Rewilding Must Be Nonviolent

Visions of the Rewilding Renaissance Common Misconceptions
#1

I really didn’t want to throw myself into the fray with such a contentious issue; I wanted to just hang back a little & ease myself into the conversations here. But after reading several threads here related to the issue of using violence to bring down the system, I find myself very disturbed by what some people are saying, & seem to be (half-heartedly) advocating. Every fiber in my being is screaming “NO! THIS IS BAD! THIS IS WRONG! WE CAN’T DO THIS!” And I don’t think this issue has been satisfactorily resolved at all, & it needs to be resolved.

Not only do I believe that it’s possible to rewild nonviolently, I will go so far as to say that REWILDING MUST BE NONVIOLENT OR ELSE IT WILL NEVER WORK.

I think the issue of violence is the great unresolved issue of rewilding. And I need to be absolutely clear about this: I think the real issue here is VIOLENCE BETWEEN HUMAN BEINGS.

The guys who want to do violence to the system, to “bring it down,” seem like a bunch of very angry guys. They may very well be addicted to their anger. But my experience with anger tells me that it warps your perceptions & your judgment, & causes you to do stupid, foolish things. And it seems to me that using violence to bring down the system is an extremely stupid & foolish thing to do. I think the angry guys who want to bring down the system are confused in their anger; they are not thinking clearly about this issue at all.

What these guys are really talking about is going to WAR against civilization. I don’t think they understand what that really means. I don’t think it’s possible to war against civ & rewild at the same time. We have to devote all of our energy to either one thing or the other. And I do not want civilized people to get the idea that rewilding equals a war against civilization; I don’t want them to think of rewilders as their enemy. People who are totally dependent on the system for their very survival will see an attack on the system as an attack on them. If they see us as the enemy, then they will treat us as the enemy, & it might well end up leading to situations like Ruby Ridge & Waco. The system is designed, at least in part, to defend itself against all threats to its continued existence.

I’m just trying to look at this issue in the most realistic & practical way I possibly can.

I don’t want to go to war against civilization – I just want to be able to rewild in peace & quiet. I want peace & quiet so bad! I’m sick to death of being full of anger, rage & hate all the time; it’s eating away at me like cancer, & I want to be free from it. We are not going to be able to rewild in peace & quiet unless we can show civilized people that rewilding is actually a good thing. And if they see it as a good thing, then some of them might even choose to join us.

I think it’s the aggressive, macho, militant stance of a lot of rewilders that turns a lot of women off to it & keeps them from joining up with us.

Based on my research, truly wild humans are peaceful, gentle, loving people. I refer you to the writings of Jean Liedloff, E Richard Sorenson, & James W Prescott. Just Google those names. Liedloff & Prescott have their own websites; Sorenson’s writings are less easy to find on the web, but I think his work is extremely important & has staggering implications.

As far as I’m concerned, the natural-unnatural distinction just doesn’t work, because it completely misses the point. According to my definition, Nature means everything that exists, therefore, nothing that can exist or happen in Nature is unnatural. That means that civilization itself is perfectly natural. The distinction that works for me is between HEALTH & SICKNESS. According to my view, wildness means health & civilization means sickness.

Human beings are social animals. A true society cannot be held together if people cannot get along with each other. Fear, anger, rage, hostility, aggression & violence between people cause social cohesion to break down. These negative emotions are symptoms of the disease we call civilization – signs that something has gone terribly wrong. True social cohesion can only exist when people are kind, gentle, loving & peaceful toward each other. Without this kind of relationship between people, social cohesion breaks down, & laws are created to take its place & try to hold society together. But I think we can all agree that laws really do a lousy job of holding a society together.

It makes more sense for me to view civilization not as a thing or a group of things created by humans, but as a PROCESS. More specifically – & essential to my argument – civilization is a PATHOLOGICAL PROCESS – in other words, a DISEASE. Even more to the point, the damage done to human beings by civilization is essentially PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAUMA. I believe that all the problems civilized people suffer from can be traced back to psychological trauma, usually done to us in infancy by our own parents.

If civilization is a disease, then rewilding should be seen as the cure. In my view, the essence of rewilding is HEALING OURSELVES from the trauma done to us by civilization.

#2

First, I have to start out by asking if you’ve read Derrick Jensen’s “Endgame”. If you haven’t, I’ll let you borrow my copy of volume I. :slight_smile:

There are, unfortunately, several circumstances that negate complete nonviolence. The primary is that, historically, people apart from civilization will eventually be subjected to violence at the hands of civilization, either being forced to participate or simply killed outright. Civilization requires constant growth, and is therefore predicated on the administration of violence outwards from its center(s). Just like in the cases of individuals being attacked, the best chance of survival involves fighting back against your attacker.

Secondly, civilization has and continues to destroy the natural world. Human people and the ecosystems we’re part of require at least a certain level of the ecosystem intact. Civilization won’t allow that. We need to do what we can to fight for intact ecosystems, and this unfortunately sometimes requires acts that border on violence.

The distinction you make about violence being directed at humans is important. Like Jensen said, it’s sick to equate destruction of property with harm against people. Blowing up a cell tower isn’t the same as blowing up an orphanage. It’s slightly cliched, but you get the point. Acts of destruction do not necessarily actually harm anyone, though the rich capitalists who use them to exploit humans and other people might dispute that. Directed subversion and sabotage can undermine without harming anyone.

Personally, I don’t like violence or destruction. Not from any ethical outrage, but simply because it’s messy, and typically has a rather low effect/effort and cost ratio. But it’s an appropriate way to behave in some situations. I own guns in case I need to shoot an attacker. If I’m attacked, I’ll shoot to kill. I don’t particularly want to kill anyone, but in that situation I would if it meant the safety of myself, my friends, and most importantly my family. Sometimes, violence is appropriate.

We’re being met on every side with violence. Defensive actions are appropriate responses. Even the preachers of nonviolence, like the Dalai Lama and Martin Luther King Jr., have said that violence in defense is an appropriate response to violence. Dr. King even said that when non-violent revolution is made impossible, violent revolution is made inevitable.

I have some more in my head, but I’m going out in a minute. If I remember more later, expect it to be posted.

#3

Joeh, I appreciate your viewpoints, and everyone has their own perspective on rewilding. But since you said you have only recently joined, I’d like to recommend that you read more of Jason Godesky’s Thirty Thesis (if you haven’t already). I also second the recommendation to read Endgame. That book forever changed my perspective on the world.

Not only do I believe that it's possible to rewild nonviolently, I will go so far as to say that REWILDING MUST BE NONVIOLENT OR ELSE IT WILL NEVER WORK.

I second what Dan said about nonviolence. As long as an abuser or oppressor continues to commit violence against others, not stopping them inevitably assists them. In this situation, no one can remain neutral - if someone does not help the victim by acting to stop the violence (if they have the ability to), they allow the abuser to continue.

And by any definition of the word, civilization’s treatment of the natural world and indigenous people (and even civilized people) constitutes abuse, plain and simple. So what I said about non-violence applies here perfectly.

Also, there do exist ways to STOP civilization without committing violence - if one does not equate violence with attacks on “private property”. But if killing one person would save millions of others - and if failing to kill them would lead to the death of millions - then I firmly believe that killing them would prevent FAR more violence than “non-violence” (not killing them) would. So we see that the question of non-violence looks a lot more gray than it does black and white (to commit violence or not). It depends on how one asks the question - for example, “how could I prevent or eliminate the most violence from happening in the world?” And, “what do I mean by violence?”

Every fiber in my being is screaming "NO! THIS IS BAD! THIS IS WRONG! WE CAN'T DO THIS!" And I don't think this issue has been satisfactorily resolved at all, & it needs to be resolved.

I appreciate your perspective. However, I don’t know what you mean by “the issue being resolved”. Everyone has their own perspective, and everyone will continue to have their own perspective regardless of what you or anyone else says. Sure, you may convince others to change their own perspectives, but no one can make them change.

And I think many here would disagree that rewilding should stay strictly nonviolent. As you’ll find from reading more on the forum, many of us would agree that tearing down civilization makes up an essential aspect of rewilding (the process of undomesticating/uncivilizing ourselves, the land, and our way of life) - although we all have our own ways of going about it.

I think the issue of violence is the great unresolved issue of rewilding. And I need to be absolutely clear about this: I think the real issue here is VIOLENCE BETWEEN HUMAN BEINGS.

I totally agree with your former statement, but I think the latter statement completely ignores the great majority of the violence that concerns us - the daily violence to the earth and countless trillions of non-humans by the death machine called civilization. It even seems like you’re ignoring the daily violence against millions of humans perpetuated by civilization, and only feel concerned about the (small) potential for violence against those who carry out the violence of civilization, by those on this forum. That just doesn’t make sense to me, especially in the context of rewilding.

The guys who want to do violence to the system, to "bring it down," seem like a bunch of very angry guys. They may very well be addicted to their anger. But my experience with anger tells me that it warps your perceptions & your judgment, & causes you to do stupid, foolish things. And it seems to me that using violence to bring down the system is an extremely stupid & foolish thing to do. I think the angry guys who want to bring down the system are confused in their anger; they are not thinking clearly about this issue at all.

Yes, I feel very angry, precisely because of the massive amount of violence civ has committed, and continues to at an ever-escalating rate, against the earth and all life. I also feel angry from the countless negative ways this culture has affected me personally. In fact, rage would describe it a lot better. But I can choose to let this anger hurt me, to cause me to self-destruct and act in stupid and self-defeating ways, OR I can choose to make this rage an ally, motivating me to take action to stop the violence that I see all around me.

I really agree with Edward Abbey when he said, “Love implies anger. The person who is angry about nothing cares about nothing.” My rage comes from love. If I didn’t love the world, and life (and myself), I would feel perfectly happy living in this death culture.

Also, I feel I should warn you not to stray into the realm of telling others how they think or feel - that goes against this forum’s guidelines for friendly and acceptable behavior.

What these guys are really talking about is going to WAR against civilization. I don’t think they understand what that really means. I don’t think it’s possible to war against civ & rewild at the same time. We have to devote all of our energy to either one thing or the other.

I respect your opinion (except where you imply I don’t know what I mean), but I totally disagree about this. Everywhere I look, I see a war going on, whether I participate or not - a war against the earth, and against any who don’t accept exploitation and repression. This war has existed as long as civilization has existed, and not by accident. Civilizations have always needed war for their very existence, just like they have always needed to exploit people and the land.

So, therefore, I think fighting on behalf of the land, and life, and rewilding actually go hand in hand. But I don’t fight against other civilized people in general - I see them as victims too, just like me. I don’t see them as my allies, however, and they can choose or not to go down in flames with civilization.

Fear, anger, rage, hostility, aggression & violence between people cause social cohesion to break down. These negative emotions are symptoms of the disease we call civilization -- signs that something has gone terribly wrong. True social cohesion can only exist when people are kind, gentle, loving & peaceful toward each other.

I don’t see fear, anger, hostility, etc as exclusively products of civilization, although I do agree that civ causes them a lot. But I find it interesting that the anger I talked about above represents one thing many on this forum have in common - one thing that brings us together. And I think of these feelings as perfectly natural, and healthy, responses to the state of the world today, and to life in civilization (most of us haven’t escaped yet).

In my view, the essence of rewilding is HEALING OURSELVES from the trauma done to us by civilization.

I do like your metaphor of civilization as a disease, and I agree that healing ourselves of it makes up an essential part of rewilding. Rewilding has other aspects though, also included on this forum.

I hope I’ve clarified my perspective, a bit. :wink:

Jessica

#4

I think that most, if not all of us drawn to rewilding are drawn to it in part as a reaction to the inherent violence of domestication. At least for myself I know that I strongly dislike the violence at every level, including the violence of humans against humans and also including the violence of humans against non humans.

One of the points that Derrick Jensen makes in Endgame that is striking to me is how broad and inclusive the term “violence” is. We use the same term to mean many things, and as a result we don’t typically differentiate between them. But this is a mistake. What if instead of using the term “violence” we use the term “resistance”? Is resistance not justifiable in the face of oppression and wanton destruction? And should not resistance be at least as great in degree as the oppression and destruction that it faces? Otherwise it is doomed to fail.

In my short lifetime I have witness unspeakable atrocities, as have we all. In particular I’m thinking of the atrocities that are committed routinely against the wild and natural world. This is thought of as “the cost of doing business” by the mainstream. I, for one, will not stand by idly while this continues. Resistance (and I’m talking about active resistance) is necessary from everything I can see. If you want to call that violence then that is your choice. I call it the defense of life.

Another point that I think is crucial here is that rewilding means nothing if there is nowhere left to rewild. Living as a wild human has dependencies. Those are the dependencies that any wild animal would have, things like access to clean water, air, food, etc. Civilization clearly poses a very serious threat to those things. As much as I’d like to think that I can ignore the destruction caused by civilization and merely hide out in the woods, the truth is that the latter will only work until that habitat is destroyed for yet another “development” or whatever the case.

I honestly don’t think any of the participants of this community are advocating for the use of violence for the sake of acting out anger as a replacement for therapy, for example. However, I do think that some of us believe that resistance and defense against civilization are essential to life on this planet, and we see that as fundamentally aligned with and crucial for rewilding. I think that all forms of resistance are important, including marches and protests and boycotts and petitions and all of that. But to limit ourselves to only those actions that are deemed “non-violent” and acceptable to the powers of civilization is to lose the war. And yes, in my opinion it is a war. Do the lives of the trees and the birds and the bears and the rivers not count? I feel they do. And if that is the case then we’re not just talking about a war, but we’re talking about the most horrific genocides ever waged on the planet. And that’s something worth fighting. Again, I strongly believe this is not only justifiable, but also closely affiliated with rewilding in today’s climate. Without a real resistance that can not only halt but dismantle civilization then there will be no wild, no rewilding, no life on this planet.

That’s my opinion.

#5

My friend, you’ve probably never heard of Bougainville, eh? Bougainville is a large island near Papua New guinea that is perhaps the best example of successful militant rewilding.
This island used to have a thriving indigenous population, but was then colonized by numerous civilized nations. The people there were initially non-violent towards their colonizers, hoping they would be allowed to live peacefully with their new neighbors. Unfortunately, this strategy has never halted the hegemony of civilization.
You can probably guess what happened to them; missionaries, diseases, peace treaties, division, an influx of white people, wage slavery, dependency, the usual tricks of civ. The people of Bougainville dealt with it “peacefully” until they built one of the largest copper mines in the world there and gave the natives crumbs in exchange.
The natives peacefully plead for their rights and the health of their island, but they were treated like obstacles to production, and swept aside.
This sparked the BLA (you can probably guess what that stands for!) to rise up, sabotaging the mine and kicking the company off their island with slingshots.
When the Papua New Guinea and Australian armies came into to pacify them, they decided to fight back for their sovereignty. Many good people died, which is always a shame, but eventually, the BLA captured some guns, and fought off the colonizers.
The Aussie government imposed a sea blockade in an attempt to starve the people out, as they were dependent on agriculture and civilization. But they underestimated the ability of these people to rewild!
The Bougainvillians made the difficult transition, losing many in the process to starvation, but utilized transition technologies like alternator generators and coconut oil biodiesel, and quickly planted many forest gardens.
They are still in resistance to this day, and have not been granted sovereignty, but continue to live wild and free, while engaging in combat with those who would have them be slaves.
I recommend watching the documentary “Coconut Revolution” about this situation. You can watch it online at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1192286025577999101
The point I’m trying to make is, first: it is possible to rewild in an armed conflict situation, and, secondly: non-violence is always the best way, but it is far-fetched to expect the largest, most brutal hegemony the world has ever known to grant sovereignty to a group that is in resistance to it’s violence.

#6

Hey joeh! Nice to meet you. Tough topic to discuss, especially over the internet. So Id like to point out some things before i continue,
For example there is no “we” . There’s lots of individuals on this forum living in different places, under differing circumstances, its simply not possible to create an artificial category called “we” make up a set of moral rules for them and be done with it.

This issue has been going on and as long as i can remember and before. Do we need to resolve this “issue”? I think not. I already know my relationship with violence. It seems to me you need to resolve this issue for yourself. There are no universal rules and you won’t find an argument that will unite all under the banner of pacifism.

We could discuss violence and non-violence of course. Im trying to point out that coming at this discussion saying " Look here ! DO this. Don’t do this!" is often not very effective.

[quote=“joeh7762, post:1, topic:1357”]Not only do I believe that it’s possible to rewild nonviolently, I will go so far as to say that REWILDING MUST BE NONVIOLENT OR ELSE IT WILL NEVER WORK.

I think the issue of violence is the great unresolved issue of rewilding. And I need to be absolutely clear about this: I think the real issue here is VIOLENCE BETWEEN HUMAN BEINGS.[/quote]

ReWilding only makes sense in a localized context. In some places and times violence will have its place. In some much less so to the extent that its almost invisible or non-existant.

why the division between violence against humans and for example violence against the landbase and/or animals?

I think any emotion can have the same result or worse. depending. Love clouds judgement just as well if not more. As does fear. As does pride. And so on. We make do.

Yeah, that’s a problem eh? Civ is the enemy, but the enemy is made up of friends and collegues and family, of ourselves even. Difficult position i agree. Still I relate to Civ like this: Civ goes to war against the Wild and uncontrollable. not vice versa. This is happening wheter i want to or not. We are only enemies when we fight back. When we don’t fight we arent enemies we are window dressing. backgroundnoise.

as im sure we all are trying to do

I dont believe in enlightening the masses. If something scares me its mass politics and “reasonable” voices that we should follow. shudders . Also lots of people might join you who are similarly angry at civ when you show anger. I also want peace and quiet, im not sick of anger though. Sometimes i am angry sometimes not.

hmm some girls like machismo. some boys like machismo. But yeah there’s alot of posing and ideological positioning involved. Personally this bothers me as well but what bothers me is the people themselves. I deal with it because i have good friends with firmly established relationships that don’t need to prove themselves all the time with machismo.

yeah they didnt live in civ. again different people different times different places and so on…

[quote=“joeh7762, post:1, topic:1357”]As far as I’m concerned, the natural-unnatural distinction just doesn’t work, because it completely misses the point. According to my definition, Nature means everything that exists, therefore, nothing that can exist or happen in Nature is unnatural. That means that civilization itself is perfectly natural. The distinction that works for me is between HEALTH & SICKNESS. According to my view, wildness means health & civilization means sickness.

Human beings are social animals. A true society cannot be held together if people cannot get along with each other. Fear, anger, rage, hostility, aggression & violence between people cause social cohesion to break down. These negative emotions are symptoms of the disease we call civilization – signs that something has gone terribly wrong. True social cohesion can only exist when people are kind, gentle, loving & peaceful toward each other. Without this kind of relationship between people, social cohesion breaks down, & laws are created to take its place & try to hold society together. But I think we can all agree that laws really do a lousy job of holding a society together.[/quote]

“Negative” emotions aren’t diseases. Fear is healthy. Anger is healthy. “Negative” emotions are used to keep groups together too. Social cohesion breaks down when communities grow bigger then they can maintain meaningful relationships with. Social grooming can no longer be effectively employed to keep the people together and abstractions and laws are applied to keep from falling apart in smaller groups (which would be a wiser idea)

[quote=“joeh7762, post:1, topic:1357”]It makes more sense for me to view civilization not as a thing or a group of things created by humans, but as a PROCESS. More specifically – & essential to my argument – civilization is a PATHOLOGICAL PROCESS – in other words, a DISEASE. Even more to the point, the damage done to human beings by civilization is essentially PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAUMA. I believe that all the problems civilized people suffer from can be traced back to psychological trauma, usually done to us in infancy by our own parents.

If civilization is a disease, then rewilding should be seen as the cure. In my view, the essence of rewilding is HEALING OURSELVES from the trauma done to us by civilization.[/quote]

yeah. not much to add here

I think people can maintain a healthy relationship with violence.

#7

That could be the case for humans living in “untouched” indigenous societies, in a general sense. But when those same humans come into contact with a violent civilizing force, they defend themselves… violently. When they see their trees being forested, when they see violence done against the land (and ultimately, to them) they react… again, violently.

Likewise, there are people in rewilding (not everyone, but there are some) who use violence against civilization when they witness its violent, systematic injustices.

#8

[quote=“joeh7762, post:1, topic:1357”]It makes more sense for me to view civilization not as a thing or a group of things created by humans, but as a PROCESS. More specifically – & essential to my argument – civilization is a PATHOLOGICAL PROCESS – in other words, a DISEASE. Even more to the point, the damage done to human beings by civilization is essentially PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAUMA. I believe that all the problems civilized people suffer from can be traced back to psychological trauma, usually done to us in infancy by our own parents.

If civilization is a disease, then rewilding should be seen as the cure. In my view, the essence of rewilding is HEALING OURSELVES from the trauma done to us by civilization.[/quote]

I agree with you absolutely. But I don’t know how non-violence is supposed to be related to psychological healing.

If someone accosted you on the sidewalk and seriously threatened your life, and if you were carrying a gun, wouldn’t you shoot in self-defense? Or would you really say to yourself, “I can’t kill another human being, because it would interfere with the psychological healing process I am going through?” There is a place for violence. Of course it should be used judiciously. It may or may not add more trauma to one’s life to have to do that. Hell, it may even be therapeutic, or restore confidence in one’s sense of self-agency (which is nearly lacking among the civilized).

One last point… If I ever have to kill in self-defense, or for survival, I would do my best to make a clean kill and minimize trauma. Violence is not always a symptom of sadism, although some civilized groups (e.g., adamant pacifists) would want us to believe so.

#9

I appreciate everyone’s comments on violence. You’ve said my piece already.

Anger–the refrain from an 80’s punk rock song (Rise, FWIW) comes to mind: “Anger is an energy”. Anger motivates action. Anger provides fuel for change. Without anger, we’d have a big hole in the spectrum of human emotions, and when anger gets repressed, ignored, stuffed, then we’ve really got problems.

Civilization’s daily war on life makes me angry. It gives me a restless feeling, a vacuum, it makes me search for a way to respond.

I totally agree, Jessica.

#10

I can shed some light on this from a background in trauma release therapy. All animals have built in to their nervous systems and bodies a “fight , flight or freeze” response to threat. Most any animal will get violent when their fight response is triggered. What civilization does is to “domesticate” us, which is to traumatize our nervous systems to the points where the fight, flight or freeze isn’t shaken off, it gets stuck in our nervous system, so past threats are always present. Wild animals and humans don’t get traumatized, they can release the activation of the threat after they are safe. Or a wild human can pull in the services of the medicine man to release the stuck trauma. I heard a story about a Navajo practice to take men returning from war straight into ceremony for three days before they are allowed back with their families. It’d probably help our societies if we did the same, reduce suicide and abuse statistics for vets. We aren’t ever ‘safe’, so we are activated in fight, flight or freeze all the time! So violence from traumatized domesticated humans can be triggered by something that’s not even appropriate, because the fight energy is stuck there lurking in the nervous system. I think domesticated pets can be traumatized too, but you don’t see traumatized wild animals, they all have instincts to shake it off. So, if we heal our nervous systems, we may not be prone to outbursts of inapprpriate violence, but hopefully we are capable of appropriate fight energy when a real threat is there. Actually, that’s what domestication is intended to do… have us so shut down with freeze, that we are completely docile, and never fight back at all when under attack.

#11

Hmm, Marita, very interesting. I especially found it interesting that pets can be traumatized. I’ve suspected that all along about my cat… she seems so anxious, as if I will abandon her. Either she was taken from her mother too early, or it’s a result of her first human putting her in an animal shelter. I’ll never know for sure…

Anyway, I’m off topic.

#12

This is a really cool way to think about it…Awesome post, Marita.

#13

wow. really, really, really cool.

I wonder what something like that would look like here and now?

#14

OMG, I knew I was going to open up a huge can o’ worms with my post.

First of all, I’m very sorry for sounding so preachy about this. I know very well I can’t force people to change their views or behave differently. I just can’t help feeling very strongly about this.

I also understand that we need to resist the violence of civilization. I’m not trying to ignore or dismiss all the horrible destruction of life caused by civ.

I guess I can’t really call myself an absolute pacifist. If I was backed into a corner by a hostile person bent on killing me, & my only alternatives were to kill him or die, then I would kill him. I would do the same thing if someone was threatening to kill someone I love.

Just about everybody who has responded so far seems to be saying, “I don’t like violence at all, but unfortunately it’s necessary.”

I have not read Endgame. I haven’t read any of Jensen’s books yet.

Wow, I just feel really overwhelmed by all the responses I’ve gotten so far. I need to save this thread & read through it over the weekend & do a lot of thinking about this. Unfortunately, I won’t be able to post anything else till Monday, since my access to the Internet is limited.

Oh, yeah…marita…I’ve been doing a lot of research on trauma & trauma therapies, so what your talking about is very familiar to me. I’m particularly interested in stuff like Somatic Experiencing & Focusing. I’ve read Peter Levine’s book Waking The Tiger, & I like the ideas & techniques he describes.

I just can’t help feeling really uncomfortable about using violence to resist civ. I’ll do anything I possbly can to resist nonviolently.

But do you really think the system is bent on crushing the rewilding movement violently?

#15

I get your anguish, I should have added that to do violence to another - especially human is very traumatizing, we also have strong instincts to not do violence or be coercive with our tribe, so I get why you resist that very strongly. Another thing that’s going on there is that one part of your brain (fight/flight is reptilian level brain) is clashing with your neocortex, so you basically are at war with yourself, and that’s awful as well. One thing I have wondered is if it was for these reasons that some tribal people considered those people in the tribe differently than human not in their tribe. It was more okay to do violence to humans outside the tribe than inside the tribe. The only thing I have noticed is that horror and violence need to be released if they aren’t to make us sick and crazy.

The Navajo story came from Peter Levine, that’s one of the schools of trauma therapy I have studied. Another one was Alberto Villoldo and his healing the light body school. I noticed that the techniques Alberto teaches to release ‘dense energy’ is quite similar to what Peter Levine teachs.

#16

Joeh, sorry for overwhelming you! But I find it very helpful to spend time thinking about this important topic, and I hope you do as well.

Absolutely, completely, if they feel they have to. I look at it this way: the entire system will collapse if enough people refuse to participate. In other words, the ruling elite’s power and wealth completely depend upon the acquiescence and participation of all of us (willing or unwilling - they don’t care). And they fully know this. The education system, the prison system, the police, the laws, etc etc all exist for this very purpose - to maintain their power and control over us.

History has shown us that time and again, the rulers of civilization feel completely willing to use violence to exterminate or enslave (as owned slaves or wage slaves) whomever they choose. And so far, no people on earth have escaped this violence (except a handful of isolated tribes in remote regions, only because civ’s reach hasn’t extended that far yet). This point seems so obvious, I don’t know why I even bother typing it.

For a specific example closer to this time and place, look at what happened to Finisia, a rewilding hunter-gatherer who lives a nomadic existence. On her travels, a ranger arrested her for nothing more than planting native seeds along the trail (and for resisting his “authority”). They locked her up in jail for three months.

#17

[quote=“joeh7762, post:14, topic:1357”]OMG, I knew I was going to open up a huge can o’ worms with my post.

Wow, I just feel really overwhelmed by all the responses I’ve gotten so far. I need to save this thread & read through it over the weekend & do a lot of thinking about this. Unfortunately, I won’t be able to post anything else till Monday, since my access to the Internet is limited.[/quote]

Take your time, dude. :slight_smile: It’s always good to digest and figure out exactly what you want to say, and how to incorporate new ideas. I know I want to hear what you have to say in response, since so much was thrown at you.

Well, if you can make it to one of our local meetings, I’ll let you borrow my copy.:slight_smile:

And I’ll echo what bereal said about violent force. If those in power consider us a threat, they’ll do whatever they can, including violence, to maintain their power.

#18

I join the non-violent group, but I am ONLY advocating non-violence towards human slaves of the Machine! The Machine itselfe… You should learn to make thermite guys;-)

#19

You people are not at all who I thought you were. I really thought I knew what rewilding was, but I guess I was totally wrong about that. You are not good people at all. You are totally insane. You want to use violence to destroy civilization. I am absolutely against that. You won’t even consider any other possibility. Therefore, I will have absolutely nothing to do with you people ever again. Goodbye.

#20

Looks as though there’s more to heap atop the humanure pile.