Rewilding Must Be Nonviolent


#21

I thought you were actually going to read our responses. Guess not.


#22

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. :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :wink:


#23

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?


#24

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. ::slight_smile: 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).


#25

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.


#26

[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!!!!!

#27

[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.


#28
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.


#29

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.


#30

There are complex emotional issues involved in resisting/dismantling civilization that make it hard to swallow for even those of us who understand how violence can be appropriate.

Many of my closest friends, people I have known for years and years, still buy into civilization. None of my (biological) family members are rewilding either. Hell, even my boyfriend isn’t totally convinced of the arguments for rewilding (although he is curious). If I take actions to dismantle civ, I would be hurting people who aren’t prepared for its collapse… hurting people that I love. I think almost everybody in the rewilding movement still has emotional ties to civ in this way. If someone doesn’t, then either they are very very lucky to have so many friends & family members who share their vision, OR they have had to break a lot of hearts (including their own heart, again and again).

That may resonate true for many rewilders on the more passive end of the spectrum, but perhaps not all! I claim that my own “flight” from civ (as opposed to a “fight”) stems from the emotional ties I mentioned above–not wanting to hurt people I love who depend on civ–not from any intrinsic “flight” tendencies. I’ve felt so conflicted when trying to weigh violence towards civ against my ties to the civilized people I care about, and I never seem to come any closer to a resolution, so I’ve simply stopped asking the question of whether to use violence altogether. Instead of pro-actively fighting civ on a systematic/structural level, I’ve decided to fight only in self-defense on a case-by-case basis.

Of course, too much cohesion and the site could get rather stale… personally, I love to see (respectful) disagreement, because then I know that people are thinking for themselves and speaking from diverse experiences, not just regurgitating what they’ve read or what other people have told them.


#31

[quote=“BlueHeron, post:30, topic:1357”][quote author=Urban Scout link=topic=1444.msg15028#msg15028 date=1237236920]
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. [/quote]

Of course, too much cohesion and the site could get rather stale… personally, I love to see (respectful) disagreement, because then I know that people are thinking for themselves and speaking from diverse experiences, not just regurgitating what they’ve read or what other people have told them.[/quote]

I share both these perspectives. On the one hand, I like spicy disagreements when they create thought-provoking discussions (as happened here). On the other hand, I desperately need to connect with others who feel the way I do, and that doesn’t happen many places other than here.