. They do not go to war to respond to the needs of others but because they hear the drum beating at all times within their breast."

"As we have established, war functions in primitive society as a way to preserve autonomy and prevent the accumulation of political power and the growth of the state. The role of the warrior is to make war. And the warrior is the man who has passion for war. But what is the source of this passion? Simply put, the warrior’s passion for war stems from his desperate, wild hunger for prestige, honor, and glory. This fact helps us understand the existential dimensions of the act of warring. The warrior can only realize himself if society confers meaning upon him. Prestige is the content of this meaning. The community awards prestige to the warrior in exchange for accomplishing specific exploits, which as we have seen in turn increases the prestige and honor of the community as a whole. The calculus of prestige is determined by society and it may be that certain war-acts are considered imprudent and thus no prestige is granted. It is perhaps needless to say that heredity or lineage bears no prestige. In other words, nobility cannot be inherited; glory can only be attained by the hand of the man who seeks it; it is nontransferable."

The rest of this particular essay goes on to explain how in many "primitive" societies, war is pursued not as it is in the rest of the world, that is, for economic, social, religious, etc. reasons; rather, "primitive" societies conduct war for the simple pursuit of glory and bloodlust. Warriors scalp their enemies and bring them back to their village as trophies, gaining them status within their community. This warrior culture, however, is self-destructive, as simply retrieving scalps will not garner a warrior respect forever. Warriors must pursue riskier and riskier feats in combat; one such display of bravery is entering an enemy camp at night and slaughtering as many warriors as possible before fleeing. Each act of bravery garners a warrior more and more respect, but every such display is inevitably a more deadly venture than the last. It is quite the deadly pursuit. My main objection to this type of society is not that it is inherently wrong; rather, I have no desire to have that lifestyle imposed on me. If other people want to "return to their primal nature" and live a life of tribal warfare, that's fine, but unlike the ecofash who idolize and worship "primitive" cultures, I have no desire to destroy civilization and force this lifestyle on an unwilling populace.

Why Wild Nature is Appealing

I would now like to explain why the idea of primitivism is appealing to me. Rest assured, I do not at all agree with its ideas, and I will shortly make very clear why I reject it. And although I entirely reject the nihilistic, murderous ideology worshiped by ITS, I admit there is a certain allure to it. They whisper their temptations to me, and sometimes, they get through. There's something enchanting about the primitivist vision of the future, of being free from the shackles of the factories and the streets and the subways and the pollution and the banks and the bills and the computers and the pollution and noise. There's a certain charm to living the primitive life: living one with nature in the wild, being one with the trees, the rivers, the sky.

It's beautiful.

But I can't bring myself to do it.

I can't give up this life, all this technology, medicine, internet, infrastructure, satellites, electric ovens, rock music, fast cars, good games, good food, good porn. I just can't give it all up. I cannot allow myself to face the conclusion that civilization itself is killing us. It might be true, I don't know, but I cannot allow myself to realize it. The implications would shatter my mind. 

At the end of the day, no matter how much it pains me, I must reject anti-civ. Thankfully, I have no hesitation in denouncing the total perversion of anti-civ that is ITS. The one good thing about them is that they are pathetically weak. They have maybe a couple dozen members worldwide in isolated cells who are never going to accomplish anything at all. Their actions have alienated them from any base of support, and their flame will soon die out. They defile the cause of fighting for our Earth. I hope they fucking suffer.

Paradise is a lie if we have to burn you at the stake to get inside

You cannot control what is Wild!