Tumgik
#ecofascism
nightmaretour · 7 months
Text
Just to be clear, if your idea of an ideal future at any point involves killing disabled people or allowing disabled people to die- you're not a punk, you're a fascist. Hope that helps
20K notes · View notes
a-dinosaur-a-day · 8 months
Text
also like, I hate to say this, but most climate solutions that involve "every person changes their behavior immediately" aren't going to work
humans are notoriously difficult to control. this is why fascism never can work, because it relies on control. similarly, trying to get every person on the planet on board with a particular course of action just doesn't happen, because humans are diverse (a good thing!) and do things for lots of different reasons
the CFC ban worked because it just applied to companies using the chemicals, most ordinary folk weren't interacting with it directly.
but you'll note that eco friendly cars are more accessible than ever and lots of people... still drive gas guzzlers. oftentimes, not by choice
the reasons we focus on CEOs and people with large amounts of power in the fight against climate change (rather than every individual person) is because
they're causing most of it
fewer people that we have to force to change
it's just more practical and effective
any ideology or philosophy that involves "getting every human being to agree to do/think X" isn't going to work because we are a stiff-necked species and most of us don't have a lot of choices thanks to capitalism to begin with
so, yeah. kill the fascist in your head. stop thinking you can shame or control everyone into doing what you want. It's not going to happen.
3K notes · View notes
thebibliosphere · 8 months
Text
Fully aware I’m bringing the straw discourse back myself but it’s almost like this is a systemic problem with how we manufacturer everything, including “eco-friendly” options.
Anyway, wishing all the ecowarrior girlies who told me and countless other disabled folks to our faces that if our disabilities meant we couldn’t give up plastic straws for safety reasons we were a burden on the planet and should consider suicide the moral option a very “suck on your toxic bullshit.”
Literally.
4K notes · View notes
pojkflata · 1 month
Text
*Grabs you by the shoulders, digging my nails into your skin* The reason PETA campaigns look like fetish art is not just as a cheap attention grab but also because they're ecofascists who operate on the wisdom of repugnance. They know they can no longer directly target fat and autistic people the way they did in the 2000s so they've shifted gears to grossing people out with kink imagery, a tried and true tool of the fascist. The intended message is that all human/animal interactions, including pet ownership, are innately sexual, degenerate and ought to be punished. They are no different than the red senator who uses photoshopped images of children petting dudes in pup hoods to drum up support for the death penalty of openly trans people "child predators". The nature of PETA's campaigns may be absurd and their goals may be deeply unpopular, but make no mistake, they are cut from the same cloth and boiling it down to "haha I would the MILF hucow" is exactly how they want people who don't ascribe to their ideology to react
2K notes · View notes
crazycatsiren · 1 year
Text
I'm shouting this from the rooftops: disabled people who rely on plastic medical equipments aren't the ones killing the environment. 📢
8K notes · View notes
phoenixonwheels · 2 months
Text
Tumblr media
[ID: Two Tweets by Rye @PlagueProse 2/2/24 “my roman empire is how we all learned earlier in the pandemic that mitigating COVID mitigates climate change and nearly everyone, including environmentalists, immediately abandoned this as a strategy in favor of the ableist, capitalist death cult to get back to ‘normal’. when we say disability justice is central to environmental justice this is what we’re talking about. collective care creates the conditions for climate action that actually makes a fucking difference. ecofascism and eugenics go hand in hand.”]
154 notes · View notes
Note
do u think the animals the animorphs acquired at the gardens ever got famous after the war?
I'm 99% sure that the tiger Jake acquired was already famous, thanks to the opening of #22. The Gardens' vet finds their tiger in a shopping mall, bleeding out from wounds inflicted by another big cat, after no reports of an escape. Michelle keeps (what she thinks is) their tiger alive long enough to get him into a human ambulance, transports him back to The Gardens... and then when she leaves the room to wash up, the tiger disappears. Not that strange for a wild animal to regain consciousness and zoom off despite serious wounds. But then the security guard radios to say that both tigers are back in their enclosure, and neither one looks wounded.
That poor tiger probably gets tranqed and dragged out for a thorough medical exam, which would turn up no injuries. In Michelle's shoes, I'd conclude that a) this tiger got out somehow, but returned to his enclosure at the first chance because it's familiar, b) he fell through the roof of the mall and got a head injury, hence the earlier unconsciousness and current lack of external wounds, and c) that wasn't his blood he was covered in earlier. Cue massive investigation into how the tiger got out and what (or who) he might have mauled that day. Cue media circus.
Anywhoo, I imagine Mystery Tiger gets 15 minutes of fame, and of people arguing on the internet whether he should be euthanized or given a medal or encouraged to eat [political group] or set loose in India. And then the war ends, and the story of what really happened comes out, and his fame grows even more. But yeah, I agree it'd probably be salad days for The Gardens after the end of the war.
182 notes · View notes
whereserpentswalk · 5 months
Text
They really fucking made up overpopulation so that rich people could claim the existence of poor people was harming them and now people who don't understand why "vegan leather"(plastic) is worse for the environment then real leather (not plastic) promote it.
170 notes · View notes
acti-veg · 8 months
Text
Tumblr media
Ecofascism swiftly replacing ‘colonialism’ as the next term to be completely devalued by anti-vegans just throwing it at anything they don’t like.
168 notes · View notes
fourovcups · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media
I've been reading Edward Abbey's Desert Solitaire as research for a project of mine, and it has certainly been an experience.
Desert Solitaire was one of these titles I'd heard bandied about in American nature literature growing up (the kind of thing teachers recommended once you finished Hatchet), but I don't here his work mentioned as much anymore. I recently re-encountered the title on a literal ecofascist reading list. While Abbey doesn't sound like an ecofascist himself, I can easily see why nature Nazis like him.
The book chronicles Abbey's time as a seasonal park ranger at the Arches National Monument in Utah There is a kind of uncertainty and inconsistency in the way he writes, even in the way he acts towards his surroundings in the desert. Silent Spring had only been published a few years before Solitaire was, and the eco-cultural revolution was not yet in full swing. Abbey writes lovingly about his desert environment. He describes in stunning detail, for example, the everyday beauty of a bumblebee alighting on a cactus flower, and decries the reckless "development" initiatives of the Bureau of Public Roads. But on the next page, he will say something like this: "...it's a foolish, simple-minded rationalism which denies any form of emotion to all animals but man and his dog. This is no more justified than the Moslems are in denying souls to women." Sure dude. Okay, fine, he was writing in the sixties. Some insensitivity is par for the course. But then, after pages and pages of decrying humans driving desert flora and fauna towards extinction, he describes with glee an instance where he stones a rabbit to death for no apparent reason.
It's a bizarre passage, and shows Abbey at his most unhinged. He describes the rabbit as "cowardly" for running away from threats, unlike the brave mountain lion, who stands and fights. He throws the stone and hits the rabbit's head: "He crumples, there's the usual gushing of blood, etc.," and the creature is dead. "I continue my walk with a new, augmented cheerfulness which is hard to understand but unmistakable [...] I try but cannot feel any sense of guilt." Reflecting on the incident, he concludes that his killing of the rabbit has made him a part of the desert, a membership bought by killing or being killed, being "predator or prey". Even so, he decides not to eat the rabbit, which he says is probably diseased anyway. He also describes using his walking stick to crush and stir up an ant colony, also without any reason beyond not liking ants. "Don't actually care for ants. Neurotic little pismires." These are far from the only times that Abbey violates his personal philosophy of reverence for all living creatures.
It's clear that Edward Abbey came to Arches National Monument already dissatisfied with the outside world, and with some authority issues to boot (some quick googling on his background shows two demotions as a military police officer for clashing with higher-ups). The freedom of the desert, its simplicity and balance, is a significant part of what makes it appeal to him. But its harshness, the hostility of its sandstorms and lurking rattlesnakes, draws him in just as much.
Edward Abbey is not an ecofascist. If anything, his ill-defined political beliefs can be vaguely defined as anarchistic, if they can be defined at all. Deleuze and Guattari write in A Thousand Plateaus that fascism is "a cancerous body rather than a totalitarian organism". It is fluid, mutable. Sometimes it lies latent, benign; at other times it rushes outward, colonizing piecemeal and erratically, in "flows capable of suffusing every kind of cell". Elements of Abbey, and of Desert Solitaire, contain such microfascisms.
Let's turn back to the linchpin of it all: the killing of the rabbit, which he sees as a joyous, cosmic act; one that links him into a (circular? pyramidal?) chain of being he was previously alienated from, in the atomized world of civilization. His joy is only augmented when he realizes he is not guilty for killing the rabbit. In per-modern hunting customs across the world, the taking of animal life is never free and unmediated. Thanks may be given to the spirit of the animal itself, or to the unseen powers that led the hunter to their quarry. Naturally, the sacrifice of an animal to a god was just that: for a god, not the human involved. What Abbey describes in the killing of the rabbit is something utterly different.
In Federico Finchelstein's Fascist Mythologies, Finchelstein says that in fascism, "consciousness was not a repression of inwardness (as Freud understood the workings of the Ego and the Id) but its actual distillation. [...] [Fascist consciousness] was not contemplative but similar to that of a sublime sensation of ecstasy."
The fascist subject is most "conscious" precisely when they loose themselves in the ecstatic abandon of the act. Such fascist consciousness is the foundation of the free, easy violence it facilitates.
When Abbey describes casting the stone at the rabbit, it is in a Meursault-like twilight of awareness. He sets up the encounter as a game, one in which he is a scientist experimenting on a rabbit that has been "volunteered" to him, and whose death is justifiable through its natural cowardice. He hardly realizes that the action he is carrying out, and when the rabbit dies he is shocked out of his reverie for a moment.
"For a moment I am shocked by my deed [...] but shock is succeeded by a mild elation."
For Abbey, primordial violence is what at last allows him union with the sacred world of the desert.
"No longer do I feel so isolated from the sparse and furtive life around me, a stranger from another world. I have entered into this one. We are kindred all of us [...] Long live diversity, long live the Earth!"
By carrying out this act of bare violence, Abbey frees himself from the civilized world and achieves union with the world of Nature, in which violence is a simple act: one that creates its own order rather than supporting existing ones. It is this union that, while the moment lasts, allows him to rejoice in his newfound "innocence and power".
That is where I will leave things for now. There are other, more overt themes that Abbey explores that are the chief reason Desert Solitaire appeals to many ecofascists, such as its characterizations of industrial society and "Progress". Abbey's later work, such as The Monkey Wrench Gang, set even more explicit examples of direct action and sabotage that inspired right-wing accelerationists as well as left-wing environmental activists. This is my first long-ish post; if you're interested in these kinds of posts on ecofascism and ecocriticism, let me know and I might make more in the future.
Tumblr media
287 notes · View notes
People being gleeful about energy price rises because “it’ll stop people being wasteful with electricity and help with climate change” are properly eco-fash- let’s be clear. The people who will suffer the most this winter are not the ones wasting the most energy.
What we need is investment in renewable energy and secure energy supplies for the long term, and the government to provide a buffer to the short term pain.
791 notes · View notes
Text
A compilation of writings against ecofascist infiltration of revolutionary ecology and green anarchist milieus, includes: Confronting the Rise of Eco-Fascism Means Grappling with Complex Systems - by Emmi Bevensee and Alexander Reid Ross There’s nothing anarchist about Eco-Fascism - by Scott Campbell On No Platform and ITS - by William Gillis ITS, or the rhetoric of decay - a Joint statement of insurrectional groups in Mexican territory
41 notes · View notes
rjalker · 1 year
Text
(Giving it its own post so I can maybe find it easier next time.)
Any TERFs who interact with this post will be blocked and reported. Go fuck yourselves.
Okay I was going through the notes and I Really have to say. Some of you people don’t understand how ecosystems work. There is literally no such thing as a “useless” or “pointless” species. That is not how this even remotely works. Every species on this planet is the result of billions of years of evolution.
Just because you don’t know something’s role in the ecosystem does not mean it exists just to annoy or scare you. You are not the center of the universe. Evolution does not exist for your benefit or detriment. That’s not how this fucking works.
Just because you think flies are useless because you can’t be bothered to learn about them does not mean they shouldn’t exist.
Just because you think wasps don’t do anything because you can’t be bothered to learn about them does not mean they don’t play an vital role in the ecosystem.
Flies are scavengers and pollinators.
Wasps are predators and parasites and pollinators.
There is no such thing as a “useless” or “pointless” species, it’s just that you’re ignorant. Your lack of knowledge is not the fault of the species you’ve decided to hate.
Learn about the species near you, research the ones you think are useless, and learn that your fucking perception of the world does not equal how the world actually works.
No gods damned species spent the entire history of life on this planet evolving just to annoy or scare you.
There is no such thing as a pointless species, only ignorant people.
145 notes · View notes
raging-guanche · 9 months
Text
"you have to respect my ideology!! we are all worth of respect!!" and then the ideology is genocide
47 notes · View notes
Note
do you just hate vegans
No.
I'm vegetarian myself, I agree that industrialized meat production is bad for the environment.
However, *all* industrialized agriculture is bad for the environment.
Knowing where your food comes from and reducing food waste and buying locally is intimately better than going vegan.
But, if someone wants to be vegan, that's their choice.
My problem is when they act like they have the moral high ground for doing so and trying to force people to be just like them, and supporting pseudoscience and misinformation in the process.
I'm vegetarian, but just because I'm able to live off of a vegetarian diet doesn't mean that as a whole we're not an omnivorous species.
Overpopulation is a myth.
Killing animals isn't inherently bad, and eating meat isn't inherently bad.
Humans are omnivores. Not herbivores. Not frugivores. Not carnivores. Flexible omnivores.
Being vegan won't cure autism. Or mental illness. Or diabetes. Or cancer.
No matter how bad industrial meat production is, it's not the same as the Holocaust or chattel slavery.
Dogs can't thrive on a vegan diet.
Forcing your diet onto your pets is bad, actually, and if you can't live with Fluffy or Fido eating meat, then you shouldn't have a dog or cat.
I believe in a world where people can make their own choices about what they eat and don't have diets forced upon them. Vegans have a right to exist, but they don't have a right to force it on other people.
208 notes · View notes
crazycatsiren · 1 year
Text
Did you know that you can be vegan as a personal lifestyle choice without being a total ecofascist.
52 notes · View notes