Deep Green Resistance: A Book Review

From Sprout Distro:

Since this review of the book Deep Green Resistance was written, some things have changed: Deep Green Resistance has affirmed their transphobia as their official policy, Earth First! has distanced themselves from DGR, and Aric McBay has left Deep Green Resistance. However, even as DGR seems to crumble due to its anti-trans views, there has still been relatively little discussion of the other problematic aspects of DGR.

Over the summer of 2011, Deep Green Resistance – which bills itself as “an analysis, a strategy, and a movement” – started to gain attention in anarchist circles. This isn’t very surprising, as one of it’s primary theorists is Derrick Jensen – who despite not being an anarchist – has contributed to various anarchist publications such as the now defunct Green Anarchy. In addition, Deep Green Resistance argues in favor of dismantling civilization and advocates for immediately taking the steps necessary to do so – which is sadly an all-too-rare perspective.

The response to Deep Green Resistance in anarchist circles was overwhelmingly negative (see for example “Critique of Deep Green Resistance: Authority and Civilization,” “Down Graded Resistance: A Critique of DGR,” and “A Response to Deep Green Resistance”). Various authors immediately criticized Deep Green Resistance for its organizational structure—its centralization, its requirements that members sign a “code of conduct,” and its advocacy of what essentially amounts to a guerrilla warfare strategy (advocating for the development of an underground that will attack industrial infrastructure) and movement (while also supporting a separate above-ground movement that is explicitly non-violent and that can seemingly involve almost any strategy). Others criticized the “cult of personality” that the organization has built up around Derrick Jensen, Lierre Keith, and Aric McBay. People have rightly pointed out co-author Lierre Keith’s disgusting transphobia (who is also the author of the anti-vegan rant The Vegetarian Myth) and Derrick Jensen’s decision to consult the FBI over Internet threats. Furthermore, Deep Green Resistance was a frequent topic of discussion on John Zerzan’s Anarchy Radiowhere it was roundly criticized and dissected. All of this criticism came before the book Deep Green Resistance which outlines the theoretical and strategic thinking behind the effort was even out.
For anarchists, it seemed pretty clear that Deep Green Resistance was a non-starter and should be rejected. Aside from the criticisms cited above, a friend pointed out that it was like a “green” version of Bob Avakian and the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) – that seemed to sum it up pretty well. At the same time, there didn’t seem to be a lot of activity in the Deep Green Resistance world: there weren’t many chapters forming and it seemed eclipsed by the Occupy phenomenon within the left milieu (Deep Green Resistance associates itself with the left). An “open letter” sent by Deep Green Resistance to the Occupy movement proposing a potential path of action for Occupy didn’t seem to have much influence (although measuring its impact is admittedly difficult).

Consequently, I sort of forgot about Deep Green Resistance. That was until the Earth First! Journal published a lengthy insert from the book Deep Green Resistance in its Brigid 2012 issue. Regardless of criticisms that can be made about Earth First! – for example that it tends not to go far enough into a critique of civilization – Earth First! has an association with the anarchist/anti-authoritarian space. It was surprising that they would republish a strategy that had been so roundly and substantively criticized and that was at odds with many of the values that Earth First! tries to embody, mainly anti-authoritarianism, autonomy, and a commitment to decentralization.

Although a lot has been said about Deep Green Resistance as a group, there hasn’t been as much said about the book. I decided to brave its five-hundred pages – to hopefully spare others the trouble and to contribute to the ongoing critique of Deep Green Resistance. As anarchists, it’s important that we reject this type of authoritarian nonsense and expose it for what it is when it encroaches into our spaces.

The Problem is Civilization – and that’s about all Deep Green Resistance Gets Right

The least controversial part of Deep Green Resistance is its assertion that the problem we are facing is civilization itself. In the first two chapters, Lierre Keith and Aric McBay argue convincingly that we are in the midst of a major ecological crisis that will not cease until civilization is dismantled. Keith points out that if every one in the United States did everything Al Gore is suggesting, it would only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 21% (22). They persuasively argue that personal consumption choices are not enough to change the culture as industrial uses of fossil fuel and other resources are so immense. Instead, they argue that the crises arise from the “social and political organization we call civilization (33).” For those familiar with Derrick Jensen’s previous writings on civilization or the anti-civilization anarchist milieu, this is pretty basic stuff: civilization arises from cities, is relatively young in terms of history (only a few thousand years), is dependent on a division of labor, and requires a complex hierarchy to administer (33-34). McBay also articulates that large-scale agriculture is necessary to support civilization (34). However, the authors spend relatively little time on the origins of civilization and pre-civilized people and instead focus more on the ecological devastation on which modern life is based. These sections could have been stronger and developed a deeper critique; for example, there is no discussion of domestication, a key concept in anti-civilization writing. But as a starting point, at least Deep Green Resistance seems to be coming from the right place.

As would be expected, Deep Green Resistance pretty quickly goes awry. Perhaps it sets itself up for an impossible task: developing “the strategy” to take down civilization. That’s no easy task – and it certainly isn’t one that just three people could tackle. But that’s what Deep Green Resistance sets out to do. The Deep Green Resistance movement is “trying to stop the burning of fossil fuels” and to “disrupt and dismantle industrial civilization” (499). The authors declare that the culture is insane and that there is unlikely to be a “mass movement” against civilization and that as such smaller groups must start taking the initiative immediately (287). It recognizes the necessity of political struggle, the need for multi-level resistance (above-ground and underground / violent and non-violent), that the planet and human culture must be repaired, and that militant resistance is essential (477-483). Throughout the book, the authors explore a variety of historical resistance movements and strategies – even running for office (482) – before presenting their “Decisive Ecological Warfare” strategy.

The problem is that before the reader gets to the strategy, Deep Green Resistance presents a staggering 425 pages of analysis, history, and discussion. Rather than present a convincing case for their strategy, they succeed only in making it clear that nobody should take them seriously.

A Cult of Personality? Advocating for Hierarchy?

Some of the initial criticisms of the Deep Green Resistance movement that I encountered focused on the fact that the movement seemed to be setting itself up as a cult of personality. The authors of Deep Green Resistance have dreamed up a strategy – and are looking for able and willing adherents to put it into practice. Moreover, they speak repeatedly on the subject and have a considerable element of power. Perhaps the most absurd example of this was the Deep Green Resistance “Dinner with Derrick” contest where you could buy raffle tickets to win Derrick Jensen related stuff including one of his t-shirts (!?!) and even a dinner. On the organization’s website, one of the recommended initial action steps is to arrange local media appearances for Derrick Jensen, Lierre Kieth, and Aric McBay. There is definitely an element which props up the three as leaders—the three will do weekend workshops “to learn practical, effective strategy and tactics, get a more in-depth analysis of the problems we face, and explore hypothetical resistance scenarios” (for a fee, of course). When reading the book and the movement’s website, one definitely gets the sense that the authors have come up with the strategy and are the leaders: in many ways, everyone else is just shock troops. It also doesn’t help that Derrick Jensen’s only parts in Deep Green Resistance are in answering questions at the end of several of the chapters, making it seem as if he is some sort of prophet that must be consulted from time-to-time to share his ever-so-deep insights.

Throughout the book, the authors advocate for strong leadership in a resistance movement. They are strongly critical of consensus and forms of non-hierarchical organizing. The following quote from Lierre Keith is indicative of Deep Green Resistance on leadership:

“Radical groups have their own particular pitfalls. The first is in dealing with hierarchy, both conceptually and practically. The rejection of authority is another hallmark of adolescence, and this knee-jerk reactivity filters into many political groups. All hierarchy is a tool of The Man, the patriarchy, the Nazis. This approach leads to an insistence on consensus at any cost and often a constant metadiscussion of group power dynamics. It also unleashes “critiques” of anyone who achieves public acclaim or leadership status. These critiques are usually nothing more than jealousy camouflaged by political righteousness. (137)”

This is obviously dismissive of very real issues that come up in resistance movements, whether they be hierarchical or not. Moreover, equating the rejection of hierarchy with “adolescence” is just age-ist. Sadly, this seems to be a recurrent theme, with Keith later writing:

“The first priority of their movement [the Women's Political and Social Union, a suffragette group] was loyalty, both to their cause and to those who were leading. Therein lies one of the major problems with modern radical groups. We tend to destroy our leaders with criticism, often personal and vicious. The antihierarchical stance of radicals leads to an adolescent reaction against anyone who rises to a public position.” (171)

Keith goes on to dismiss criticism of leaders – once again framing the discussion in terms of age:

“Writer after writer gets accused of “selling out,” although not a single one can even make a living–let alone a killing–as a writer. This charge is also leveled at dedicated people who run small presses, bookstores, and, indeed, anyone with the temerity to actually get something done. It’s a combination of petty jealousy and “rooster battling.” Though the same attack-the-leader default is occasionally present in women’s groups, the demands of masculinity make this way more of an issue for men. We must call it what it is when we see it happening. If the offenders refuse to stop, they should be shunned until their behavior improves. Attacking our leaders is painful and destructive to both individuals and movements. The younger members can’t be expected to be able to identify and take a stand against this behavior; they don’t have the life experience, and they’re naturally inclined to be “combatants” at that stage of life. It is up to the middle-aged and older members to set the tone and behavioral expectations, to guide the community norms. People decades too old for this particular behavior publicly engage in it with glee.” (171-172)

Later in the book, Aric McBay explains how participatory forms of decision making are common amongst leftists, but that they might not be the best choice in all circumstances (307), going on to state:

“The more authoritarian methods of decision making–the hierarchies of businesses or the military–are common for a reason: they get things done. Hierarchies may permit abuses of power. but they are very effective at getting certain tasks accomplished. And if we want to be effective as resisters, we have to decide what we want to get done, and pick a decision-making process suited to that job.” (307)

McBay writes that “a hierarchy can be scaled to any size” (308) and that “the key lesson is that certain kinds of resistance – like armed resistance – only work when there is a hierarchy in place. (308).” And because Deep Green Resistance is advocating for what essentially amounts to a guerrilla warfare strategy, it is arguing in favor of hierarchy. For McBay, in an underground group, even majority-rule voting – hardly the hallmark of egalitarian decision-making – is too much: it’s too slow and people might not know enough to vote meaningfully (309).

At another point, McBay cites the U.S. Army’s field manual to argue for a “Unity of Command” arguing that anarchists fail to understand “a millennia of strategic advice” that says participatory decision-making is not sufficient for “serious action” (347).

However, it isn’t just in underground clandestine actions for which leaders are necessary, Keith writes:

“Of course, small-scale and aboveground groups should be democratic whenever possible, but that does not change the fact that leaders must emerge nor does it change the fact that underground groups engaged in coordinated or paramilitary activities require hierarchy. (175)”

Indeed, much of the book contains apologies for and outright advocacy of leaders. Keith writes of the “reality of leadership” (175) and urges people to be respectful when leading those who choose to be led. It’s full of talk of “cadres,” “leaders,” and “combatants.”

They do acknowledge that leaders have been attacked because they are correctly identified as crucial to the organization (420, 175). This isn’t really talked about in relation to the structures Deep Green Resistance is advocating, but the historical examples – by their own admission – of resistance groups having their leaders targeted are many. McBay writes that underground leaders are less identifiable and says that above-ground leaders are more easily replaceable if targeted – but they never really engage the topic of repression (420).

For the authors, “real movements require leaders (174)”:

“…a wholesale rejection of leadership means a movement will be stuck at a level of ineffective small groups. It may feel radical but it will change nothing.” (175)

The same could be said for Deep Green Resistance’s advocacy of leadership. Talk of the expediency of hierarchy, the necessity of military command structures, etc. probably sounds pretty “radical,” “revolutionary,” and/or “serious” but in the absence the organized resistance they envision, it just seems utterly ridiculous. Instead, all their talk of hierarchy and leadership is designed to justify their advocacy of authoritarian organizing structures. They never really engage with critiques of hierarchy – which are numerous – and instead dismiss them out-of-hand as either juvenile or ineffective.

Horizontal Hostility: It’s Not Okay for Others, but it Works well for Us

In Deep Green Resistance, Lierre Keith spends considerable time talking about the futility of “horizontal hostility.” They define the concept as:

“Horizontal hostility, a phrase coined by Florynce Kennedy in 1970′s describes the destruction that happens when oppressed groups fight amongst themselves instead of fighting back against the powerful (84).”

Keith writes that resistance groups are often plagued by this and that they spend more time attacking each other than they do the enemy. Reading the parts on “horizontal hostility,” it seems quite dismissive of people’s very real feelings, experiences, and differences. There is little discussion of why people might have disagreements – for example over strategy or because of abusive power dynamics – instead “horizontal hostility” is talked about in terms of gossiping:

“…if it feels like junior high school by another name, that’s because it is. It can reach a feeding frenzy of ugly gossip and character assassination. In more militant groups, it may take the form of paranoid accusations. In the worst instances of the groups that encourage macho posturing, it ends with men shooting each other. (138)”

I don’t know what Kieth is referencing about people shooting each other, but there is no footnote. Indeed, the topic as a whole is generally written from the assumption that all criticism is bad and equates it with what people often term “infighting” rather than acknowledging substantive reasons for discussion between different perspectives and people. For example, if someone is opposed only to “industrial civilization” and I am opposed to “civilization” as a whole, we have a substantive disagreement. Similarly, who hasn’t participated in (or at the very least heard of) a group or project in which terrible power dynamics have existed along any number of different lines (race, gender, class, experience, etc)? It’s a frequent problem. By writing these things off as “horizontal hostility” it seems the authors seem to want to dismiss substantive disagreement under the guise of some kind of “unity” – it’s just an updated version of the leftist “united front” argument.

Later, they talk about how “people who are especially good at doing these things [“good work” and “long-term commitment”] of their own initiative” are often targeted for criticism (319) and that is unacceptable. This is consistent with Deep Green Resistance’s overall advocacy of infallible leaders and their general praise for those with experience.

At one point, they write:

“It’s easier to attack resistance strategists in a burst of horizontal hostility than it is to get things together and attack those in power. (346)”

So does this mean that legitimate criticisms of Deep Green Resistance and its strategy are “horizontal hostility”? It certainly seems that way. If we’re going to take on civilization, we must have a debate about the best ways to do so – on both a tactical and theoretical level. But the Deep Green Resistance folks don’t want to have this debate and they have “zero tolerance for horizontal hostility” (389). If people raise criticisms, they should simply be removed:

“People like this should be politely told to cut it out. If they can’t or won’t stop, either kick them out of the group or start a different one. (319)”

For someone who is so critical of “horizontal hostility,” the chapters written by Lierre Keith – especially early on in the book – have a consistently off-putting tone. Keith’s writing is full of little jabs and digs at people and groups she doesn’t like, and the list is long: “anarchist vegan squatters” (118), “anarchist rewilders” (128), “lesbian seperatists” (128), “vegans” (167), shoplifters (126), and more. She reserves particular scorn for the vegans, whom she describes as “ideological fanatics” (157). While none of these things are radical or will accomplish anything in and of themselves, the scorn at which they are rejected is unduly harsh—especially when presented in a book that claims to be so critical of “horizontal hostility.”

Perhaps most troubling though, is how dismissive she is of “youth.” The book is full of language invoking “adults,” “experience,” and “grown-ups.” In the opening pages, Lierre Keith writes: “It’s to you grown-ups, the grieving and the raging, that we address this book (26).” It comes a page after Keith writes “To confront the truth as adults, not as faux children, requires an adult fortitude and courage, grounded in our adult responsibilities to the world (25).”

This tone carries on throughout the book with Keith praising “Adult values of discernment, responsibility” that come from being “mature adults” and rejecting the “Adolescent values of youth movement (127).” This kind of language underlies Keith’s discussion of a “culture of resistance” and is central to Deep Green Resistance’s criticism of many “alternative cultures.” For Keith, these cultures (for example, the hippies of the 1960s) were in most cases dominated by youth – which to Keith makes them inherently bad. Keith criticizes the particulars of these alternative cultures, but also argues – quite seriously – that they turned out how they did because youth lack the brain development that adults have. Keith places the roots of contemporary “alternative culture” in various youth counter-cultures and states that “the alternative culture as we know it is largely a product of the adolescent brain (131).” For Keith, this is problematic because the “adolescent brain” isn’t as developed as the adult brain. This is a lengthy discussion about the size of various parts of the brain, how youth tend to be more emotional, and are unable to judge time as well as adults (131-135). Keith argues that the youthful brain is focused on the self, which explains the alternative culture’s focus on the self (134). This continues on for some pages with frequent references to the limitations of the adolescent brain. At one point, Keith writes of the 1960s movements: “There was no long-term plan because the actionists didn’t yet have the brains that could think long-term; while the rejection of authority and everyone over thirty meant they allowed no guidance from people who could have provided it. (188)”

This is just one of the many, many things that make it hard to take Deep Green Resistance seriously.

What Deep Green Resistance Explores and what it Misses

In many ways, Deep Green Resistance seems to be a step back in time. It advocates the kind of guerrilla movements that seemed to fall out of vogue among leftists back some time in the last century.

For a book that focuses on the environment and resistance to ecological devastation, I was surprised to see that there was little to no discussion of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the ELF caused millions of dollars of property damage and in some cases directly targeted the infrastructure that was necessary to destroy the Earth. Yet, the ELF only gets a short mention in Deep Green Resistance. In a paragraph, Aric McBay dismisses the group for havinglimited decisive success so far” because “its targets have had low criticality and high recuperability,” arguing that ELF activity tends to be ultimately symbolic in nature (418). At another point, the ELF is criticized for its restraint (462). These are certainly fair criticisms to be made of the Earth Liberation Front, but for a book that advocates an underground aimed at destroying industrial infrastructure, it’s puzzling why so little attention was given to a recent example of the actions they are advocating. Is it because the Earth Liberation Front was too decentralized for the authors’ liking? Sadly, we never find out.

It was similarly surprising to find no mention of Earth First! and its work over the past few decades, as they certainly seem relevant as Earth First! has in many ways been the type of movement that Deep Green Resistance seems to be advocating for: it has taken direct action using a diverse array of tactics, has to some degree built a “culture of resistance,” and has had a stance that is largely supportive of underground actions (and accepts the need for such actions). Similarly, there was no discussion of the animal liberation movement and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) despite the fact that one could draw out valuable lessons about the relationship between above-ground and underground work, security culture, support for a diversity of tactics, etc. Other forms of militant action – such as the anarchist use of black blocs – are dismissed because the participants just want to “fight” and not be effective (263-264).

Instead of those various efforts, Deep Green Resistance spends a considerable amount of time looking at guerrilla movements and military resistance. A favorite is the Weather Underground, of whom Aric McBay writes: “We keep coming back to them and criticizing them not because their actions were necessarily wrong, but because they were on the right track in so many ways. (367)” At other points, the authors of Deep Green Resistance heap on the praise for the Weather Underground’s “earnest desire” (371) to do something. Despite criticizing the group’s strategy (or lack thereof), McBay praises the organizational forms of the Weather Underground (“The internal organization of the Weather Underground as a clandestine group was highly developed and effective, for example (367)”), despite explaining the pervasive sexism and psychologically harsh environments that characterized many Weather Underground cells (76-77). How could the internal organization be effective with the rampant sexism the authors describe early in the book? Many histories of the Weather Underground point to a profoundly undemocratic culture within the Weather Underground, rife with hierarchies, power-plays, and all manner of nasty behavior. Deep Green Resistance never really comes to terms with this contradiction, nor do they engage with the Weather Underground’s Marxist-Leninist politics.

Because the group essentially is advocating a military strategy, it spends considerable time exploring the anti-Nazi resistance in the occupied countries during World War II and the Irish Republican Army (IRA). Other examples that are particularly relevant to the discussion of ecological warfare are the actions of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) which has had success in lessening fossil fuel extraction by engaging in military tactics. The discussion of MEND is unfortunately limited and doesn’t really do all that much to bolster the conclusions of Deep Green Resistance.

“The Strategy:” Decisive Ecological Warfare

By the time I got to this section, I was quite tired of the book. I had enough of its interpretations of history, its calls for leadership, and the reasoning behind many of its conclusions. Consequently, it was hard to take the “Decisive Ecological Warfare” strategy seriously.

In this chapter – the core of Deep Green Resistance – Aric McBay lays out three model scenarios for the future of the Earth: one in which there is no resistance (as would be expected, this prediction is grim), one with limited resistance (things are a bit better, but the future is still questionable), and one in which militants undertake all-out attacks on infrastructure. Instead of pinning their hopes on one of the later two scenarios, Aric McBay argues for a strategy of “Decisive Ecological Warfare” that would combine them. It’s goal is to “disrupt and dismantle industrial civilization” while at the same time rebuilding “just, sustainable, and autonomous human communities” as part of an approach “…involving large numbers of people in many different organizations, both aboveground and underground” (442). The strategy involves a number of different tactics including building up aboveground groups and education (447), sabotage and building support for disruptive underground actions (450), beginning to disrupt industrial systems (454), and ultimately engaging in actions that will decisively dismantle civilized infrastructure (456). McBay argues that “resistance to civilization is inherently decentralized” and that it depends on the widespread circulation of the overall strategy rather than through one single hierarchical organization with a military-like command structures (460). Still, it mentions that some cells would be coordinated and that they may have some form of “command structure” (461). The chapter than transfers into a discussion of how the strategy could work and evaluates it from a perspective of a hypothetical historian from the future. It also includes a short analysis of the success of a wide-range of “resistance” movements from the Spanish anarchists of the early 1900s to the anti-occupation Iraqi insurgency (469-472). “Decisive Ecological Warfare” concludes by highlighting its advantages: that it could be implemented quickly, doesn’t rely on a mass movement, the tactics are simple and easy to implement, and that it ultimately would cause limited human suffering (473-474).

Parts of the argument might sound reasonable depending on the context in which they are presented. For example, if it arose out of some kind of broad-based resistance – rather than being the work of three people – it would sound a lot better. Instead, its a strategy that is looking for adherents and one that is seemingly not open to criticism. There’s no evidence that this strategy has any real backing and indeed its theoretical basis provided in the preceding few hundred pages is weak. As shown above, it relies on questionable assertions, advocacy for authoritarian structures, and a limited reading of history. Sadly, the “Decisive Ecological Warfare” strategy is designed to stand alone – so when it is presented without its background as it was in the Earth First! Journal – it may seem more appealing than it should.

Concluding Thoughts

Overall, Deep Green Resistance is a deeply disturbing book. It props up the worst kind of leftist hierarchies and yearns for the days gone by of guerrilla movements. It’s an idea that seems to be without any real takers, literally the product of three people who think they have the one true answer for all our woes.

Whatever might be redeemable about the book – for example its limited critique of civilization – is easily muted by the fact that the argument has been presented better elsewhere, both in terms of detail and without the authoritarianism and Lierre Kieth’s transphobia. Moreover, there is simply no real basis to take what the authors are saying all that seriously. There seems to be no real experience underlying what they write—instead it’s based on problematic readings of history and glorification hierarchy. Instead of presenting something new – as the book promises – it advocates for the same old organizational structures and doesn’t engage with recent and relevant history (for example, the Earth Liberation Front and Earth First!) and just seems out of touch.

If anything, we can only hope that Deep Green Resistance will make more apparent the need for anarchist forms of anti-civilization resistance, because it’s clear that the left – no matter how radical it casts itself – will always put forth a non-solution.

Category: 

Comments

nicely written piece!! anarchists need more clear but detailed writing like this about, not just armchair warriors and genteel bigots like Keith & Jensen, but all kinds of things

well done, Sprout Distro. This review does a great job of showing how early on many Anarchists read through the authoritarian underpinnings of DGR (especially Zerzan's early understanding of where they were headed...transphobia being an important issue among their overall problems.)

cayenne pies!

With battery acid? Hmmm...

My friend set up a speaking engagement for Derrick in the early 2000's. She promoted the talk and paid for all the posters, called radio stations, fed him meals, transported him( and his mom) and paid him ( a pretty high fee), gave him a place to stay. That was all expected. But when he asked her to hook up with one of her female friends, that was too much. He confessed to her that he was REALLY into sex and that her male partner didn't appreciate her sensuality enough. It was at that point that she opened her eyes to D. Jensen and realized the he is absolutely full of shit.

If his name ever comes up among us, she just shakes her head and laughs about him. What a douche.

WHAT?!?!?!

more deets

OK, here's what I can remember. It was on the w. coast, south of where he lives -a couple of hours' drive. Maybe around 2003. Anyway, during the time when he spent time reclaiming the word,"fuck". Re-purposing it away from its generally accepted pejorative usage.

Derrick likes to bring his mother around with him when he speaks. I guess they're really close, even with what supposedly happened when he and his sister were kids. His mom didn't defend him against the abuse. When he feels like he's in trusted company, I guess he likes to chill with pretty women ( ok, who doesn't). So they were all sitting around the shady deck, enjoying some of the North Coast's finest, when Derrick gets all dreamy and begins to backstab my friend's husband who went on an errand, saying that she is totally under appreciated by him. That my friend is amazingly sensual being. Then the Mom jumps in, like pimping for her son, talking all kinds of smack- her "observations on my friend's relationship. Like she should leave her man and totally go for Derrick or maybe someone just like Derrick.

My friend is kind of quiet type person- so she just keeps quiet, there under the redwoods. Then the old smoothy moves on to say that he could sure use some good lovin'- if she had a girlfriend with big breasts. Of course, like many neo hippies, she knows tons of people, but no fucking way is she setting Derrick up with anyone of them. He's a snake. As I said before, When another friend read the Premises , at the beginning of Endgame, my friend shook her head and said not to waste her time with him. He's a total hypocrite. He'll say whatever to get laid.

Homygod you are so full of shit.

1. That's not the way Derrick behaves.
2. That's not the way his MOTHER behaves.
3. That close to home, he always comes home after shows, so what you're saying above is incorrect.
4. When he has his mother at shows with him, he's in the car, so doesn't need driving. Again showing what you're saying to be complete fabrication.

I would hazard that you've never met Derrick and nor has your "friend" (if they even exist?), and I hope you never meet me.

I feel sad for you. Your life must be so very dull to have to fill your time with such fabrications. I hope you find something soon.

Am not! Seriously this is really triggering for me!

My friend is vary honest and SHE would never lie about something like that. I think you either:

a) an insufferable rape apologist ( which is inexcusable. I mean, if a woman says she was raped, who the hell are YOU to say that she wasn't).

or

b) in actuality, Derrick and/or his Mom (because they go online all the time together).

rape apologist?!?! wtf?

I am long term, intimate partner of Derrick. We have a very strong, loving, relationship based on complete honesty. I know for a fact the above is complete nonsense.

Salmon? is that you?

Nope. I'm a human woman. Sorry to destroy your little masturbation fantasy of beastiality and my partner.

damn, girl. look, i can tell you sight unseen, you can do better.

I've dated a millionaire and a couple of rock stars. None of them compare.

yeah, i bet not. which is why you're up in the middle of the night, defending his honor, anonymously. on anarchist news.

He is an intensely private person, as am I. I am also an insomniac and prefer to work at night.

Pics or it didn't happen!

"Nope. I'm a human woman."

If you have a fin and gills you aren't a woman.

Nope. Slender arms, hands and a working nose-windpipe-lungs respiratory system. Again, sorry to shatter your fantasy when you're alone with your own hand.

If you don't stand on four legs and have a curly tail, I ain't interested. So back off, bitch!

-- Bob Black (pig ffffucker and radio personality)

so it's kinda fucked up that you are making fun of masturbation. Is it better for women to fuck rock stars and millionaires and Derrick Jensen? Are all of these people you fucked supposed to make to give you more validation? Because it is totally anti-feminist.

No, not making fun of masturbation. I fully support it for everyone who can and wants to masturbate. There is a subtle difference between making fun out of masturbation, and making fun of people obsessed with salmon having sex with a certain person. Making 'fan art' and 'fan fiction' about it on facebook was a step too far. I would like these people to stop making their masturbatory fantasies about my partner public. What they do in the privacy of their bedroom/bathroom/garage/etc is their business, as long as no fish are harmed in the process.

Oh fuck off.

Yes, I'm being accused of having gills and fins all over the internet. I wanted to clear up that I am in fact homo sapiens sapiens.

I'm not giving you masturbation material.

Lierre Keith, is that you?

No.

I am long term, intimate partner of Derrick. We have a very strong, loving, relationship based on complete honesty. I know for a fact that Derrick is secretly made out of pebbles and rancid baloney.

He is an intensely private person, as am I. Therefore, we do not usually discuss this fact, nor that I am also Mel Gibson. I am also an insomniac and prefer to work at night.

I've dated a millionaire and a couple of rock stars. None of them compare weight watchers freezer meals to their mother's hand-knit sweatshirts.

Actually, you don't know shit for a fact that you don't see with your own two eyes. And the specific nature, exact time frame, and described location of this scenario leads me to give it some credit as at least partially true.

Maybe the "complete honesty" claim is in fact just another of his many lies?

Oh, hello. I answered these points above:

Time frame & location: you mean he did a talk, somewhere within a two-hour radius of his home, in the early 2000s, maybe 2003? Okay, I'll give you that one.
Had his mother there: yes, this is probably likely.
California's finest: please define - bear in mind, your answer will be very telling.
Everything else: flat out did not happen.

And I do know for a fact. More than you could even begin to realise. But that's our business, and not yours.

i'm totally going to go see that movie "the east" with ellen page as an ecoterrorist. it seems to be kinda based on the eric mcdavid and other cases of infiltration

that movie looks horrible. why don't you just watch battle in seattle if your goal is to find more reasons to hate hollywood

what about that one with Susan Sarrandon about the weather underground. What about that, feds, what do you think about that movie, feds. These are my fed friends. We talk all the time but they usually are pretending they are friends and not feds. Fooled you feds, I aint got no friends!!!

my goal is more to look at how ideas of resistance, ecology, etc, get taken up by the spectacle, and also, at ms. page
also before someone tells me not to go to the theatre i will probably just wait a while and torrent it, so shut up

"Ellen Page? Oh yeah that young hot lesbian chick... I've done her last year in an after-lecture party. She was gooood!"

Derrick Jensen

"Yeh baby! We totally did her all night!"

Derrick Jensen's girlfriend.

Excelent review, nicely written and fittingly long enough for a long book. I find DGR's views on hierarchy mostly absurd of course, however, there is a kernel of truth in the observation that hierarchy within planned activities of resistance is effective. After all, that's why governments use hierarchical militancy...it just works better. Things 'get done'. The problem and the confusion arises when hierarchy is the modus operandi not only of the specific activity (e.g. blowing up a dam) but becomes the modus operandi of the daily social dynamic of the group or the society as a whole. Hierarchy works and works well, but it needs strict limits placed on it. Hierarchy should only be formed for tactical reasons and specific goal-oriented missions. Once the mission is over, hierarchy must be dissolved, and people must shed their roles and become egalitarian again as they merge with their larger community of resistance. This is where DGR goes off the rails. DGR believe there's nothing inherently wrong with authority/hierarchy and so have no problem with it permeating the normal everyday relationships within a community. It's why Jensen distances himself from anarchists and anarchy. Its why he's alienated so many people even within DGR who might have had anarchist leanings. It's why DGR is dead.

get out meowists

i don't really understand what you are talking about. If people disagree with DGR, then they don't have to be a part of the organization. If you invited me as a guest into your home, and I decided (without your consent) that I was now living there, and that my preferences should be factored into your community's organization structure, would you accept this (so as to avoid the dreaded "hierarchy")?

how is this poorly adapted metaphor even remotely relevant? If you're trying to justify the purging of anarchists and anarchist thought from DGR, as is the only way i could understand this metaphor to be relevant, then, sure: no one is arguing the selfappointed "heads of state" of DGR arent able to do so (kicking 'us' out of 'their' home.) But this doesn't prevent the much larger and broader radical and environmentalist milieu, which is HIGHLY influenced by anarchist thought and practice, from criticizing, dismissing, or all around isolating DGR as a sad aberration. The fact that no one "has" to be a part of DGR doesn't innoculate them from criticism or reproach. Duh. In fact, such criticism is a healthy process; it's not the "adolescent horizontal hostility" that lierre keith attempts to dismiss, but a substantive critique of the theory and practice of how DGR views the State, hierarchy, gender, and its relationship to the Left.

Hierarchy is good for one thing: boundary maintenance.

In other words: enforcing religious belief that invisible lines and mental prisons are real, or else.

That's the only appearance of 'getting shit done' there is.

People have 'gotten shit done' without hierarchy: The Black Army in Ukraine, and Red Cloud's War easily come to mind.

You mean Ukraine and the Dakotas are free countries? I didn't know that!

IGTT 2/10....unoriginal. No - and neither is germany (the uber cultish and hierarchical red army faction didnt win either! maybe we could think with more nuance?)

wtf is a free country

"People have 'gotten shit done' without hierarchy: The Black Army in Ukraine, and Red Cloud's War easily come to mind."

How ironic. People like Red Cloud, Crazy Horse and High Back Bone were all warriors who led raids and conducted resistance campaigns against US troops. They were leaders within their respective hierarchical war parties who planned and directed younger scouts and warriors. When they weren't performing that role within their tribes their status was the same as everyone else. In other words, that a perfect example of what I was talking about when I said there's a place for hierarchy within specific contexts (such as war) and with strict limits. Many Native groups had war or raiding parties, and when they were finished their missions they came back to the larger tribe and carried on as before under the general egalitarian ethos. They did not "rule" their tribes just because they took part in a hierarchical sub group. Their role and function as warrior chiefs did not spill over to the rest of their society.

It's not a question of having to have hierarchy OR egalitarianism, or any kind of all or nothing social condition, because it's not black or white. It's a question of creation and dissolution. It's possible to create a sub group of militants for a specific goal and a certain duration, then dissolve it when the sub group has finished serving its function.

Where DGR goes wrong is assuming that since hierarchy/authority is effective for doing certain things (like the examples of militant groups they give), then hierarchy/authority is probably an acceptable norm for society as a whole. But that logic is as fishy as the smell coming from Derrick Jensen's trousers.

The thing is, this is exactly what DGR has done: they were invited in to many activist communities and then decided they were living there. And they are not doing the dishes.

so you're saying GRD not DGR?
nah but seriously i think you have touched on something that is not limited to the cult of jensen, but the green anarchist (etc various other labels) tendency to implicitly acknowledge a kind of 'natural law' as source of authority
also didn't DJ's website used to say he was an 'anarcho-primitivist'?

in b4 Salmon fuckkker.
In b4 B.Black PPPPiig fuckker

Shameless self promotion. And by that I mean, look, look at it, shameless.

Yeah whatever you got "in" before I did, but you didn't get my name right, so you suck. That's right. You suck.

-- Bob Black (pig ffffucker and makeup artist for Tina Turner)

Umm... my bad. You ARE the pig ffffucker and the Tuna Tinner. I only meant that (at that moment) I was in.
Sorry.

Law & Disorder conference transphobe destroyers gave an interview: http://www.deepgreenphilly.com/?p=1244

DGR sounds like an attempted faux pas organization, engineered by the other side.

You mean like...my dead relatives and shit? Dear old Granma would never have anything to do with this.

I'm not saying we have to be totally sectarian and exclusive, but we gotta draw some lines. It's one thing to work with commies and liberals, (though not too closely or often), but fascists and cults cannot be welcome in our spaces. DGR is straying pretty close to that line, and there's a point where "calling people on their shit" gives way to "calling Antifa".

Drastic language? Yes, but every night I go online and see even more of this shit, I find myself more willing to use it. For the record, I spent a long time arguing with comrades that Jensen's followers weren't a cult back in the Endgame days (when decentralized insurrection seemed to be the plan), but ever since DGR started things have been getting a lot worse.

What characterizes fascists? Centralized leadership and cults of personality, plain-spoken "populist" rhetoric light on theory and heavy on the moralistic codes of behavior. Appropriation of radical language and symbols while showing hostility to those they're being taken from. Scapegoating marginalized groups with conspiracy theories. Constantly feigning victimization and censorship. Advocating a return to a mythical "golden age". Co-opting alternative spirituality. And of course, a plan which achieves all of its goals and overcomes all obstacles through power, authority and obedience.... Sound familiar?

What defines a cult? Authoritarian organization and ideology centred around unaccountable leaders. Dogmatic belief systems. Belief in a coming "doomsday" which the cult hopes to prevent/survive. Hostility to the world outside the cult and strategies which distance followers from personal connections with non-members...

Obviously, both definitions are quite subjective. Organizations which fit them tend to operate on a spectrum and rarely get as bad as the worst examples (Moonies, Golden Dawn, Hitler etc). Most importantly, there's a lot of overlap, suggesting that they're both expressions of the larger phenomena that is authoritarianism. Whether DGR fits either or both I'll leave up to you, but the fact that we even have to ask says enough for me. As the world gets more fucked up and reigning ideologies lose more ground, we're only going to have more groups like this spring up.

Lol, "It's one thing to work with commies and liberals" Prey tell, what other enemies of anarchists is it ok to work with?

yeah wait WHAT? i could not get past this either

you fucking cops are generic with your criticism. i'm sorry but your purists anarchist movement doesn't exist in real life outside your head and the internet. if you've ever actually been organizing and working to build movements and confrontations with the state, you have to work with pretty much anyone. it's actually really common to find even chauvinistic quasi-nationalists behind those Guy Fawks masks, you know (an individual who challenged the British monarchy in support of the Catholic church!). So when cops come into these message boards and say shit like this, trying to prove themselves more-radical-than-thou, it proves they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about because they really don't have a clue what anarchist organizing is about, how many black and brown people for example have a lot of reactionary tendencies including liberalism and in fact you sort of have to work with them because your purist anarchy only radical only movement that doesn't even exist is surely only in your head and likely very very anglo. so right about now these cops, who probably know me personally, will probably wave hi to me as they see me because they stalk and harass me, well, they probably thought they were smart but they just stepped on their own doodoo here. you feel powerless and helpless when you are confronted with the institutional power. it turns inside out though when you get a sense of the ignorance that constructs the institutions. cut the head off and the whole system goes down in flames because the support is built on the foulest one dimensionality.

even more disturbing, how could you ever possibly go underground without the help of a few sympathetic pigs, right? pigs, fucking one dimensional. smh

You sound like Bob Black, but anyway, where the fuck do you get the idea about it being a movement? Purists are more likely to take the other tack and denounce even organised groupings of people with a democratic agenda and stratified role playing.

whatever, that's the point. you couldn't possibly have a purist movement so you are already arguing against organization and against a movement, so you are essentially Blanquists you latch on to anarchism because it has some credibility but ultimately you just want power for yourself which is completely against the principles of anarchism. this is veiled authoritarianism and there isn't even the presumption that the world proletariat will benefit because this attitude (although not yet revealed to me but likely in counter argumentation) only relativizes everything the plight of workers and seeks only to control the populace in order to serve their own power. if it's not a popular movement and not an organization or organized group of people, if as you describe, you're talking only about an small exclusive elite group that has full authority and has the only relevant truth then what exactly is your "anarchism" about? whatever it is, it doesn't resemble anarchism as I understand it.

seriously, what in the flying fuck are you talking about here?

I think if you start off from the obviously false and crackpot idea that the main target we should be fighting is "civilization" - i.e. cities - you are bound to immediately be led to other crackpot, cultish ideas, such as hatred of transgendered, adolescents, vegans, belief in strong authority, advocacy of strategy of blowing up infrastructure we depend on to survive etc.

Anarchists have always believed that the main problem is capitalism - a system that functions for growth and profit, and that obviously does lead to urban monstrosities, lethal technology and pollution etc. But it's a system that's existed for a couple hundred years, not several thousand.

when i first heard about anti-civ stuff, it seemed absurd, until i talked to someone who was into it and found that (like many things) it's just a semantics. most anti-civ folks i've talked to have a specific definition of civilization which more or less amounts to any style of living that is based on the idea that the planet and everything on it is here so that it can be used by humans however they please (authoritarianism, basically). with a definition of civilization like that, it's easy for any anarchist to be anti-civ. naturally, most people don't subscribe to that definition, so just running around telling people that civilization needs to be destroyed is not very helpful, imo. but it does.

also, cities have been around for longer than capitalism, as have coercive power and authority. i don't think that the main thing that anarchists have "always" been against is capitalism, it's authority. anarchists are naturally anti-capitalist, anti-state, against patriarchy and white supremacy, (and i would say anti-civilization, but again that's semantical), etc, because these things are inherently authoritarian. if all you're against is capitalism, then i guess you'd be ok with a world which wasn't capitalist, but in which everyone with green eyes was shipped off to a labor camp? i doubt it...remember, fascism is also anti-capitalist (whereas state socialism is not, which is why the soviet union didn't have much of an issue teaming up with the capitalist west to stop the advance of hitler). the key is authoritarianism.

"remember, fascism is also anti-capitalist"

um, NOT. if you think 1930s-40s germany and italy were anti-capitalist, i would love to here your evidence. i doubt henry ford or any of the other many industrial capitalists that worked with the fascist euro governments back then would agree either.

i have often heard fascism described (if not defined) as "state capitalism".

"Anarchists have always believed that the main problem is capitalism - a system that functions for growth and profit, and that obviously does lead to urban monstrosities, lethal technology and pollution etc. But it's a system that's existed for a couple hundred years, not several thousand."

What about the state? What about all the brutal, slavish, imperial, market-based states that arose before capitalism? Are anarchists no opposed to those?

Can you name a "civilization" which didn't have a state? Can you name a state which wasn't a part of a civilization?

There is a big difference between DGR and anti-civ anarchism.

"Can you name a "civilization" which didn't have a state?"
yes. the modern nation state system is one that has only arisen in the past few hundred years, just like the modern capitalist system, and notions of patriarchy, the construction of "normality" as far as bodies are concerned, etc (seriously, everyone should read caliban and the witch). so, say....the ancient egyptian empire, or the babylonian or roman empires were certainly civilizations, but they didn't have a "state" in the sense that we do today. however, they were all certainly authoritarian, both in the way they approached the different people that lived within them, and the way they approached their relationship with the physical environment around them.

so what's the actual difference?

ya, so, similar to the post below, things like citizenship, taxation, borders, national pride, plus lots of other things...whether these things exist, or the form that they take, have shifted drastically over time and have varied widely from place to place as well. so, let's say you're a citizen in athens in ancient greece, it means you're a property owning male. but let's say you're a citizen in the modern day u.s. it could mean that you were born there, or it could mean that you immigrated there and then passed some tests, or it could mean that you married someone who's a citizen already. also, the responsibilities that being a citizen would entail are different. this is just one example obviously, but i hope it goes towards answering your question in some way.

Nation states arose in the last few centuries, but the first "states" arose in ancient Mesopotamia. This was a fundamentally different kind of social organization than anything else that existed at the time (tribes, chiefdoms etc), and they brought along with them the first market economies, money, a pretty substantial increase in patriarchy and whole new levels of environmental devastation. The technologies and social complexity necessary for nation states, capitalism and industrialism didn't exist at the time, but all indications show that these societies were at least as brutal and tyrannical (if less efficient/effective).

I don't just want to escape life under "nation states" and "capitalism". There are plenty of other shitty ways to rule a region - theocracy, "Communism", feudalism, merchanilism, empire, warlords, mafias etc, and I don't want any of 'em.

If anarchists lived in an ancient empire of thousands of years ago, yes we would fight against it obviously. But we don't, and I would even assert that there could have been no anarchists then. For better or worse, anarchists exist in modern society.

to pursue this anachronistic thought experiment of anarchists fighting ancient Persia or whatever, though, we wouldn't do it by insisting that all irrigation or concentrated populations had to be abolished. We would fight authority - but there's nothing inherently authoritarian about people living in a dense area, with fixed shelters and growing food for themselves etc. In other words, there's nothing wrong with "civilization" or cities per se. Yes, historically cities had priests and slaves and money and all kinds of things we don't like. But we're now in the 21st century and the immediate problem is how to overthrow the ruling classes, not rant against glass and concrete, even if capitalism has produced too much of these.

None of those correlate as part of technique?

In other words: we're ruled to do what exactly?

So when the ruling class are toppled we become the ruling class? What has changed?

By technique, i mean means, science, technology. They can only be perpetuated by centralized planning. Planning means the rest will have to adapt to planning. Propaganda is the means to adapt and integrate.

All of technique rests on myth.

"fixed shelters and growing food for themselves etc." =/= the specific definition of civilization that anyone else in this thread is talking about. it's the exploitation of land-bases that do not "belong" to the concentrated population that makes this definition of city/civilization. if you feed yourselves; don't drain the watershed upstream or poison it downstream; and build your houses without destroying the forests around you then you don't make the cut for city/civilized. it's not the common usage, i know, but try wrapping your imagination around.

once you do, mix in self-organization and individual freedom. wrap your imagination around that. it's pretty beautiful.

Beautiful = Living for 'the now'. City/civilization = calculated security culture.

"I would even assert that there could have been no anarchists then. "

um, care to elaborate with even an iota of reasoning or logic behind that assertion?

i would assert that as long as there have been authoritarians, there have been those that are anti-authoritarian. doesn't take modern society to make an anti-authoritarian, just as it doesn't take modern society to make an authoritarian.

fail.

In what ways are Fascists, Anarchist, and Libertarians all the same?

Question: When will all spoiled white anarchist brats stop spewing out garbage and instead risk getting arrested for what they obviously 'believe'?
Answer: Never. They are all such spineless creatures that crawl on the floor in their mamas kitchen.

this is tots funny cus anarchists are the people continually being arrested and jailed for actions the government says are politically motivated.

Oh wow, man. Like, you got me! You really killed my buzz, bro'

You figured out the whole thing, Holmes. We're like , spineless chickens, pussies.

Fuck! That's it boys.

Pizza Shop Troll figured it out!

It's a wrap.

Hit the showers. Then got back to collecting those fat trust fund checks and let's do s'more of that crawlin' on Mama's kitchen floor!

Sighed,
The Anarchists

"Every anarchist is a baffled dictator." -- Benito Mussolini

I was on the fence before, but after reading this I am almost totally convinced that DGR is actually filled with government informants or is some sort of Psy Op experiment. It feels like they are attempting to co opt and brand the entire environmental movement right now...and, of course, split it up with some really crappy gender politics. People question leaders in the movement because of jealousy? Sweet Jesus, Lierre Keith is a woman. Has Lierre Keith ever organized at all? I cannot fathom that she has never seen misogyny or racism at work in the leadership of leftist groups.

DGR mostly publishes stuff that other groups are doing or that other people have written. Whatever the story, I don't see DGR getting much of anything done. I feel like they have scared a bunch of kids into joining their ridiculous death cult because they are hoping to survive whatever collapse they think they will bring on. They have also stroked a whole lot of egos and made otherwise totally disempowered ego maniacs feel like their ego-tripping is justified because it's "leadership". They have all been watching way too much Walking Dead and have bought the Jensenian "noble savage" fantasy hook, line, and sinker.

As a longtime member of DGR, I have to correct a few of the MANY lies being told here.

1) Jensen is NOT the authoritarian demagogue you people make him out to be. He is a visionary and careful, thoughtful person, and has made it clear that DGR is to be a non-hierarchical organization 99.9% of the time.

2) Trans-critical theory is NOT trans-phobic, and it's ridiculous to assume any questioning of gender is an outright assault on trans people. We live in an era in which a "woman" with a penis can stalk actual women in bathrooms for hours, masturbate, and sexually assault them, and people in the trans community and anarchist communities just shrug their shoulders. NO. There are many issues DGR can reasonably debate upon (we are not religious fundamentalists) but this is not one of them. It will NEVER change, so don't even ask.

3) It was always provided in initial documentation that Derrick Jensen reserves the right to declare a sort of "martial law" in crisis situations. Some may see this as a power grab or an attempt to silence dissent; on the contrary, it is an action that is needed to preserve the sanctity of the organization and its commitment in the face of a severe threat and brutal, violent opposition. Derrick has already stated that, when things calm down, hierarchy should recede.

"derrick jensen isn't our leader"

"we're not transphobic, we're just afraid of trans-people stalking women in bathrooms, masturbating, and sexually assaulting them."

"okay derrick jensen is kinda our leader, sometimes, depending on his mood"

how is providing transpeople with safe spaces that are distinct from the safe spaces of biological females transphobia? does this make DGR androphobic as well?

how is providing black people with safe spaces that are distinct from the safe spaces of white people racist?

Your bullshit is fear-mongering, worse than the kind from Fox News. Eat shit and kill yourself please.

Are you a racial seperatist?

if black people want safe spaces that don't include white people, then i think they should be allowed this, no matter how much blackface the white people are wearing.

Well played, Lierre Keith

I wonder how PM Press is dealing with all these revelations that their two big stars have aligned themselves with anti-trans viewpoints more than ever.

They don't care as long as the books sell. There are few explicitly political decisions (other than a vague adherence to the New Left) that determine what they publish and distribute.

You didn't answer the question.

It was always provided in initial documentation that Comrade Lenin reserves the right to declare a sort of "martial law" in crisis situations. Some may see this as a power grab or an attempt to silence dissent; on the contrary, it is an action that is needed to preserve the sanctity of the organization and its commitment in the face of a severe threat and brutal, violent opposition. Comrade Lenin has already stated that, when things calm down, hierarchy should recede.

This is a terrifyingly shallow understanding of authority and hierarchy.

If one or a few leaders have the power to seize total control whenever they deem necessary, they're in charge. Period. Even when not in use, this power casts a shadow over all other decision-making. How can anybody critique jensen or his decisions in this atmosphere?

what exactly do you mean by "total control"? Derrick, under certain circumstances, clarifying the organizational intentions of the group that he created? no one is forced to join DGR or prevented from leaving if they disagree with the group's methodology. you speak about it as if it's some kind of physical location where people are held captive and controlled by force.

This is exactly what I was talking about.

DGR's authoritarianism needs to studied in the context of the organization itself. It's not a prison camp and nobody's accusing them of that, there are obvious limits to Jensen's power, even in a time of "war" and "martial law". DGR clearly doesn't have the capability to be much more than a bad environmental group, so it needs to be judged as one. Not being able to take more control is not the same as choosing not to.

As groups like DGR go, it's pretty fucking authoritarian. This whole ugly episode has shown that policies are set centrally by the founders/theorists/leaders and that there's no room for debate. If ya don't like it, leave!

The really terrifying part of this is the (slim) possibility DGR could grow. So far, the organization has shown no regard for actual libertarian principles. When the militants come to enforce "decisive ecological warfare", what will they do with those who won't play along? Gender re-education camps? Anti-anarchist purges? Burning soy fields?

It is being conveniently erased that the central woman harassed by queer activists had requested Derrick to intervene at this point, as she felt the statement was victim blaming (it was written by someone not at the conference).

The ISO flirted with recruiting me in high school, around 15 years ago, when i lived in a southern town with no anarchist population. I remember distinctly the flavor and aroma of the things they said; this last part of the DGR defender's comment (part 3) smells so strongly of Leninism it makes me want to wretch. On the other hand, its really kind of relief - its become increasingly clear reading the defenses of DGR's leadership that its rank and file is far less drawn from or related to the antiauthoritarian milieu than i had previously thought. This is not an organization we even need to really take seriously or respond to - it s just the RCP for environmentalists. Let them continue to nosedive; one day their increasingly small numbers will get their "youth brigade" to show up with bandannas on the edge of our blocs (perhaps with green bandannas instead of red?) to get high off the excitement of being 'close to the action,' only to denounce the "anarchist adventurists" in their unread newspaper a week later, just like the RCP in the good ole days...

Let's get one thing clear.

If burrito-throwing is "brutal, violent opposition" than ya'll need a serious wake-up about what the response will be if you ever do the DEW.

Speaking of the "sanctity" of an organization pretty much already puts at cult-level-red status

"an action that is needed to preserve the sanctity of the organization "

nuff said.

if it smells like religion, and it looks like religion, and it tastes like religion...

Written by Jensen's henchmen #14.

But didn't you say anything about the FACT that he called the FBI over death threats from anarchists? Or that even though he basically recycled ideas form Teddy K. and Zerzan, he never gave one single hint of credit to them?

One for biological females
One for biological males
One for biological females in transition
One for biological males in transition
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All this kinda reminds me of white folks insisting on using the colored bathrooms in the south pre-1960s.
Or, let's just make it all one bathroom so we don't have to discriminate Nazi-cult-like against exhibitionists and knife wielders.

And yes, this is still a hyper right wing, macho posturing faux anarcho website still claiming to be relevant.

Hey sup your review sucks and was a waste of my time reading it. Now get back to doing such important work with your fucking shitty distro. Copy civilization out of existence!

Anacho-Sell-outs

I am not a primitivist because civilization cannot be destroyed. Civilization is supported by aliens and that is why civilization cannot be destroyed. Civilization is spread throughout the galaxy. Millions of years ago aliens brought civilization to Earth. Aliens directed the evolution of humanity. Aliens may have brought life to Earth. Civilization on Earth is supported by an interstellar civilization. This interstellar civilization is composed of spacecraft, space colonies, planets like Earth and many different alien species. The aliens have spacecraft that can travel faster than the speed of light. Earth is a source of minerals for the interstellar civilization. When civilization on Earth is threatened the aliens do things that prevent civilization from collapsing. The aliens that visit Earth are gray creatures with two arms, two legs, big heads and black eyes.

In 1995 I was camping in Nebraska with my family and we saw a UFO. The UFO was a shiny, glowing, large, white ball that could move very fast.

Yeah but the Arcturus folks with their huge space cruisers are on our side... they can wipe out the reptilians, but beforehand we must show we're worthy comrades in their war. Forget about the Greys, they're just interdimensional drones for the reptilians. Not so powerful.

This is soooo "V"!

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
%
F
t
c
!
k
E
Enter the code without spaces.
Subscribe to Comments for "Deep Green Resistance: A Book Review"