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.
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.
This is a really cool way to think about it…Awesome post, Marita.
wow. really, really, really cool.
I wonder what something like that would look like here and now?
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?
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.
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.
[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. 
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.
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.
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;-)
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.
Looks as though there’s more to heap atop the humanure pile.
I thought you were actually going to read our responses. Guess not.
You know, I almost put his initial post in the humanure bucket, but I thought I would let it go and see how people here would respond. I want to give everyone who responded mad props for being very generous with joeh. Everyone here followed the guidelines of this site in such a great way, to such an undeserving person. I’m really thankful of all of you.
It was also great to see such group cohesion with this topic. It really does show that most people here have read Derrick Jensen. I’m thankful to that. This is the kind of cohesion I would like to see in so many avenues of this site. I think with the up-coming changes that will happen much more easily as well. Anyway, thanks everyone this was great. And I don’t think I’ll remove that last post by joeh, because it stands as a great example of well… something. I don’t know, it’s just funny as hell to me. 
I need to chime in here. Reading this experience, and not even having really involved myself in the thread, I still feel the sting of joeh’s final remark, as someone who cares deeply about this place.
How much care and attention can you pour into someone who from the first hasn’t earned your trust? A lot. A helluva lot. And where does all that care and attention go, once they’ve broken your trust? Out the door, with them. All the energy and thoughtfulness that could’ve gone to friends and family, left with someone “just passing through”.
I almost pointed out to joeh, that since he first posted this:
Every fiber in my being is screaming "NO! THIS IS BAD! THIS IS WRONG! WE CAN'T DO THIS!"
I felt almost certain that he didn’t belong here. The measures of “what is good?” “what is bad?” “what is right?” “what is wrong?” have a singular capacity to dehumanize us. They diametrically oppose rewilding.
It strikes me as more than telling that he ended his time here with this remark:
You are not good people at all. You are totally insane.
Just imagine if he called us “good people” and “sane”? Would he “be” more “right”? I can’t find a use for someone else’s labels in this regard. How do they help? I’ll just keep grieving, make choices based on what encourages more life, and protect what I love; what else can I do?
Well, just goes to show how those within civ’s mindset absolutely cannot comprehend what seems pretty straightforward and obvious to us. When we see the insanity of the death machine, and point it out, those who don’t end up calling US insane. Oh well. : I do feel a bit disappointed that Joeh didn’t get it, though. The more people rewild their minds, the better.
I felt almost certain that he didn't belong here. The measures of "what is good?" "what is bad?" "what is right?" "what is wrong?" have a singular capacity to dehumanize us. They diametrically oppose rewilding.
I agree, but I wanted to give him a chance anyway. We all currently occupy different places on the road of rewilding, and I want to help anyone who travels on the road, if I can. But only if they want my help, and Joeh’s rudeness made it clear he decided to walk a different road (whatever he means by rewilding).
I wonder what set him off? Seemed like a very sudden shift from questions, and discomfort/misunderstanding with certain things to “You are totally insane”.
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.
I mean, isn’t this what was advocated? I’m in danger, people close to me are in danger, the ecosystem I depend on is in danger… these warrant violence by Joeh’s own words.
[quote=“kveldulf, post:25, topic:1357”]I wonder what set him off? Seemed like a very sudden shift from questions, and discomfort/misunderstanding with certain things to “You are totally insane”.
I mean, isn’t this what was advocated? I’m in danger, people close to me are in danger, the ecosystem I depend on is in danger… these warrant violence by Joeh’s own words.[/quote]
Yeah, I thought that was strange too. But I’m not too surprised by his reaction. It seems pretty clear to me that in our culture a majority of potential rewilding people who want to see an end to the violence of civ wish to take “flight”, rather than fight and resist civ’s advancement. More aggressive personalities often find a place to direct their aggression within civ’s rules, or by preying on civ’s bounties through crime. It seems like there are more contemplative, sensitive, and peaceful personalities that are drawn to rewilding, probably because these traits get marginalized and abused by civ.
Driven to the margins by civ’s psyhcopathic violence, I think many potential rewilding people begin to see all types of violence as psychopathic and have trouble imagining what resistance would look like without the presence of a clearly defined and defendable human community.
Maybe if you change the format, you can make Endgame required reading. I know I felt alot more understanding of this community after reading Endgame and Spell of the Sensuous than I would have only through reading these threads and other online materials. The theses of Endgame are argued and illustrated so thoughtfully and in great length, so for peaceful and comtemplative personalities, reading the book seems like the best introduction.
I'm not sure how joeh got the idea that rewild.info won't consider any other possibility than violence, but that assumption dissapoints me. It's like he was afraid that any association would implicate him as a violent person. Rewilding means resisting civ, which we all know will inevitably mean physical resistance ("violence") in many circumstances, but I think its important to keep the "we need it all" message loud and clear. Of course rewilding can be done on many fronts, many of which are non-violent, right?
I agree, but I wanted to give him a chance anyway. We all currently occupy different places on the road of rewilding, and I want to help anyone who travels on the road, if I can. But only if they want my help, and Joeh’s rudeness made it clear he decided to walk a different road (whatever he means by rewilding). [/quote]
I agree with this is as well, but I think that quite a few people pursuing a rewilding path come upon it while trying to do what's "good" or "right" and can only know the deeper truths once they travel further down the path. I'm not sure what joeh's vision of rewilding is, but rather than being diametrically opposed, maybe it just lacks definition. I think the importance of this thread was not to make joeh "see the light" and become an embracer of violence, but to help him see that oftentimes physical resistance is neccessary to support or defend something that you love.
I think it's foolish to condemn any well-executed action in resistance against civ. If an effective action can be made non-violently, great! I just hope joeh understands this, and can come to know that civ is the force that makes violence inevitable. Joeh.... If you're still reading this... read Endgame!!!!![quote=“Brian, post:26, topic:1357”][quote author=joeh7762 link=topic=1444.msg15019#msg15019 date=1237229995]
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.
[/quote]
I'm not sure how joeh got the idea that rewild.info won't consider any other possibility than violence, but that assumption dissapoints me. It's like he was afraid that any association would implicate him as a violent person. Rewilding means resisting civ, which we all know will inevitably mean physical resistance ("violence") in many circumstances, but I think its important to keep the "we need it all" message loud and clear. Of course rewilding can be done on many fronts, many of which are non-violent, right?[/quote]
The part about this that really grinds my gears was that I don’t think any of us actually promoted the idea of violence as preferable, just stated that it’s an appropriate response to violence and that we can’t rule it out. If anyone was the one unwilling to consider other possibilities, it is our friend joeh7762.
Whatever, he’s just another civilized extremist completely indoctrinated into the submissive mindset of civilization.
The part about this that really grinds my gears was that I don't think any of us actually promoted the idea of violence as preferable,
That’s the main thing that bothered me, too. I thought, “did I miss something here?”. The consensus seemed to be that non-violence is preferable, but that we are in the unfortunate situation where it is necessary.
That’s the main thing that bothered me, too. I thought, “did I miss something here?”. The consensus seemed to be that non-violence is preferable, but that we in the unfortunate situation where it is necessary.[/quote]
Reading back on his other posts, I think that he really does have some understanding of a type of rewilding, but he even said in his introduction that he wished to avoid any hint of “militancy” in the movement. I think I understand his fear, as there are some people who like to destroy just for destruction’s sake and there is the danger that some of those personalities may be drawn to rewilding mostly in order to express an insatiable, unstoppable anger. Not all rewilding people need to get along perfectly or agree on everything I guess, so it’s a shame that he didn’t seem to approach this subject with an open mind or try to explain his feelings on the subject, and instead resorted to name-calling.