Topic: Taking out Dams

VOTING IN A CULTURE OF OCCUPATION:
INTERVIEW WITH AUTHOR DERRICK JENSEN

CM: Do you think we should vote for Bush to accelerate the demise of industrial civilization?

DJ: It might speed things up. But I don’t think someone should vote for Bush because that will speed things up. There are plenty of other things that one can do to speed things up that don’t cause damage. What about instead, attacking the roots of civilization? What about attacking the infrastructure? What about taking out dams? What about doing all sorts of things that would actually help your land base? That’s a much better idea.

As is often (though not always) the case, it is facile and pointless to give a recipe: one should always be brave and suffer the short term loss to receive the long term gain; or on the other hand one should live for today and never suffer the short term loss for some long term gain that may never come (you could get hit by a truck tomorrow).

I would never say that every person in every lousy relationship should leave it. Nor would I say that every person in every shitty job should quit. Nor would I say that every person in every lousy relationship or shitty job should stay. All life is circumstantial. I will not say that we should blow up every dam today. I will not say that we should not. I will not say that we should always wait on legal means to bring down dams, and I will not say that we should never wait on legal means. All life is circumstantial.

But I will say this. We need to bring down civilization now. By any means necessary. For the sake of the salmon, for the sake of the sandeels, for the sake of the guillemots, skuas, and kittiwakes. For the sake of the marlins and sharks. For the sake of the poor and exploited humans. For the sake of the indigenous. For the sake of every mother who has dioxin in her breastmilk. For the sake of future generations of humans and nonhumans alike. For our own sake. Do it now. We need to use our skills, whatever they are. Use our gifts, whatever they are. Use what we love and what we hate. Use everything we've got.

If we will not do it now, when will we ever do it?

(You guys do realize he was being humorous right?)

I have had some people get really hyperactive because they consume toilet paper. "Oh my gosh, I am now as responsible for deforestation as the CEO of Weyerhaeuser." That's not true. The way you would be responsible for deforestation is if you consumed the flesh of that tree and you did not take responsibility for the continuation of that community by taking out Weyerhaeuser. There's a fundamental difference. One of them is the logic of the abused child. If I can just behave perfectly enough, if I can just not use toilet paper, if I can just not vote, if I can just not drive a car, if I can just not buy anything at the grocery store, then suddenly everything will be okay. That's assigning way too much power to one behavior. What that does is it acts as a toxic mimic for what is often our real responsibility which is the fact that we are allowing the system to continue. That's a real responsibility for which to be deeply ashamed.

Derrick views it as a relationship of abuse that must be stopped - before it's too late.

If I can just behave perfectly enough, if I can just not use toilet paper, if I can just not vote, if I can just not drive a car, if I can just not buy anything at the grocery store, then suddenly everything will be okay. That's assigning way too much power to one behavior. What that does is it acts as a toxic mimic for what is often our real responsibility which is the fact that we are allowing the system to continue. That's a real responsibility for which to be deeply ashamed.

FUCK CANADA!!!

insulting... context... is the main point of... sloppy propaganda.

I am a card carrying member of the anti-vermin coalition and destroying beavers and their dams is one of our top priorities for the 04/05 fiscal year.

By any means necessary.

Jenson seems to be viewing this whole thing as a war.

Those who died are justified, for wearing the badge, they're the chosen whites
You justify those that died by wearing the badge, they're the chosen whites

What that does is it acts as a toxic mimic for what is often our real responsibility which is the fact that we are allowing the system to continue. That's a real responsibility for which to be deeply ashamed.

god damn I love Derrick (MF) Jensen.
Derrick views it as a relationship of abuse that must be stopped - before it's too late.

Quinn views it as a vehicle that must become obsolete - before it's too late.

Am I right? I don't want to put words in anyones mouth. But this is what I've been trying to decipher since reading both of their works.

peter

Your organisation is clearly doing something that I disagree with and therefore you are not worthy of your humanity. I have decided that since you are less than human I have every right to destroy you:

I think about this lion a lot. By going out to kill a lion gone mad, they are helping the community of life continue to stay diverse by destroying the life of a destroyer.

"taking down civilization" in this way is not about lessening someones humanity anymore then killing the lion is lessening it lionlyness.

Maybe to Canadians the War on Terror doesn't exist, but people are still dying in it...

All day long, I have been trying to wrap my mind around the idea that there exists a man who believes that a cloud is his friend, and a friend worth killing for at that.

what exactly do you want to do to remove this cancer? You can't attack it directly

So what do you propose?

And yes, bringing civilization down in a controlled way would be preferable. Two problems, you would need to change almost every mind on the planet to manage the trick; and we are working under a deadline. After this deadline it would no longer be possible to set it down gently. And so I say, change as many minds as you can and make sure everyone else has at least heard what we have to say. So when it falls, we don't do it again.

But if you were to hunt down EVERY lion, indescriminantly so, that would very much be a violation of the Law of Life.

Taking down civilisation is just such and indiscriminant act. You aren't dealing with one person, you're threatening the lives of anyone that happens to get in the way

What people are suggesting by attacking civilisation is the same sort of preemptive strike mentality that landed the US in Iraq. That's not self-defence, that's offence. It can be justified as the former, but that doesn't change what it actually is

So people can say that taking out a dam is not directly killing people, it's just collapsing a system and if those ____(insert slur here) die from that then it's not my problem. Oh they can say that. But that my friends is bargain basement psychotic behaviour. It's a break from reality. And it costs people their lives

Peter, I agree. Take down civilization, take it down like the rabid dog it is. But you can't shoot this rabid dog. And attacking it only makes it stronger. Taking down civilization by force can not work

Civilization isn't a technology, it's an idea, a story, an argument. It doesn't need metals to keep it up, only people. Besides what you're talking about seems to be the crash, civilizations fall all the time. It's what they do.

There are more weapons in the anti-civ arsenal than explosives, but for some reason people seem to fixate on the fact that there might be a place at some point for the xplosives as well, instead of the broader task and goals at hand.

When you defeat a thousand opponents, you still have a thousand opponents. When you change a thousand minds, you have a thousand allies

Now that civilization has crashed and the balance of power is equalized, don't think for a second we'll allow them to rebuild.

How can I generalize people as Civilizationists when I am one? Give me a break dude. It's not the same thing at all. We all know that civilization is the relationship destroying us and our friends in the community of life. It will kill us all in less then 50 years. Trying to take it down is self-defense. it's a sacred practice. That doesn't mean it will work. But you have to understand that it's not dehumanization or the one right way meme. You're not forcing people to live as gods or forcing them to live a sacred way of life. Your defending a sacred way of life from a way of life that's being forced on you.

It all needs to come down at some point.

They're afraid to let go of their greatest addiction - the addiction to civilization.

What Peter's talking about is destroying the most rabid and crazy and life hating THING to have ever existed on this planet - civilization.

he's talking about destroying civilization, and yes, civilized humans (well, maybe he isn't, but I am) who are by defintion mad.

You know that civilization (and yes, civilized humans) are killing the landbase. You know that civilization is busy turning the living into the dead.
What are you going to do about it?

Or maybe, just maybe you'll start thinking about, maybe just entertain the thought, the possibility, of actually killing the guy trying to kill your mother?

Hey you, I asked you so many times, I've tried to change your mind, I gave you so many chances, but I won't stand for it any longer. I'm going to kill you because you're a rabid madman, a wraith, a toxic piece of shit, you've relinqushed you're right to life by your own actions.

You seem to comfortably (oh how comfortable it is!) keep forgetting that civilization is busy attacking your mother right now! Civilization is attacking the planet - and ALL life on it NOW. Not in the future, not in the past, NOW.

The break from reality is to think you can save the world (or humanity) by changing minds and walking away.

It's funny, you talk about saving humanity (I don't, I want to save the entire world of beings, human and non-human), but your actions (or lack thereof) are contributing for the destruction and annihilation of the human race!

Humans will only survive if they live sustainably.

Given civilization's favorite activity (it's credo!) to turn the living into the dead, the longer it takes for civilization to collapse the less biodiversity, the less landbases are intact (or the more damaged and marginal are the rest), and most importantly (from your point of view) the less humans will survive and the lesser the chance for survival of the species itself.

I think civilization can be destroyed. Not by direct force applied against it's institutions (governments, armies, police forces, and so on), but by destroying it's infrastructure - the infrastructure that it foolishely (suicidaly one might say) made itslef completely reliant on.

Civilization won't survive the detruction of the infrastructure.

What are you going to do about it??????

And then I'm going to remind you that destroying civilization's infastructure like that would require coordinated strikes around the world. Even if they were targeted for maximum effect, it would take thousands of people dedicated to going ahead and being the cause of 5.5 billion deaths. The fact they would die anyway is the same old euthanaisa argument. The jury is still out on that one

In addition, Mother is handling it in her own way. Does she really need the children smacking each other while she's laying down the law?

If you intend to go through with this, I can't stop you. But if you would do me a favor and give me a couple days notice so I can get out west? I'd rather not be any where near any city when it goes down

To everyone... are you trying to save the planet or are you trying to save humanity? What is 'Saving the World' to you?

I, personally, think that mother can take care of herself. She will take us out long before we can threaten 'life' on this planet. Even if civilization destroys 80% of the 'macro' life on Earth, mother will still have 90% of current TOTAL biodiverstiy (seeing as microbial life/bacteria/etc accounts for 95% of total biodiversity)

So I am interesting in saving humanity. That means two things.... first that violence against the victims of civilization (which is ALL of US!) doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me... how can I save humanity if I go around killing us off at 'random'?

Second, if I fail, then so be it. Life will go on, the planet will heal and maybe come up with new lifeforms that can make a better go of it... The validity is in the EFFORT. Its in the acceptance of our place in the world and the attempt to foster that idea in others. If people will not accept it, then there is no way to save us

Question. If 1% of the human life on this planet has a changed mind, what are the chances that any of them(us) will survive. If 10% of those 1% have skills that will enable them to survive in the wild, what are the chances that any of them will survive? Particularily if civilization violently implodes?

Why do I fixate on the possibility of violence?

Because I'm affraid of it.

I'm terrified.

Dude, you guys are scaring me. For real. No bullshit, no nothing. This is the truth. I'm affraid and it's this sort of talk that is frightening me.

I may be affraid, but that doesn't make me a coward. I will not participate in anything that will cause the deaths of 5.5 billion people who haven't even been consulted in the matter. If you do this, you will foist death on billions. That scares me. If you fail, you will be killed. That scares me too.

The question in my mind is, do we kill those who oppose us and continue as conquerors or do we work with everyone and continue as allies, not just with humanitiy, but with the world and the gods themselves?

So what? More killing? When does the killing stop? What sort of world would we be creating if it could only be maintained through the constant killing of our own species?

What will we have gained?

I see it as an idea that simply needs to be abandoned for a better idea.

So what does it mean to take it down? Does it mean destruction or does it mean creation?

What were you put on this Earth to be? A destroyer or a creator?

If you're not dehumanising civilisationalists before you kill them, then you're wantonly killing people. How can you bring yourself to do that? How can you justify that?

I don't think that anyone disagrees here either. We all know that either civilisation will crash, the population will crash or both. What we don't know is how many or if anyone will survive.

So here's my question. If it's going to crash and kill billions, then why hasten that? Why not TRY to take it down, not by killing everything is sight, but in an orderly fashion?

It's like a dyke. There's a dyke holding back the sea and everyone knows that it will burst because it wasn't designed properly. What is the point of blowing it up and sorting out the mess after the flood? Why not figure out some way to save everyone and build something new? And yes, I understand that saving everyone requires us to build a new system in which there are not so many people

I understand the concern that the extinction is happening right now. Animals are dying. But humans are an animal too. We are a part of this ecosystem. How can you justify saving one species by murdering another?

You've changed, Red.

I have read some Jensen. I just don't like what he has to say. But this isn't a Jensen vs Quinn argument. They aren't our saviours or our leaders. They just put out some ideas. Let's forget about them for now. Let's not make them our banners, the standards to follow into some fools battle. Let's just be people for now. Individuals with hopes and dreams and good intentions.

Is that what you think? What do you mean by that?

So what is this THING? What is it that is to be attacked? The damns? The ideas? The people? Are you going to be attacking people? Killing people? Why? Because they're a part of this thing?

They're not human, they're just a cog in the machine. No good to anyone. Do you see how insidious bigotry is?

It's not the Man or Them that is destroying the planet. It's us. I'm going to build something new. Something that will allow me to stop killing my mother. ME. I am responsible for my actions.

If you blow up a dam, YOU might kill my mother. Her name is Maureen and I love her. If you do that I will warm my hands as they burn you at the stake. You'll be a murderer, Red. Nothing more. No hero. No saviour. Just another murderer

The only people that embrace war are those untouched by it.

You forgot human. Or is there no place for that there?

You make presumptions of me. You make the assumption that I haven't sacrificed many things in order to pursue this. That I live in poverty for some reason other than because it's more important to me to figure out how to stop this than to make a salary. That I don't get full of rage when I see what is happening. That I'm blind to the assault on the Earth. That I am somehow comfortable with all of it. That I'm ignorant to your truth that the only way to stop destruction is with more destruction.

Give me one example of naked violence saving the world, of it making the world a better place, of hate making the world a better place, and I'll shut the fuck up.

What about you? What makes you so special? Why are you allowed to survive while others aren't? What is it that you are doing that I'm not that is eliminating your contribution to the destruction of the planet? What makes you sustainable? Are you living in the stone age right now or are you posting on the internet?

I can't do this. I can't kill myself trying to convince others that revolution doesn't work, that murder doesn't work, that hate doesn't work and that destroying doesn't work.

All I know is that at the end of the day, now and for the rest of my life, I can look my mother in the eye and say "I didn't kill anyone today. I didn't cause suffering. I built today. I made something wonderful. Thank you for creating me so that I could create as well."

This has become a war. We all want to save life. We all are going about it differently. Is there no way for us to work together? Is there no way for us to build something wonderful together? Or have the lines been drawn? This conflict doesn't have to be. Can we do better?

I voted because Puffy told me too...

How can you look your mother in the eye and tell her you haven't killed anyone today? (Mom? I know he's attacking you, but violence is wrong, and anyway it only begets more violence, so I won't kill your attacker even tough I can. I'd rather do and build instead of killing this rabid human who's murdering you. I'm looking you in the eye proudly mom! Wait, I can't see your eyes anymore, why are they closed? Oops, she's dead... too bad...)

were are missing what's important in our lives. The people, the music, the food, the adventures...

sometimes an old decaying building needs to be brought down in order for another to rise in it's stead.

Do you hear what you're saying??? Do you have a heart of stone???? Are you totally closed to the suffering and annihilation of all those animals and plants??????
Are you content in letting civilization destroy 80% of the `macro` (NO!!! WHY ARE YOU GENERALIZING LIKE THAT? THESE AREN'T `THINGS` - THESE ARE LIVING BREATHING FEELING BEINGS - PEOPLE - WHOLE SPECIES THAT ARE BEING ANNIHILATED AS WE ARGUE HERE), and letting Earth do the healing after humanity is detroyed? Are you content in sitting by side lines and allowing Salmon, Bears, Tigers, Redwoods, Chimps, Rhinocerouse, and countless other species be annihilated, when you can do something to stop it?
Is that what sets your heart at ease? That 95% of the biodiversity is microbial and most microbes will survive? Are you fucking kidding me?