A green perspective goes into my thoughts. I do criticize civilization from time to time, primarily its division of labor, its use of technology as a bludgeon and the rise of industrialism and mass society in this era of capitalism. The perspective of colonialism is great as a narrative to the historic culprits of the invasions from over the past 500 years coming primarily from the West and it opens up the idea of contact with this historic force as helping define the conflicts that lead into contemporary times. A green perspective needs to adapt the historic analysis of colonialism, imperialism and white supremacy as the forces that rigged capitalism as a historic system of domination.

Rewilding and domestication can't be framed exclusively by Zerzanian authors whose ignorant biases prevent them from allowing space for free will, depending more strongly on what science tells them instead of on what their own body and self tells them what it means to be free. If your anarchy is about the denial of arguments of free will and being able to discuss the definition of things on how they relate to our own free wills, they aren't forms of anarchy I'd care to include in my thoughts.

Once rewilding and domestication are broken free from Zerzan and his circle, it is easy to see that rebellion against not just domination, but also against progress is part of the rewilding process. Freeing ourselves from domestication isn't about becoming (just) hunter gatherers, but rather is a negative project which fits better as a general anti-civilization practice, with the outcome of that resulting possibly in hunter gatherer living...but it could also just be nomads in an RV, computer hacking, joining a circus, luddite attacks on production, full subsistence urban gardening, permanent strike, riots, unrest. The rebellion against domestication and undoing the programming of civilization involves an anti-civilization approach, though not necessarily hunter gatherer because it is about exposing all the failures that has come from civilization and challenge the point of view that progress is occurring and/or where we should be going. Without this strong emphasis on the failures of progress it can fall into the irrelevance of Zerzanian babble (symbolic thought, fetishizing hunter gatherer life, specialization in anthropology, etc.) or into the problems of progress based radicalism represented by most of the left.

there is negation and position,the ebb and flow between being and void.
indigenous solidarity means a wild spirit underlies all things,
there is no space.
there is only Apu in Ayni, mind in reciprocity.

the process of civilization is a specific folly, current to human-kind who can't help but to explore an interest in adventure and spookery. certain war mongerers and social conquerers have sought a position of domain outside their own individual person.
they claim the spook of authority and grant the same to other perceived beings.
Civilisation is a zombie, propped up by the authoritarian manner of being, where the abstract of potential is neglected in preference to the so called real or material knowledge, the primal-binary blood-thirst. the sometimes useful perception of a life/death binary can be a tool for enslavement and unfortunately, we-people generally adapt to accept the comfort and bread which our walking-dead tyrant provides. we even chew our own soul, ostensibly attempting to identify Things, rationally differentiating one from an other into empirical categories or identity. . yet, we won't be generalized for we are truly detached from such science. the newborn mind lives naturally, ever-free of artifice. given all of our folly and failure, yet any one of our children or pets may rebel.
Anarchism is the allergy! we are to proliferate,
keeping in mind all our relations, ever,
as one objective dignity; just total freedom.
the infinite loving freedom to evolve comes before and goes far beyond any 0-1 valuation
our true dynamic is some tree-hugging rainbow magic
the forest, is a healing force.
any humanity must find home in it or be lost
there is no hope, neither for escape nor future.
long live the potential for to be!

this, the anarche-political spectrum is an all-inclusive orgy, wherein to engender an autonomous member with a static identity is to overstep nature. while there's a given distinction between that which fills and that which envelops, neither can be can be truly denominated by any worldly individual; the only real understanding is that of All Our Relations.
thus we don't where stripes on our sleeve, we fly the black flag as symbol of our fighting spirit which is an amalgamation of all the callers in sunshine, condensed to a window-shattering, solid rock.

I am a Zerzanian, said no one ever

Feel the Zern !!!!!

As for your question about ITS, I think you should continue publishing their communiques and ideas here. They may not explicitly be anarchists, but they are of immense interest to many green anarchists and anarcho-primitivists here. It would be a lot like publishing non-anarchist socialist texts here because they're interesting to syndicalists.

Also, ITS does COME from anarchism, or at least some of them. They are clearly relevant to our own efforts.

One of the things that is often on my mind is how often it appears that green people focus on environmental issues in a similar way that reds focus on class, both often as a way to (I'd say often unconsciously, even) avoid facing questions of race and gender and other molar forms of domination. I have seen some green theories that too conveniently place those who employ them in engagements other than ones that require them to face these issues.

This is not to say that anti-civ people are necessarily particularly racist or otherwise, just that it's a light flag.

for me an anti-civ perspective goes along with my nihilism. it's less about developing a less mediated relation with the immediate environment (although i find that important too) and more about an understanding that city life, industry, technology, and agriculture as we know them must be destroyed, if not destroyed entirely.
i agree with the first comment that anti-civ anarchy is a negative project, fighting civ and living beyond or after civ will look all kinds of ways and we're being foolish if we imagine it'll be one way for everyone.
in terms of indigenous solidarity, it's relevant a lot of time, although i think it's important to not fetishize the people or what they want. a lot of traditional indigenous societies aren't compatible with my idea of anarchy and it's important for me to acknowledge that my trajectory is more anti-colonial than de-colonial.
really though i don't really expect or hope for collapse or revolution or communism or any sort of very large change in how we live so i see an anti-civ struggle as a struggle more than a possible destination anyways.

So propaganda by the deed is very glamorous, the urban culture and mass production self destructive. Sort of taste redundant though. There is talk of quietism, but perhaps there is loudism as well...Kropotkin might be oh-so passé, but what about bread? There is something to be said about an approach that is overtly one-sided isn't it? Which also could be extended to an academic bickering over terms. Is any one tendency a panacea?

This society is one where everyone is a victim and no one is responsible. That doesn't mean that one needs to channel Charles Manson, but it does mean that there is no room for half measures. In that, they are just engaging in the rules of war just like any army or state.

Exactly. Just like any army or state. There is no room for half measures? Since when is the eco-extremist tendency a strategical position? It is explicitly not. We can talk about "half measures" when we talk about a goal to attain.

The fact is, any action that you take can harm someone.

It's true. How does this imply that precautions should not be taken and that the concept of collateral damage should be endorsed? If you remember, several years ago there were three bank employees (not bankers) who died after a bank was set on fire in Athens. Were they wrong in burning the bank? They weren't. Should they have said that they don't give two shits because the employees were not innocent? No. Some of the anarchists have publicly expressed their grief and defended their comrades' actions, simply by saying that it was a very unfortunate accident.

One eco-extremist communication recently cited the example of the anarchist Severino di Giovanni and one commenter cited others above.

If anarchism means (at least) rejection of all authority, how is a logical fallacy commonly called "appeal to authority" compatible with anarchism?

Eco-extremism isn't really a movement or a set of dogmas: it's like a computer virus that aims to enter into individuals and facilitate their lashing out against their domesticated subjugation. There's thus no plan and no doctrines to learn. Some go the pagan route, some don't. Some play the role of indigenous warriors, some don't. Some are just run-of-the-mill nihilists, some don't even write communiques, they just do things. None of it is coordinated, and people do it on their own as individuals."

The only group that explains what eco-extremism is, is ITS. When you sign as a group with a fixed name, such as ITS, you do not sign as an individual. It may be true that there are diverse people involved but as long as they don't voice their disagreements with the official ITS statements, they are agreeing with what the authors of the communiques say, until they prove the contrary.

What really binds it together is the hate for the techno-industrial system, hate for domestication, acknowledging one's hypocrisy, but not being prevented by it from lashing out according to one's own individual means.

That's not true, because many other people (not only anarchists critical of science and technology) have elaborated an often much better critique. What binds eco-extremism as a tendency is a rejection of any kind of future perspective (such as a revolution), a religious concept of nature and half-assed justification of harm done to the "non-innocent" when harm against the responsible fails.

I find it unfortunate that Zerzan and Tucker are somehow the face/representatives of a Green Anarchist perspective. There are so many other writers/doers/experimenters etc who can be said to be loosely affiliated with the moniker. One that I personally appreciate is the author Seaweed. He writes about having a direction, but not a destination for instance. A simple but profound distinction. He plays with the concepts of egoism and society, again in a simple but effective way. In his book Land and Freedom he writes: " society, in the sense of that which is hostile and oppressive to the individual has as a precondition urban life. Small bands of friends or even the relationships which exist in small villages are not societies. ...A group of friends sharing agreements and practicing subsistence together does not establish a society. It is in this sense that the ungoverned, nature-loving individual is at the heart of my conception of an ecologically minded anarchism." I love how he weaves egoism, a critique of mass society and a green perspective in a few sentences.

Unlike Zerzan and Tucker, who it seems are adamant that only immediate return hunter gatherer systems allow for anarchy to flourish, Seaweed hopes for a world in which there is room for all sorts of experiments and investigations- sedentary villages that also use seasonal camps for instance, or exploring what immediate return mixed with delayed return systems might look like, etc.

One recurring concept he mentions is the idea that while a blueprint or destination only restricts the "infinite permutations possible" as he puts it, we probably should have at least one particular goal in mind: healthy habitats. This is something I'd like to see debated and discussed a lot more. It is an extremely important point. What is a habitat? What does being embedded in one look like? How is a habitat different than a political territory?

There are tons of other folks too who have their own GA outlook/practice. Jeriah Bowser comes to mind as someone who has some interesting stuff for instance. So can we stop equating GA with Zerzan?

What can be drawn from their insistence to “attack in the present”?

Nothing. They didn't invent a sense of urgency or those tactics, they perhaps set some precedents with callous statements made after an attack with an eco-extremist/anti-civ framework, that's all they've done. As another poster already pointed out, it's about personal responsibility which can be but isn't limited to any sense of morality/ethics. Still, this is some of the better discussion I've seen in this shithole in awhile, so I'll give credit where it's due.

Again, almost nothing can be drawn from this that wasn't already obvious. Randomly spreading terror in the ranks of your perceived technocrat enemies with indiscriminate (but very limited) bombings is a strange goal by itself. It mostly whips your much larger, stronger enemy in to a frenzy and profoundly alienates you from most people, to which they would presumably say "we don't fucking care" but that doesn't really answer any question about goals. There are none? You just want to kill people you hate because you can but you don't care if it amounts to anything?

These projects of attack "in the present" are clearly limited by a lack of imagination, having solved the problem of a lack of urgency, they fall flat at step 2.

I'm in the pursuits of permaculture design, homesteading and earth skills. 1I'm reminded of when B left Free Radical Radio and was interested in land projects, because I had asked to be put in touch with him, being curious as to how anti-civ thinkers were manifesting their intention. Coming from a simple childhoold: fantasy fiction (psychedlic expression of life, almost always in worlds less environmentally wrecked than ours), science fiction (unconventional ideas about race, sex, religion), speculative fiction (Harlan Ellison because he wrote great characters and was himself a gigolo of some kind), cyperpunk fiction (anti-authoritarian, DIY, stylish rebellion). Visiting Zapatista communities helped me cement the reality of my existence, knowing visionary intentional community in the welcome beauty of the mountains.

Getting mysticism has been a pursuit for me too. Hakim Bey, John Lamb Lash and Carlos Castaneda for example, are for deeper, ecologically informed worldviews. I think they incorporate the subversive, the revolutionary and i hope that achieving great work is reifiied in the health of the planet. The Brilliant may have suggested recently that uniquely sustainable anti-civ local communities are a significant part of the solution. I appreciate activism and personally found its highest expression as part of a co-creative, gender fluid, relationship dynamic. The passion and liberatory power associated with intercourse (the story of Psyche and Eros) is inherently exciting to me, as I perceive it: an essential in the anarchist*scene. Thanks for reading.

Bey has said that spiritual is an imaginal result of the social. I'm fascinated by the green anarchist collage, want to talk to these people and find the best fit way to support a scene or a community. Zerzan's shtick was a fun intro to green anarchism for me to listen to. I bought all the GA mags I could a couple years ago. To his credit, his genuineness and mastery of his formats of expression are still inspirational and changing peoples lives I believe. I like his dedication to poetry and when AR airs fictions whether as music or prose.

Did you hear that our friend Derrick Jensen, being interviewed on Latin Waves, http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/85771 making broad brush generalizations about how anarchism supports pedophilia? About how "the two anarchist magazines in the US support pedophilia? And how there is an ominous strain of misogyny in anarchism? Did you hear that? Then he goes on to talk about a young girl putting her genitals on his leg. I can't make this up. 10 years ago Jensen was all about how all of his friends are anarchists.
________________________________
OK OK - and so since we are on "Green Anarchy" let's talk about Cory Morningstar's rather unseemly love fest with right wing demagogue mental patient Tony Cartalucci. All it seems to take is a little cherry picked orientalist blather about wall street, corporate amerika, council of foreign relations, bush and iraq and any other assorted fairy tale and boom, our wrong kind of greenie will seemingly just roll over for the fascists? What What What TF is up with that?

I mean really guys. This and the ancaps. What part of drooling mumbling batshit crazy are we all about these days?