Discuss: 50 Simple Ways to Get Off

Acting as if sabotage is pre-emptive violence and not self defense is an anthropocentric (or even more narrow, civilized-centric) blindness to the fact that civilization is murdering countless humans and non-humans every day, that these attacks are going on RIGHT NOW.  Trees and rivers can’t defend themselves, so those that love them need to, just like a mother defending a child.

“The only reason people like you can wax eloquent about the virtues of not fighting back is because some other people are taking the boot on the neck for you, and still others are doing your fighting for you.  There would have been no MLK without the black nationalist movement.  There would have been no Gandhi without the militant Indian independence movement.  There would be no Sierra Club if there weren’t an Earth First!.  The powerful are only willing to negotiate with the moderate because they fear the ascendancy of the aggressive radicals.  Fighting is the only thing they understand.”

Wonderful statement, Dana. I have made this point time and time again, especially about Gandhi, who turned a blind eye at those who were prepared to sabotage Indian Railways - this being the lifeblood of the British Imperial machine in India.

Riversong, your phrase “patience, forebearance, and perseverance” only holds water where you have set some course of action in progress - mere trust in some “other” to resolve things is as useful as prayer. I’m not prepared to wait for natural processes to kick back because there will be massive die-off in the interim, and even worse as the thresholds are breached: if that level of potentially preventable death is what playing the “long game” is about then excuse me if I pursue a rather shorter version.

Mike K seems to have learned from Jensen how to mischaracterize and demean those who think differently (“pacifist fundamentalists”, “moral purity”).

Jay shares Jensen’s sense of desperation and urgency (“RIGHT NOW”), which invariably leads to poor judgement and ill-considered actions, and has the arrogance and audacity to believe that the trees and rivers are his “children” and need his “defense”.

Keith Farnish, too, prefers the short view and the quick fix, which is the modus operandi of those who have destroyed our world. And, on his website, he issues a disclaimer to his “100 Ways To Undermine The Industrial Machine” which denies his personal responsibility for anyone taking his advice.

Similarly, Jensen’s writings are intended to move others to take bold actions which he, himself, refrains from doing - leaving himself some “plausible deniability”, much as the worst of our political leaders.

We need the earth - the earth doesn’t need us. And, though Keith may not wish to accept it, prayer (focused positive intention) has been scientifically proven to have powerfully positive effects.

What we believe, what we think, what we intend, and how we manifest that in action all matter profoundly. To consider “the next seven generations” is not merely to resist others who are undermining their future, but to also consider how our own choices and actions might have repercussions down that long road.

“though Keith may not wish to accept it, prayer (focused positive intention) has been scientifically proven to have powerfully positive effects.”

Where? References please - you did say “scientifically proven” so it must be in a reputable journal.

Riversong, you may have the soil running through your old veins, or you may just be a troll - I haven’t quite decided yet. If you are the former then I would rather entrust my future to the careless youth who have always been the catalysts for revolution.

(N.B. Read the “disclaimer” carefully. It keeps the site online yet asks no one to desist from anything - including myself)

To RR: I am truly sorry if my comments displeased you. After you wrote recently that defensive force was an acceptable response, I would not put you in the category of rigid and extremist fundamentalists. As a matter of fact I admire your stated principals, and feel there should definitely be a place for many like yourself at the table of those of us who would basically alter our modern culture in ways that are more peaceful, loving and sustainable.
  Fact is, I am not a fan of Derrick’s proposed solutions to our world problems. I don’t think that various forms of sabotage, such as he envisions will in any way be adequate to overthrow the prevailing rulers. Those in power would only respond to such pin prick irritations with justifications for further diminishing our shrinking civil rights.                      That said, I have a lot of respect for what DJ is doing. I’ve read a lot of his stuff, and it has helped me wake up in many ways. DJ is a sensitive, caring person. In many ways his loving concern for all living things is consonant with the bodhisattva vow to save all beings from suffering.  I will be in opposition to any one who characterizes and demeans him as a violent person. In all that I have read of his work he has never recommended or endorsed doing harm to another human being. We need him just as we need you, Robert, in this essential ultimate undertaking. Can’t we just get along?

Riversong wrote:  “While legal/illegal is state-imposed, the distinction between violence and nonviolence is a moral one that we each have a responsibility to discern properly.”

No, it’s not ‘discern properly,’ since I am not content with your judgment.  It’s ‘determine each for ourselves,’ something that Derrick Jensen makes clear in his writings, when he stresses it takes all, takes everyone’s contributions.

I really enjoyed reading this. And thank you to Orion for publishing Derrick’s articles.

Derrick Jensen, Folks! Want to save the mountaintops AND the wetland valleys below? Simply have ENFORCED the 1985 DEADLINE of the Clean Water Act’s preamble to have ELIMINATED such pollution, a QUARTER CENTURY AGO, instead TODAY!