Discuss: 50 Simple Ways to Get Off

Thanks for that, Derrick - we need as many people as possible setting things off; we all have our own specialities, and I have tried to encapsulate some of the different tasks and skills in a rather large and growing list of ways to Undermine The Industrial Machine, with no small inspiration from DJ himself:

http://earth-blog.bravejournal.com/entry/42068

Here are a few to whet your appetite:

· Change the press releases of the company you work for to tell the truth about the product or service they are offering. If releases are sent out by post, it is a lot easier to be anonymous.

· Similarly, alter promotional and advertising materials to show the environmental and social impact of the company sending them out. If you work in a printing or distribution role, this will be far safer.

· Insert contrary materials, such as flyers exposing a company or organisation’s activities, into the pages of reports, magazines and brochures.

· If you are party to confidential information that, if released, could damage the reputation of a company or public body, send it anonymously by post to one or more newspaper editors.

· Remove commercial advertising (billboards, posters, displays) from your local area or, if that’s not possible, alter it to give it a more accurate meaning.

· Switch off televisions or monitors in shops that are running adverts.

To keep this list growing, I need help, so please write to me with your ideas. Thanks.

Andrew says: “Legal/illegal and nonviolent/violent are so often imaginary distinctions that we allow the state to impose on us.”

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.

Jensen, for all the depth of his perception, has yet failed to do this. But he is still young.

Jensen says in this article: “and if, by the way, you believe that ‘whatever it takes’ is code language for violence, you’re revealing nothing more than your own belief that nonviolence is ineffective”.

It’s not “code”, because he’s elsewhere been quite explicit in his denunciation of nonviolence (which he confuses with pacifism) as impotent and immoral.

“Whatever it takes” could not be more transparent. It means, and Jensen has said as much, that the ends justify the means. If the ends are “good” (or perceived to be so), then any means that we believe (rightly or wrongly) will get us there must be justified.

Jensen says: “It means determining that we will not fail.” To commit oneself to “sucess” requires that one be willing to use any means deemed necessary to achieve that end.

But the problem comes when we define “success” too narrowly. If “success” means merely the dismantling of a destructive culture, then the means will inevitably degenerate.

If “success”, however, means creating a life-affirming culture, then violent means will be antithetical to that end. Such a goal may require a greater level of patience and forebearance than Jensen would like. Sometimes “just do something” is not the best advice.

As Bill Chisholm suggests, we can facilitate the collapse of industrial civilization by “not participating” (non-cooperation) and by “creating new models” - what we used to describe as creating a new world within the shell of the old.

But patience, forebearance, and perseverance are qualities of mature men and women who have developed the long view of life. They know that sometimes, in fact, the best thing to do is to do nothing.

Someday, perhaps, Jensen will come to understand that as well.

Riversong,

Does it normally work in debates to make things up wholecloth?

Riversong,

If someone were about to hurt and/or kill my five-year-old daughter, there is no question of what I would do:  if I had the means and the ability, I would disable or kill that person immediately.  And I would not consider it violence because I would be defending someone I love from harm.

If you cannot love anyone enough to be willing to kill or die for them, if you cannot honor that in life which is larger than yourself, you have no business doing *any* activism whatsoever.  No one will be able to trust you to keep solidarity with them.  The first time you had to stand up for them you’d be cutting deals with the cops, if the cops just promised not to beat you up.

Starhawk defines violence as “the imposition of power-over.”  If I have to stick a gun in someone’s face to prevent them harming, killing, or dispossessing me and mine, the situation has already gone very wrong and nonviolence will not salvage it.  Face it:  there are ugly, small people in this world who will stop at nothing to dominate others.  In case you missed the nightly news, they’ve been left unchecked far too long already.  I fail to see how more of the same knuckling under to them is going to do anyone any good.

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.

We’ve had millenia—thousands of years—for them to prove otherwise.  That is more than long enough.

Predictably, the Jensen acolytes are counterattacking, and revealing their true colors.

Riversong,

Hmm, you usually deflect substantial questions in a lot wordier ways.  You’re off your game. :P

I have to say, I was a bit surprised you responded to this article in this way.  This article was practically tailor-made for people who assert that Derrick said things that he did not, which is what you’re doing.

For instance, he did not denounce non-violence, and in fact has had a lot of pieces in which he discusses what makes some non-violent actions successful and others not.  In fact, “Endgame” had huge sections of that.  Or did you read “Endgame for Pacifists”?  It seems that for every time he says “sometimes violence is okay”, he says “we need it all” fifty-eight times, and yet you continue to focus on the former.

It really sounds a lot like you’re saying very similar things as Derrick but you’re getting hung up on his view that violence is sometimes acceptable, and you’re inflating it to be more a part of his writing than it is.  I can’t remember if you’ve mentioned, but how much of Derrick’s works have you actually read?

I personally do work in creating new models/cultures and helping people to find ways to not participate in our death culture, and most of the people in my group have found inspiration primarily from Derrick.  We’re non-violent, not on principle but just because our work doesn’t require it.  “Know them by their actions”?  But we hold no illusions that this alone will save the world, that we’ll bring down civilization if we just get enough people to rewild with us, and we realize our work is just a part of the whole.

If you’re capable, please address the questions some of us have asked you.  I’m truly interested in the answers.

Daniel,

I’m not “off my game” because this is no game. I wasn’t going to dignify with a response your disingenuous question: “Does it normally work in debates to make things up wholecloth?”

I think you know quite well that I’ve said nothing to mischaracterize Jensen - I attribute nothing to him that he hasn’t published (though he is clearly trying to sidestep some of his more controversial positions here on Orion).

There is little purpose in responding to the perennial self-defense exception. We all know viscerally, if not intellectually, that self-defense is not violence. And I hope that we all know intellectually that “pre-emptive self-defense” is no different than the “pre-emptive warfare” that we’ve all condemned.

I’ve read more than enough of his writings to understand where he’s coming from, and had a personal on-line encounter with him and his disciples that underscored his acceptance of not only physical violence but of the verbal violence that expresses itself in vulgar disrespect for those who think differently.

Jensen’s writings make clear that he has not made the effort to study and understand either the power of non-violent direct action or its underlying philosophy, but chooses rather to caricature, demean and dismiss all forms of what he calls “pacifism”.

What Jensen and probably most of his followers fail to appreciate is one of the fundamental laws of the universe (supported by quantum science): that we manifest what we imagine, and that whatever we fight we make stronger.

Ironically, the Empire has yet to learn that lesson, even after failing to defeat rag-tag resistance movements in Vietnam, Iraq and now Afghanistan. One would hope that those who oppose Empire would not fall into the same mistake.

Jensen believes that “Our way of living – industrial civilization – is based on, requires, and would collapse very quickly without persistent and widespread violence.” That is true. But he then makes the untenable assertion that, since it’s “the only language they know”, we have no choice but to respond in kind. We do know another language, however, and we do have a choice. If we let the Empire establish the rules of the road, then we’ve already lost.

It’s more than ironic that a man who wrote A Language Older Than Words, which “explains violence as a pathology that touches every aspect of our lives and indeed affects all aspects of life on Earth” would choose to perpetuate violence in any form. But we know that tortured souls who were, like Jensen, victims of abuse often unconsciously continue the cycle to the next generation and consciously find ways to rationalize it as justifiable.

The cycle needs to stop with us, but that does not mean we must meekly accept our fate (as the cynics allege). It requires far more courage to face violence unarmed, and historically it’s been far more effective. The Force is with us, and it’s a more powerful force that cannot be stilled or suppressed by violence because it is fundamental and universal. It is, however, weakened within ourselves whenever we resort to lesser means.

Thanks Derrick for this clarification of your views. I will share this article with friends of mine who are a little queasy about your thoughts on violence. It is unfortunate that some pacifist fundamentalists miss the wider meanings of your work in their obsessive focus on “moral purity” as they define it. Keep up the good work. Your writings have tremendous awakening power. People need to be shocked out of their hypnotic trance of complicity in this “civilization”.