I think direct action can only be effective after mobilization and organization through indirect action. IMHO I think that people can change, but not overnight. In my experiences there are people who are capable of change, they just can’t process all that information at once. Accepting the end of the world as inevitable is a scary thing to most. I firmly believe, and have witnessed first hand, that if you explain things to people in the right way, then they will slowly but surely begin changing their mind. A lot of people have a really hard time abandoning the luxuries of consumer capitalism for primitivism. But if you bear with them I think that many people, and as the end of the world becomes more apparent even more people, are at the very least capable of change. If you explain the seemingly blatant flaws of civilization to people, and do it slowly over a long period of time, people will eventually change. You just have to do your best to not abandon all hope as well as to be tolerant of them as they make the change. People don’t like to feel like their being condescended or preached to so you really have to take the right angle. I like to call this diplomacy.
I also think that indirect action can take many different forms. It can take the form of speeches, literature, protests, etc. But I think the most effective way to get through to people is to speak to those closest to you. And to get as close to as many people as possible. People are more likely to trust those closest to them, when they read a book or listen to a speech they respond to it as propaganda. People don’t take well to propaganda that isn’t their own. But when a friend tells a friend the same thing it comes off as more loving and caring and people are far more likely to listen to someone they trust then someone they see as a mere propagandist. I find that a lot of my friends will listen to me when I discuss primitivism, and most of them will even admit to the legitimacy of what im saying. Not to say that I’ve yet to truly change anybody but I’ve been noticing small changes in a lot of people around me.
As far as materialism vs idealism. It is subjective. Some people need something to be materialized in order to accept it as a good idea. The argument I get most from people is that primtivism just won’t work. If these people saw people living primitively and doing it successfully then they’d be proven wrong. Unlike those on this board who seem to have the idea and wish to materialize it. I believe that on a broad scale materialism must come first, but the idea is born on a small scale. Idealism comes first, but in order for an idea to reach the majority it must be materialized first, otherwise most people will simply write it off as flawed. So unfortunately until the idea spreads amongst enough people to make materialism possible it will be near impossible to convince most people that the idea is worth while. So I guess in a general sense idealism DOES come first but in the case of the individual it is subjective. The trick is finding those that are willing to accept our ideas. Find enough of those people and we can materialize these ideas. Can we do that before the world ends? Hell if I know, but there’s no good reason not to try. And at the very least we’ll have passed the idea onto enough people who will likely accept it with open arms once it becomes their best option for survival.
To some extent, I think it's a good idea to consider our effectiveness. We don't want to waste our time on ineffective action.
At the same time, I think we can paralyze ourselves with endless talk about our action, when sometimes we just need to get out there and fight. We just need to do something, anything.
I definitely agree with this. We need to do both! And as jhereg said, the best thing for each person to do depends on their unique skills, situation, likes & dislikes, etc. I just would like to guard against choosing actions that won’t achieve what we want them to achieve. Whatever we choose, we should base that decision on reality, so that we don’t feel like our actions are failing, which would discourage us from future actions.
For example, if someone has the skill and desire to discuss with and educate others, like what John said, that may constitute the most effective way for them to act. I would only see a problem if they, for example, desired to change the mindset of society and spark a revolution through that type of action. Then they would inevitably get discouraged and demoralized. But if they limited their goal to changing a specific person’s mindset, for example, then they could see success, and come away from that feeling good and motivated to keep it up.
If Derrick Jensen tears down the vision of the civilization we live in, and Daniel Quinn points the finger at taker scum, who offers comfort and visions of a life worth living?
For me, only the end of civilization (or the process thereof) will give me comfort. Civilization and its way of life gives me nothing but torment. Or maybe I just don’t have any desire to find comfort in it (not that you were implying such). All my comfort comes from dreaming about the end of civilization, and a new way of life without it.
My life experiences have shown me that I can wish for people to change til I get blue in the face, but I can't hand them a prepackaged gift epiphany that will fit. Sometimes folks need to bump into change on their own.
Also, I’ve had the experience of folks not ready to hear “the civ” challenged who find anything contrary to it “condescending”. It makes them feel bad!
You’ve hit on the exact reason why I believe in materialism - that reality shapes consciousness. I do think it can go the other way as well, but not NEARLY to the same extent, particularly on a social level. I support the book distribution idea, because I believe that many people out there are receptive to these ideas, but just haven’t heard them yet. But I also believe that those who do not want to change their mindset, who aren’t open to these ideas, won’t change no matter what we do.
I believe that most people don’t WANT to hear these ideas, because most people have been so completely brainwashed by this culture. They identify with it enough to feel personally threatened by anything that challenges it. As DJ said, “the civilized will smile while they tear you limb from limb”. I don’t blame them, because we have very strong herd tendencies in our nature, like many other animals. So much of our personalities, our behavior - our identity - is shaped by those around us. Most people would find it extremely difficult to go against the grain, and most would never want to. For these people, who I believe make up the vast majority, they would only reject civ once the majority around them reject civ.
Yes, fringe ideas can become the mainstream, over time, but the more they threaten the dominant culture, the more effort is made to wipe them out. Only rarely do subversive ideas become mainstream - and pretty much always the process of becoming mainstream changes them, domesticating them so that they no longer represent a threat.
The trick is finding those that are willing to accept our ideas. Find enough of those people and we can materialize these ideas. Can we do that before the world ends? Hell if I know, but there's no good reason not to try. And at the very least we'll have passed the idea onto enough people who will likely accept it with open arms once it becomes their best option for survival.
I totally agree with this, and think this describes well why we need to both reach out people with these ideas, and do the direct action necessary to materialize the ideas (another description of materialism = physical actions change reality, not ideas). But getting the ideas out there (propagandizing) becomes necessary in order to get more people to take action. In this way it represents an important stage in the process.
This makes me think of a point Jensen makes in Endgame Vol.2. He talks about strategies and tactics, and also the differences between them. One of the main points he tries to make though is that no direct action can be taken without a good, and well thought out, stategy. And that any direct action taken without first thinking through the strategy of said action will only hurt the cause. Mostly in that people see it fail and use that as another reason to not be convinced, as well as those already convinced becoming even more discouraged about their plight. This is something I fully agree with.
Im not sure on the use of the word “strategy” for change. As decentralized groups and individuals I don’t think “we” should be talking about strategy at all. The change / strategic shifts that will happen globally will be an emergent property of our lives and tactics locally.
World-spanning strategy is way civ. I hope we’re not falling into that trap or that im simply misunderstanding the use of the word strategy in this discussion.
ps. the word “we” is not meant to imply a unified group with same goals / prinicples etc. etc.
I don’t think anyone’s recommended any sort of overarching, global strategy. We’ve all got our different strategies, and we have to weigh them against our current situation and how much we think we’ll actually get done.
Im not sure on the use of the word "strategy" for change. As decentralized groups and individuals I don't think "we" should be talking about strategy at all. The change / strategic shifts that will happen globally will be an emergent property of our lives and tactics locally.
World-spanning strategy is way civ. I hope we’re not falling into that trap or that im simply misunderstanding the use of the word strategy in this discussion.
Hi TimeLESS,
The intention of this thread, as I see it, is for those of us who (in addition to rewilding the best we can in our own lives) want to examine other actions/tactics from a larger perspective for their strategic effectiveness in the process of de-civilizing the earth.
I think “we need it all”, of course: rewilding havens, rewild camps, books, websites, classes… everything! Its just that some actions don’t have very visible results, and I think it’s helpful (for some of us) to encourage each other to know that those actions are making a difference.
I could be wrong, but at this stage of rewilding, I think it is also helpful for us to have a somewhat “centralized feeling” for encouraging each other and attracting others to the rewilder way of life. For example, the existence of this website has been a great encouragement to me because there are currently no people around me that understand/accept rewilding. I thought this was what Willem meant with the New Underground Railroad:
I think this describes what individuals might benefit from posting on this thread, but if this topic is not welcome on the site we could take it elsewhere.
My apologies to Willem for the quote in a different context.
Strategy. Plan. Purpose. Design. System. Culture. Organization. Way of Life. Society. Life.
Wonderful thoughts. Mostly worthless suggestions, generally speaking. People are evil, good, lovers, haters, covetous, giving, heroes, villains, unpleasant, kind, rude, thoughtful, ignorant, gracious, knowledgeable, silly, serious, foolish, wise, lovely, ugly, and everything in between, at once, severally, in series, in parallel, at will, and against their better judgment. This is one thing that has not changed in five hundred thousand years and is not going to change now. No strategy that does not begin with this as its assumption is doomed to a quick death. Or worse, a slow one. I have a suggestion I’ve been working on for several years, and I think I may have something worth sharing. I’ll post it in December I think. Once I finish my current labors.
[quote=“Hypnopompia, post:19, topic:1182”]Strategy. Plan. Purpose. Design. System. Culture. Organization. Way of Life. Society. Life.
Wonderful thoughts. Mostly worthless suggestions, generally speaking. People are evil, good, lovers, haters, covetous, giving, heroes, villains, unpleasant, kind, rude, thoughtful, ignorant, gracious, knowledgeable, silly, serious, foolish, wise, lovely, ugly, and everything in between, at once, severally, in series, in parallel, at will, and against their better judgment. This is one thing that has not changed in five hundred thousand years and is not going to change now. No strategy that does not begin with this as its assumption is doomed to a quick death. Or worse, a slow one.[/quote]
That’s why tribal living organization will probably always work best for humans on a finite globe. But we need to learn how to live in this type of organization and also protect ourselves from outbreaks of civilization .
Hmm i have the feeling that whats being discussed here is all about tactics not strategy.
maybe im just not following because english isnt my native language. anyway probably i do misunderstand most of these posts because it IS teh internets after all.
What im trying to say is that there is a world of difference between tactics and strategy. Tactics are about our personal and local lives. Tactics are situational. Tactics are utilized by our tribes, affinity groups, family, friends, cells, and all that. Strategy is a whole different beast. Strategy is a unified plan for the big picture. It lives on command chains on orders, on abstractions and numbers. It does not need worry about our lives as real things, merely as statistics and resources. Strategy is about a vision applied to the whole.
I feel uhmm a bit uncomfortable by how easy we use the word strategy in this discussion, because i have the feeling people are really talking about (and sharing) tactics here.
I feel a bit uhmm weird about saying these (above) things , but something about it bugs me and i can see it inside me, but have difficulty finding words for.
In no way do i mean to say that we shouldnt discuss the ways we want to change things and all that, it is merely that i want to put a little sidenote into this discussion to remind us that we don’t need a strategy to change things, we merely need to change things.
Tactics is probably a better way to put it, but I don’t see the same implications in the word ‘strategy’ that you seem to. I simply see that perhaps it implies a higher level of planning.
Strategy fucks with Dunbars number i guess. I have severe difficulty in finding the words. so ill just leave it at that for a while. thanks for the patience!
You’re right Timeless, ultimately this thread is more about tactics, with the implied overall strategy being the earth’s and tribalism’s “win” over both the physical manifestation and mindset of civilization. And it doesn’t really make sense to put it in those “war” terms anyway … so I’ll try to refer to them simply as “ideas” or “actions” from now on. Sorry
[quote=“bereal, post:14, topic:1182”][quote=yarrow dreamer]My life experiences have shown me that I can wish for people to change til I get blue in the face, but I can’t hand them a prepackaged gift epiphany that will fit. Sometimes folks need to bump into change on their own.
Also, I’ve had the experience of folks not ready to hear “the civ” challenged who find anything contrary to it “condescending”. It makes them feel bad!
[/quote]
You’ve hit on the exact reason why I believe in materialism - that reality shapes consciousness. I do think it can go the other way as well, but not NEARLY to the same extent, particularly on a social level. I support the book distribution idea, because I believe that many people out there are receptive to these ideas, but just haven’t heard them yet. But I also believe that those who do not want to change their mindset, who aren’t open to these ideas, won’t change no matter what we do.
I believe that most people don’t WANT to hear these ideas, because most people have been so completely brainwashed by this culture. They identify with it enough to feel personally threatened by anything that challenges it. As DJ said, “the civilized will smile while they tear you limb from limb”. I don’t blame them, because we have very strong herd tendencies in our nature, like many other animals. So much of our personalities, our behavior - our identity - is shaped by those around us. Most people would find it extremely difficult to go against the grain, and most would never want to. For these people, who I believe make up the vast majority, they would only reject civ once the majority around them reject civ.
Yes, fringe ideas can become the mainstream, over time, but the more they threaten the dominant culture, the more effort is made to wipe them out. Only rarely do subversive ideas become mainstream - and pretty much always the process of becoming mainstream changes them, domesticating them so that they no longer represent a threat.
I totally agree with this, and think this describes well why we need to both reach out people with these ideas, and do the direct action necessary to materialize the ideas (another description of materialism = physical actions change reality, not ideas). But getting the ideas out there (propagandizing) becomes necessary in order to get more people to take action. In this way it represents an important stage in the process.
Jessica[/quote]
Jessica
I hear what you’re saying about the materialism vs. idealism thing… and the more I think about it, the more I realize that they are equally important to think about right now, and that it is totally dependent upon who you are for which paths you pursue in your actions for change. The point we seem to be getting to in this thread is that for many people, materialism initially shapes consciousness through sensory input, but over time, civ’s assumptions about the material world have turned into subconscious ideas that have been further entrenched into the subconscious by other people’s ideals and threats of violence… and a collective delusion and its new social structure results.
And as I have personally been discovering through reading this thread and others, I think the key to unlocking the collective delusion is therefore in the hearts and minds of the dissillusioned as they use their most powerful tool (their spirit, personality, physical skill, whatever) to restore the hearts, minds, social structure, and land around them. But the system is of course not very receptive to change. It is because of this that I try not to let anger and frustration in civ flow through my interactions. It is more helpful for me to think of civ as a prison or matrix and to think of myself and everyone else as slaves of that same system. When you are angry at a thing which you are part of that has no currently visible alternative, and you let that anger show by directly accusing the your fellow prisoners as perpetrators and guardians of the system, it will usually only serve to alienate yourself further and not add a bit of understanding of civ to your mindset.
However, if the appeal of tribalism grows through increased understanding, and the disillusioned grow in numbers, it will become easier to make “material” changes and living alternatives for the new “converts” to join in. This seems to be happening already, which is why this site makes me hopeful. Unfortunately for me, I live in a particularily unreceptive social climate. I lived in the Pacific NW for a year and the atmosphere was definitely a bit more receptive (socially and physically) to different ways of living than the east coast where I live now with my family. I think my most effective tactic right now is to try to reduce my physical dependence on the system (very difficult), while attempting different ways of “converting” other people. I eventually hope to seek out or encourage people to live in “occupational tribalism” like Daniel Quinn described in Beyond Civilization.
One thing I have difficulty understanding about the Jensenian view of change is how or why,at this point in time, we should/could be putting our efforts into physically assaulting civilization. The size and hierarchical structure of civilization makes it way too powerful at this point in time (in my mind) to attack physically. I think DJ’s anecdote about the “environmentalist Star Wars” makes some good points about the lack of effectiveness of environmental protesters, but real life is not a fantasy movie and civilization doesn’t have an easily targeted “self-destruct” button. Plus, us “rebels” are still too small in numbers and unorganized and the “storm troopers” include our friends and family!
I’m sure I need to read more Jensen… but I would encourage people to read or re-read and promote Daniel Quinn when approaching the especially civ-minded. The thing I like about Quinn is that even if he doesn’t necessarily convert people completely over to “Rewilding,” he at least allows them to challenge their own basic assumptions about that type of lifestyle. I think what I want to focus on in the waning days of civilization is to effectively challenge those assumptions in the best ways and in as many minds as I can. We know that either way,civ will wither on its own,so let’s build and “advertise” the alternative…then at some point we can adopt the Jensenian “strategies” to stop a resurgence of Civ.
So,in conclusion,I think both “strategies” are important… depending on the time and situation.
Brian, I also think that both direct and indirect actions are important.
When you are angry at a thing which you are part of that has no currently visible alternative, and you let that anger show by directly accusing the your fellow prisoners as perpetrators and guardians of the system, it will usually only serve to alienate yourself further and not add a bit of understanding of civ to your mindset.
I like the quote by Edward Abbey that says: “Love implies anger. The man who is angered by nothing cares about nothing.” I think anger can serve constructive or destructive ends, depending on how one acts on it. Above you were referring to anger directed horizontally, towards other “inmates” of the system - and I also find that destructive. But without applying anger vertically - towards those in power - I don’t think people will ever succeed in changing society.
One thing I have difficulty understanding about the Jensenian view of change is how or why,at this point in time, we should/could be putting our efforts into physically assaulting civilization. The size and hierarchical structure of civilization makes it way too powerful at this point in time (in my mind) to attack physically.
I would agree, with regard to an organized, frontal assault trying to take civ out in one fell swoop. But DJ specifically argues against this, at least at this point in time. But small-scale, individual or small group attacks on civ, with much more modest goals of doing specific, localized damage to the system, can add up to a lot of damage over time, bleeding civ dry by a thousand paper cuts. And focusing one’s efforts on civ’s choke-points and fulcrums could amplify the effect greatly. The Star Wars analogy doesn’t seem appropriate to our current situation.
We know that either way,civ will wither on its own,so let's build and "advertise" the alternative...then at some point we can adopt the Jensenian "strategies" to stop a resurgence of Civ.
I also think that we should build and advertise alternatives to civ as much as possible. I just hope you don’t mean that we should sit back and let civ collapse on it’s own, without doing anything to help bring it down, because the process of civ’s collapse could take decades - and every year it continues diminishes the human race’s (and many many other species’) chances for future survival. I believe that if it lasts a few more decades, we have no future. We NEED to take direct action against civ, NOW. (Along with indirect actions, of course).
About the question of tactics v. strategies - I think it totally depends on what one means by the terms. I definitely have not intended strategy to mean globally, applied for all times and places, in my usage of the word. I think it varies person by person, situation by situation, just like tactics do. I think of strategy as the long-term plan, and tactics as the short-term steps to achieve the strategy.
Personally, I agree with Derrick Jensen in Endgame that civilization has (for all intents and purposes) declared war on the natural world and life in general. Everyday, more of the natural world is destroyed, torn up, paved over, etc.
So in that respect, I think that to be on a path of rewilding but ignoring (or choosing to do nothing about) this destruction - which ultimately means our own/our children’s destruction - is akin to sticking one’s head in the sand. IOWs, there is a war going on, civ against everything wild (a.k.a. the plot to domesticate the world ), whether we acknowledge it or not.
But I guess we don’t HAVE to use the word “war” to describe this. Although I do think it’s pretty apt (because of the destruction it entails).
That doesn’t mean we all have to “fight”, however. Like people have said elsewhere, all forms of rewilding are necessary and beneficial, and people should rewild their own communities & land in whatever way they can do best. Still, dams need to come down though (soon!), so SOMEONE will have to contribute in that particular fashion. And the more people involved in that the better, IMHO.
Yeah I agree with you Jessica,
and I’m beginning to see all the dimensions of this…
I really don’t feel like we should “sit back and wait” for collapse. And I’m definitely angry and frustrated at civilization and feel ready to take action at what ever oppurtunity I find or can think of. That’s why i wanted to start this thread! I’m happy that you feel so ready to take action. When I was making those points about anger towards civ I was mostly talking about “horizontal” anger, like you described. I just think we need to be careful of “marginalizing” ourselves for the time being, and I know Derrick Jensen has addresed these concerns. (I’ll be getting Endgame soon!)
Part of the thing I was saying is that, on the individual “conversion” level I’d prefer that potential new “rewilding” people initially be exposed to the Daniel Quinn school of thought. I see it as a “baby step” for someone to at least acknowledge the truths presented in Ishmael. Have you read much of his works? I feel like there are misconceptions with them sometimes. They are relatively un-emotional but I think their power lies in their ability to transform thinking in the “rational” part of the brain to understand how civ came to be as it is, and why it is so harmful. I think this is helpful and powerful to civ people with whom the death of biodiversity doesn’t resonate emotionally. I guess you could say they appeal to the readers more “selfish” insincts to make them think less selfishly.
If Ishmael and other books are the primer books… then I’d say Endgame is definitely the call to action once you have that new rational framework in place. DJ’s books are mostly addresed to those who have already been transformed in some way or another, and are just ready to do something to stop the violence against life…
All that being said… I do think i have envisioned some scenarios for ways in which tribalism could emerge victorious… I just don’t know if I feel comfortable mentioning them on this site. Wouldn’t want to anger anyone or get anyone in trouble
For me, I stopped trying to “change peoples minds” a long time ago because I realized that by changing who I am I inspire the people around me. Rather then spend time handing out copies of Ishmael (which I did at one time, and still encourage those who feel inspired to, to do so), I changed the way I lived and others caught on. Even Daniel Quinn says it’s better to give his books to people who ask for it. When I write or run my events, I put up posters and hand out flyers and send out press releases. I’m not interesting in “converting” people to my ideology. I’m interested in putting up a beacon so others who already share my feelings can connect with me and each other, and build something from there. I would never try to convince someone they “needed” to rewild. (or course, the current title of my book is “rewild or die” haha) but you get the idea. I don’t try to change minds, but I do through changing my own life as much as I can. By changing your own life, it builds curiousity in others and that leads to an open conversation with them about what you do. If they never were curious about what you do, they won’t give a shit about talking to you about it.
If I were to actually give a book to someone (which I can’t remember the last time I did that) it would be Endgames Vol I and II, without question. I agree with you Brian, that Quinns books have a sort of mental framework, but the more time passes, the more I think that framework creates blocks rather than promotes real change. (as seen in my “Daniel Quinn is Dead to Me” thread. He himself doesn’t believe that civ is inherently unsustainable, so he would never “promote” such a thing as rewilding. In fact, he always makes a point to talk down to those people who feel they need to “go back” to living in a primitive culture. Though I should say that I would never tell someone to “not hand out books” as you just never know and any information spreading like that is a good thing to me.
As far as “what actions to take” indirect vs. direct… I don’t really see them as two different things personally. Action is action. Change is change. Make whatever change you can. Make the change that your heart tells you to make.
Generally when I hear someone say, “There is no way we could take down civ on a large scale” what they really mean is, “I’m not curious about taking down civ on a large scale” or “I’m too scared to think about this on a large scale”. Both of these responses are fine. I’m too scared personally. But I’m not against the idea or that it isn’t possible. Get some Derrick Jensen in the hands of a few dis-enheartened soldiers returning from Iraq. Some people already have this training. You know? Everyone plays a different part in cultures. I don’t think it’s as “black and white” as “direct vs. indirect.” And I think that seeing it that way will only create endless debate. I recommend reading my “Rewild Frontier” chapter. (here I am, recommending my own shit! I’m such a fucking hypocrite!)
Aside from my fear lies this feeling that I don’t have that power even if I summoned the courage. Civilization, this phenomenon that has occurred in many places across the globe for thousands of years – I have the power to stop that, to bring that down? Civilization, which controls military might so vast and powerful they could destroy the whole earth with their atomic bombs – I have the power to stop that, to bring that down? Civilization, which holds millions and billions of peoples its captives, and many/most of them willingly so – I have the power to stop that?
I don’t know, really. Obviously bringing down civilization would take more than me. But do I really have the power to influence that in any major way? I’ve grown up hearing that it takes just one person or a small group of people to change the world. I feel less convinced of that. I feel more and more my own powerlessness against this thing called civilization. I feel like I’m trying to have a fist-fight with a hurricane. Can I really do anything to stop that?
I’ve done a lot of thinking about this, ever since I read Endgame Vol. I & II last December, and lately I feel that there just isn’t any way I can influence some control over the situation, at least not in a way that I can say: If I do this, then civilization will weaken.
Another thing I’ve thought of in regards to this is why haven’t other generations successfully brought down civilization. If civilization has been going on for so long and was so detrimental then, why did folks 2000 years ago not bring it down? Did anyone think of such a thing? If after all that time no significant action against the whole of civilization has occurred, why now? Why me, why now? I’m not a messiah. I can’t save the world. I can only take responsibility for the things I can take responsibility for, and I don’t feel Civilization is one of them.
Ultimately, what I can do is minimize civilizations power to put limits on me. I can help people weaken it’s power over them too, if that’s what they want to do.
