If you want to destroy his sweater... Beef with Derrick, unraveled.

From Black and Green Press by Kevin Tucker

Why Bother?

I think to a certain extent, we’re all finally tired of Derrick Jensen and Deep Green Resistance. The anti-trans stance that DGR has held steadfast to has done most of the work in demolishing any residual legitimacy that Derrick and his crew might have had.

Frankly, I’m relieved to see DGR fade and that’s hardly a secret. I think DGR is dangerous. I think the ideas behind it are lacking any and all historical/real world context. As anarchists, we’ve been gnawing at the roots of organized movements for nearly a century, so this isn’t new turf. However, it’s the first time we’ve seen a group try to tap into the anti-civilization milieu to build an organized resistance.

And not just an organized resistance, but an organization. Replete with affidavits, codes of conduct, member purges, authoritarian structures, and all the usual trappings of organization, DGR is dangerous in attempting to fill the perceived void of action in a post-9/11 world by presenting itself as the means to a common end. In doing so, they’re doing the paperwork, filing, and organizing that any well balanced security culture sought to eradicate.

That is why is can’t be ignored.

For the most part, DGR is a public joke.

You have rigid authoritative figures posing as revolutionaries while they personally call on the cops and FBI for protection, namely against anti-civilization anarchists. The DGR book/approach takes the level of revolutionary romanticism that tends to fade after the first year in college and extrapolates it into a world where we can act as though the Left never picked up arms and used them against the people they claimed to speak for. Occupy imagination, right?

It is posturing in the worst sense. It plans to create an organization that has above and below ground factions and, ideally, will destroy or help destroy civilization. Or industrial civilization. Or Capitalism. Whatever it is that sells books while getting support and funding from key Left groups. There’s a slippery slope there and Derrick didn’t just take DGR for the ride, he formed it somewhere in the mudslide.

For the record, I find Lierre Keith so utterly useless that it’s not worth going into detail about her contributions to DGR. Derrick is using her, just like any other “co-author” that he’s worked with; he usurps identity. That is after running it through his Left-approved byline filter of “writer, activist, farmer”. Here’s a self-published novelist that was thrown into the spotlight by maximizing on the migration from herbivore to omnivore. If you’ve had the misfortune of reading The Vegetarian Myth, you’ve seen that it reads as an angry break up letter after a 20 year relationship with a diet. The relationship sounded rough, but the book falls flat on dogma on all ends of the spectrum (articulating why animal liberation oriented folks would be drawn to veganism, health and nutrition points, and overstating pro-farming claims). It fails to make and carry a central point other than the fact that Lierre doesn’t like vegans. The feeling appears to be mutual.

I, myself, am far from vegan, yet was let down that what appeared to be a book that had the potential to draw veganism (ideology) into question, turned out to be an attack on vegans instead. A complete an utter waste of time, but seemingly completely in line with all of the insane horse shit that Lierre has let out since.

Digressions aside, the problems with Derrick are complex.

There are plenty of books that I recommend to anyone seeking to expand their understanding of civilization that I don’t agree with the authors 100%. That’s expected. Most of the people who have helped me form my views would most likely never call themselves an anarcho-primitivist. More so, some would consider anarchists as abhorrent, but not in the way Derrick does.

I trust that people have brains. I trust that my arguments stand on their own feet. I have no interest in being the sales pitch for an ideology, movement, revolution, or anything else. In accordance with that, I don’t posit myself as the hitch of my arguments. The problem with Derrick is that he does. That means that when he went off the deep end, his cult building library goes with him.

So let me clarify a point here: Derrick Jensen is a good writer. Not a thinker, but a writer. He is able to write effectively and I know plenty of people personally who were turned onto anarcho-primitivist thought because of his work. I think there are plenty of strengths in Culture of Make Believe, Language Older Than Words, and Welcome to the Machine (Derrick’s best book in my opinion, co-authored, of course). His strength lies in articulating points that others have made. As far as I can see, his only really original thought (aside from whatever horrible and ill-advised contributions he made to DGR) comes down to the arguments against pacifism in Endgame which I consider brilliant, even if they become ironic in hindsight.

But I can not, in good conscience, recommend any of Derrick’s books.

A good writer is expected to write well. A strong thinker is expected to articulate their ideas and be able to defend them. Defense is a ban-worthy concept in Derrick’s world. He’s stated openly that he only takes positive criticism from a minor handful of people. He is heavily scripted, as can be witnessed if you’ve seen his Talk at any point in the last decade. He rarely goes off the cuff during question and answer. When he does, expect unflinching insanity, like comparing himself to Tecumseh or talking about having sex with trees.

When questions are raised about the validity or realities of anything Derrick has said or done, he cuts the party in question off, usually in a rant filled flare. If a lot of points are raised, he’ll rant privately and make reference to it, but will absolutely refuse any and all public airing. He’s even had “offensive” YouTube videos mocking him taken down, which is no easy feat. It’s not because he’s trying to take the high road, he’s routinely made ridiculous attempts at character assassination in books and interviews as his chosen form of pre-pubescent revenge. It’s because the open arena isn’t his forte. So he takes a combination of back roads and dead ends to get out of the situation.

But here’s the thing: none of this should matter.

In fact, it pains me to even draw it out further. I don’t care about Derrick. I don’t care about his story, his hopes, his dreams, any of it. I can be fully content ignoring him and his ever-flowing stream of work under one single condition: it didn’t attempt to channel the critique of civilization into a pile of names and address in the hands of a narcissistic egomaniac.

Both myself and John Zerzan have continually offered to publicly discuss our differences in approach and the holes in Jensen’s narrative with Derrick for years. There are clear points where you see Derrick’s cult building up and around his written persona and that resulted in a direct change in language, targets, and approach from what we (being most green anarchists at the time) were helping him push with his earlier books and where Derrick started going in Endgame, but went off the deep end after.

I have to admit that it was Ted Kaczynski that was the most adamant from the start that Derrick’s victimization approach would be the source of his decline. When Ted was pointing that out in 2002, I wasn’t seeing it that way, but that is clearly what happened. And it just got worse and worse.
Self-Help and the Other

So let’s rewind a bit.

What drew John and I towards pushing Derrick’s books was that his approach was and remains intrinsically different than ours. There are key points in Derrick’s early books that were always problematic; implying that chickens would literally put their heads on the chopping block for his axe, feeling the need to write in detail about jerking off to internet point to drive home points about objectification that folks like Susan Sontag and Susan Griffin made decades prior, things of that nature. But it was close enough that we were willing to share the stage.

Up through the mid-late 2000s, Derrick was willing to call himself an anarcho-primitivist. He was coming at it differently than any of us, but there wasn’t question about where he aligned. He clearly didn’t come from the anarchist world or understand it, but he didn’t claim to. We all knew that the price tag on his Talk was extraordinarily high. When John and I would do gigs with him, he would ensure that we were treated as opening acts (twice John and I were given paltry 15 minute slots when Derrick went on with his whole 90 minute + routine). He always had agents and publishers to do his leg work and we all just accepted it. It was about spreading the word.

But there was more to it.

It became glaringly obvious that Derrick was able to talk in more detail than any other anarchist. Even in the pre-9/11 world, green anarchists had targets on them from the state. So while we were all being followed, surveilled, taped, brought into Grand Juries, courtrooms, trials, chased down by the Joint Terrorism Task Force, FBI, ATF, and Secret Service, Derrick is writing about hacking the grid. Seemingly without consequence. And to largely anti-anarchist Leftists groups.

It was baffling, but who was going to complain? I clearly remember defending Derrick to other anarchists who were already calling him a liberal because of his audience. Either they were right or they saw the writing on the wall, but as far as could be told, his audience could only be blamed for not putting the pieces together since he laid it all out.

Or at least that’s how it seemed.

In hindsight, maybe the direction Derrick was going in was the direction he always aimed for. Even though Derrick was saying extremely radical things, he was cushioning it. His writing is formulaic and seems to mirror his Neo-Con past and we weren’t prepared to see that arc in the mix.

Derrick’s writing is about a personal journey. There are cold hard facts, there are soul wrenching moments, there’s a call to arms, and then there’s a link to normalcy through universal purging. As destroying as Derrick’s words can be, they are therapeutic. It happens to be the case that the things he’s writing about are driving at the tension in loving the earth and contributing to it’s destruction. I was able to take away a call to action, because that’s my cross over point. But the cycle is straightforward, pedestrian Derrick stumbles into a horrifying realization, damning facts are laid out, pedestrian Derrick is pulled into it, someone more knowledgable about the matter is brought in to confirm and consult, then in the moment of realization, another “average Joe” pedestrian confirms their agreement on the issue.

Somewhere around 2004–6, I probably asked Derrick a handful of times why he thought his ultra-liberal audience members were throwing support at him while attacking anarchists. He had no answer. He might have not even realized it, but in seeing Derrick’s firm move beyond the radical Left and into the professional liberal fold, it’s clear that Derrick is the sherpa on the mountain of liberal guilt. He is their motivational speaker; well rehearsed, sitting cross legged on a table, reciting the same effective jokes time after time, walking liberals through their darkest thoughts, and taking them back home.

The reason that Derrick is able to say horribly detailed things about destroying civilization, attempt to organize a revolutionary movement, be pushed by liberals and anarchists alike, call the cops and FBI on anarchists, and get away with all of it is that he’s not a threat. He’s a professional. An entertainer. A therapist.

And yet DGR carries the allure of a revolutionary movement against civilization. And woe ye who don’t know enough to not sign (literally) onto his movement. To date, the only action taken by DGR is selling Derrick’s books. Their newswire service simply takes any other action and puts their name on it.

For these reasons alone, it should be fairly obvious why you won’t see Derrick’s books on Black and Green recommended reading lists.

But it gets worse.
Horticultural Warfare

A longstanding dispute I’ve had with Derrick is over his portrayal of horticultural warfare. In the decade since I initially brought this up, he’s only made flippant mention of it as a minor point in public. But as someone who bases their ideas on facts rather than whims and appeals to personality, I find this sticking point rather irritating.

In Culture of Make Believe, Derrick has a discussion about battlefield warfare amongst horticulturalists in Papua New Guinea. What he says is largely true; battlefield warfare is particularly less lethal than one would imagine. Before the battle, there are large pork feasts, which, if you haven’t overloaded yourself with pork before, will tire you out quickly. The weapon of choice is typically large and not horribly accurate or effective arrows, but the tongue is equal as insults are more often shot across than darts. Derrick mentions this to distinguish it from modern warfare for obvious reasons: civilization is unequivocally more violent, faceless, and ruthless.

This sounds nice, but it’s not the full truth.

Derrick has no interest in attacking the roots of civilization. This has gotten worse over the years as his focus has shifted in accordance with liberal targets. In my eyes, looking at the consequences of domestication truthfully and honestly is the most telling way to understand how civilization could exist. So horticultural societies, as societies with domestication, but without civilization, are telling. I don’t wish to damn them, but it’s important to understand them.

Derrick’s fairytale version of horticultural warfare would be far more pleasant than the resource wars that our civilization currently undertakes, but it’s not true. Most people who have taken a Cultural Anthropology 101 course could tell you this.

Battlefield warfare is a part of horticultural warfare patterns. It is, typically, the least fatal method of warfare. The problem is that warfare is a consequence of resource competition. This applies equally to horticulturalists as it does to us, but it’s a matter of scale. In having semi-sedentary lifestyles with gardens, granaries, and surplus, you have property, power, and boundaries that simply don’t exist with nomadic gather-hunter societies. The response isn’t just battlefield warfare, it’s warfare culture.

This is where you get the origins of patriarchy. In warfare culture, you see, for the first time, a preference for males (warriors) over females, hence a higher rate of female infanticide (curbing population). In the warfare cycle, battlefield warfare has little on the more important aspect of raiding. In raids, a lot of people can die. Wives and children are taken, villages are burned. It is, after all, warfare, and it’s messy.

I don’t say this to judge, but this is what domestication does to us: it’s a socio-religious justification for an ecological reality. Sedentary life challenges natural means of birth control associated with nomadism. People settle, numbers go up, surplus is finite, numbers need to go down. It’s a cycle.

Printing what Derrick did once isn’t lying. It could be a mistake. I talked to Derrick about this at length in person and in email (we were friends at this time) and he was aware that these are the kinds of issues that I was pursuing.

But then it shows up again in Endgame. Same story, same omission.

At this point, it’s clearly no accident.

It becomes harder to trust a person as a thinker when their writing is set on a simplistic narrative. It becomes obvious why the material doesn’t and can’t go deeper. It’s a sales pitch. It makes up in simplicity what it lacks in honesty. But who is this helping? No one. It’s a weak move for someone with no spine who has no interest in ever having to directly answer questions about it (Jensen has, at times, required that all audience questions be pre-scripted and screened). The arc of the narrative becomes more apparent and the words become secondary to the speaker.

But what does that mean when these books are selling Derrick and he’s clearly lying? What else is he lying about? What else is a sales pitch?

As an anarchist, I’ve come from a tradition where the individual is never as important as the ideas they bring to the table. Sacred cows are sacrificed regularly.

As an anarcho-primitivist, my goal has never been to hand someone a neat and tidy package that they can chose to use or not. I’m not selling myself. I’m not selling anyone. My job, as I see it, is to be honest, to put it out there as openly as possible. I trust that individuals are capable of thinking on their own. I know that the things that I see happening to this world are happening everywhere and we all feel it. My goal isn’t to create a struggle, but to put as much out there as possible to help others contextualize their struggles. It’s not enough to walk them through scenarios and make them feel renewed and comfortable in their surroundings again. If there is going to be change, it will take individuals making real connections with the real world, not by identifying with another persona.

I refuse to sell myself. I refuse to see myself as an ideal. I refuse to see myself as a leader. These ideas exist outside of ourselves and I feel responsibility to put it out there freely and honestly.

This point can appear minor, but it goes deep. If someone wants to market themselves as a big name in a niche market, I’m not going to let them do it off of my back.

As I said at the outset, I think it’s clear now where Derrick was headed and that he’s firmly lodged in that corner now saying absurd things. I can’t support his current or previous work because it’s all about him, not the ideas. Even if he hadn’t gone this direction it would still be an issue, but it’s become intensely clear as time has gone on.

The problem is that Derrick won’t address any of these points head on. I’m not sure it matters at this point because I think he is far beyond salvaging. John and I tried early on, but it was a one way door.

So here’s the shitty part. Since Derrick won’t respond directly to John or myself, but puts out this narrative that we are merely jealous (ha!) of his fame and success, hence the split, let me just briefly give a little background to what actually happened. Derrick’s fans will attempt to assert otherwise, but nearly all of them weren’t around at the time and all of this is pretty fully documented (mostly in laughable emails from Derrick).

I don’t have pride or joy in this. It’s ridiculous and I’m leaving out a lot of Derrick’s worst side just because it’s not necessary to go beyond the public side of this. But Derrick’s maniacal egomania is entirely driven by whims, emotions, and knee jerk reactions to unwanted criticisms. Question him and you’re out. Good riddance in my opinion.

So a brief look at Derrick’s evolving hatred of anarchists;

2007: First Deep Green Resistance weekend retreats. Participants pay north of $1000. At most, Derrick appears via Skype only.

2008: Last issue of Green Anarchy prints an overall positive review of Derrick’s Thought to Exist in the Wild. It contains a line questioning the quantity of Derrick’s work (including massive reprints from previous books) and wondering if he might lose the effectiveness of his writing by over-saturating.

Derrick loses his shit. Calls it a “hit piece” and refuses to be swayed by reasonable discussion. Before the ink dries, he’s doing interviews with liberal magazines and websites about how anarchists are dirty, ineffective, unorganized, and mean.

At the same time, he starts insisting that anarchists have all ripped him off. Despite years of helping scrape together his hefty speaker/travel fees and not being engaged personally plus selling a ton of his books, he goes on undeterred to spread the narrative that we’re all out to get him.

Around this time he starts getting quickly accepted and spread by increasingly liberal and progressive outfits. A column in Orion magazine and then doing fundraisers for anti-radical groups. Anarchists are purged from the Derrick Jensen forum.

Drops discussion of civilization in favor of “industrial civilization”.

By 2010, Derrick is working with staunch anti-anarchist Chris Hedges about how anarchists are ineffective, mean, and starts talking about the rights of “citizens”.

In 2011, he tries to co-opt Occupy Wall Street and bring it in the fold. Drops discussion of “industrial civilization” to target “Capitalism”. Does hilarious pay-per-view Skype sessions. Supports Lierre working with the cops after she is pied. Supports Peter “Urban Scout” Bauer in talking to the cops and FBI after he is mailed a rock. Security lock down at talks, scripted questions only.

Deep Green Resistance is published.

In 2012, article with Chris Hedges comes out, attacking anarchists and talking about the complete ineffectiveness of the Black Bloc. Derrick starts calling anarcho-primitivists racist and misogynist while claiming he never took the title on despite plenty of evidence to the contrary online, in books, and in talks. He’s only interested in throwing out anarchists so he doesn’t have to engage them.

In 2013, Derrick and Lierre anti-trans politics come to the forefront and are indisputable. Huge round of DGR purges, Aric McBay (co-founder) leaves amongst others.

This is an overview, but it should be pretty clear about how Derrick’s personal attitudes and paying clientele have directly impacted his approach and impact.

I say good riddance to old trash.



in good conscience

Derrick Jensen fucks salmon...... even black salmon.

Derrick Jensen does foul things to salmon in it. True story!

Then at least he's not a racist.

bad writing and sour grapes

this is pretty much a big, stinky pile of dog poop

i dont see myself as a leader, we sacrifice sacred cows, in good conscience, etc.....seriously shut the fuck up

this is me crying for trans-men, vegans, and primmies >_.

huge tears

i dont care about you, your hopes, or your dreams either

Oh, was I supposed to be commenting on the article? I'm torn. On the one hand, I can pretty much always get with takedowns of DJ, and on the other, this one is clearly some variety of dick-sizing contest.

Holy smokes...roll another one! If I were Derrick, I'd ask you just to spell my name right. For a guy who can't stand him personally, you're his best advertising agent. OK, the guy's an opportuni$t...that's pretty obvious. His 'organization' is oppressive (as organizations and all authoritarian structures tend to be), the guy thinks anarchists are toe jam, and serious r@dicals should pay him no mind. But, you could have said all that and better in about 2 paragraphs. I had a hard time reading it all.

While you roundly condemn Derrick for evading central questions, you do the same thing. Anarchists have been violent (even accepting their claim for sake of argument that vandalism isn't 'violent') when they assault reporters in public and even those tabling literature such as at Portland State and more recently at a San Francisco book fair. Then there are the threats, the bullying, the intimidation posted online, the rock you say was mailed, etc. Chris Hedges isn't the only one that condemns such violence and the vandalism. You're out of touch, but call Derrick a space case. I've never met the guy and doubt I'd like him. He does sound like it's all about him...but so do you. There are some talented anarchists out there who are NOT out of touch...I covered one recently at Olympia's TESC, Kris Williams, a very well spoken and articulate observer of the Portland scene. I found his narrative condemning the tools the state uses to implement torture compelling. Quit obsessing about Derrick and learn to say something.

WTF? Where does Tucker spell Derrick's name wrong?

violence is naive linguisitc sensation your comment is unvalid

words have no inherent meaning, it's linguistics 101 time butt shaped poodle dogs with hammer rings on your EARS

no no words have no MEANING you just dont understand

some words have no MEANING, while other words are MEANINGLESS, OK?

Is that you, Amicus? Been awhile!

it totes is
also Kris hates Jensen too
and you are a fucking imperialist

Doesn't Kristian not condemn violent action?

On the other hand, but conversely also, is it not Kristian who does not NOT support the non-condemnation of non-violence not enacted by no one in particular?

Is this Amicus? Boohoo, go cry about your camera getting thrown off a balcony some more.

What about throwing black peoples cameras off a balcony?

best troll post 2014

this is the impotent soft boner of troll posts...derrick jenson is dangerous, derrick jenson is a great writer, derrick jensen wont talk to me and zerzan. derrick jensen hangs out with nobel winning journalists, derrick jensen fought back against retarded brainlessly violent lifestyleist anarchist wann-bes, derrick jensen wont answer direct questions, derrek jenson is mean to trans-men, derrek jensen's not a "thinker", derrick jensen is a public joke but no ones ever hear of meeeee. wha h ahwhah whah. WORST post of 2014.

You're a racist. Fact is the violent structures always look for moral equivalency.
That's you, little jo Stalin.
Here you are:
"While you roundly condemn Derrick for evading central questions, you do the same thing."
Not so. But let's establish right off The bat that I know nothing. People such as myself are out of touch by design, people such as yourself always ready to criticize what we were made to be while not allowing us to be who we want to be. And so, when this narrative reverses e.g. the real jo Stalin, the reductionist technocratic regime that he is reified as, or for example, JENSEN, KEITH, BLACK ET AL who are symbolic of the flip side of liberal bourgeois morality, people such as yourself go bananas, especially entrapped in a narrative where you are forced to defend them. Good luck being fucked jojo.

Fuck all this bullshit wannabe spaceage political theater. Fuck all this honey ass drama. Fuck fuck fuck you all. Bitches (white guy ;) )

But also you fucking crackers are a pathetic distraction and confusion mechanism. Straight parasitic cannibals.stay away from my peeps.

Man workers are so into labor, no wonder. Do keigel excercises for more birth power when it is da squat time.

This says that DGR was published after Occupy but I 100% sure that it was published before Occupy.

Yes you appear to be correct, for whatever that's worth:

"A book titled Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save the Planet by Aric McBay, Lierre Keith, and Derrick Jensen was released in May 2011, from Seven Stories Press.[11] "


And I hope I don't have to remind anyone that Occupy encampments began in the FALL of 2011...

Ok, Derrick is a dildo, but tell me this, why pick on Derrick in particular? Can you show me like anyone everywhere that isn't a complete didlo or butt shaped poodle dogs with hammer rings on their ears?

dear kt -
i get it, i think we all get it. most of us that live outside of shitty anews sceney-weeny name calling in-fighting anarchy land, and are imbedded in communities that are actually resisting something have jumped off the dj train long ago. your whole piece could have been one line 'dj is an ass-hat'. he's not dangerous, he's fucking irrelevant.

but this article is as irrelevent as dj himself - write about something worthwhile

"most of us that live outside of shitty anews sceney-weeny name calling in-fighting anarchy land, and are imbedded in communities that are actually resisting something "

does not exist

It's always fun to hear somebody diss DJ -- I mean the guy is basically a liberal/progressive/leftist celebrity but he sort of postures as trying to be Pol Pot and lead a leftist revolutionary mass movement that will smash and kill all the city dwellers (blood is on your hands no matter what you do as he says in the DGR book and website) in order to go back to agrarian living...

Yet somehow this seems like the drama that time forgot...I thought he had vanished beneath the surface of obscurity for anarchists after the Portland DGR squabble about a year ago...and he barely even gets published in liberal rags like Orion any more...while with the green anarchist AND the permaculture AND the green capitalist fashion trends all now over for nearly everyone, ecological collapse is rapidly on its way out of style and consciousness...probably to be replaced by nationalistic or geographic-identity/autonomy based struggles one kind or another...just look at the Ukraine or the rancher standoff in Nevada...I mean the environment is shot, the climate is going to hell no matter, so it's time to start fighting over the scraps...

Which leaves one wonders if Kevin is just sitting around fuming about a guy who no one really cares about and whose ideas don't really apply to current world conditions anymore. Of course you could say that for nearly all anarchists about the various idols and enemies whose ideas they squabble over, from Stirner to Crimethinc...

you fight over the scraps, you do that now.

whenever i hear people talking about how this or that thinker or movement is "over" i just know its some academic trying to keep up with trends who has absorbed the capitalist mindset that we're 'progressing', and who never really learned anything from the last 'trend', they just want to stay fake-relevent.

studying ecological collapse is not going to 'go out of style', meatball.

and wheres your crystal ball that you know where dj is headed. you dont know.

now, i have no truck with agrarian fantasies vs the urban land scape (i am an urbanist-tho it certainly doesnt hurt to think abt farming and where food is coming from), but dj is an interesting thinker, an even better writer and talker, in a lot of ways hes down to earth and no bullshit, in some ways his anti-civ is 'dangerous', as it ought to be. and i appreciate the contrarianism of some of dgr's views, some of which i think are totally correct (trans-men, veganism, coming war) - and people are not quite ready for them, sadly, even many 'anarchists' bc theyre still having a mao-ist and or neoliberal circle jerk.

oh like farms, but there in the city??

total mindfuck dude

Dear "meatball": DJ is not about "studying" the collapse, he is about trying to get people to cause civilization to collapse to keep the ecology from collapsing. Some of us were into that before DJ got famous, before we ever heard his name, and for a while in the late 90's and early 2000's we thought that was going somewhere. But it didn't go far, and then the Green Scare happened, immediately followed by green capitalist chic, and it became obvious that we weren't going to accomplish that.

Now the ecology is very clearly collapsing, the climate is very clearly changing, and this is not going to be halted. I'm not an academic and I don't give a shit about what they think is important, although Taylor does seem to be acting like Jensen has some popular currency which I don't think he has any more, in part because academics and the public are idiotically fickle and have moved on. I'd love it if more people still were actively interested in the things Jensen talks with. But they aren't, so fuck it.

I look at the world, I look at the news from Ukraine to Nevada (and not just there obviously, but every where in between), and I see the interconnected capitalist industrialized nation states splintering into increasing conflictual smaller groups fighting over borders, ethnic, religious, national identity, or some idea of "local control" that is really not about anything truly local but is just a pretense for fighting over the dynamics of national powers and REAL identity politics -- i.e. the weaving of states with ethnic, cultural, religions and national identities. And add in there the increasingly obvious conflicts of interest between neo-liberal/libertarian ideologues who want virtually no state and others in both government and capitalist power positions who want the state to continue to be strong.

Back in 1999 we (meaning us anarchists who were alive and involved then) saw the whole globe being interwoven by increasingly interconnectivity enslaved to a fully synchronized network of state and capital, and we wanted to counter that with a different kind of globalism, an anarchic and liberated one. But now I see a world that seems to be increasingly trending towards world, civil and social war at all levels and with conflicts of nearly every imaginable kind.

The period of WWI through WWII was increasingly bad time for old school anarchism (aspects of the Spanish Civil War not with standing). Similarly the current situation where people are increasingly violently fighting over the scraps left as both the economy and ecology circle the drain. People want something desperately to offer them security, and anarchists generally can't do that, partly because they can't and partly because they won't. They won't for a laundry list of reasons. And they can't because desperate grasping for security does not generally take one to ideologies of radical liberation.

Any way, I've read the DGR book. It's a personal pipe dream of a mass movement and counterculture with some tenets similar to green anarchism, that will sprout fully formed out of the skulls of DJ and co. It's ridiculous and impossible and undesirable for a million reasons. And it's old news.

Plus I'd rather read John Zerzan, Fredy Perlman, or even Daniel Quinn than Jensen. I've been well versed in anti-civ ideas since 1998, and barely read a word of his writing. It's superfluous as far as I'm concerned.

the climate is very clearly changing

See the Strauss/Howe cycle of generations theory which seems to have some(albeit non scientific) predictive value.

I don't however see the future as bad for anarchism, I still think better and even the best could be yet to come. I don't think we have moved beyond the post comatic state we came out of after 1968. There are also technologies coming down the pipe in the form of crypto currency, and 3D printing that are going to give an inherent amount of help to anarchic models at least initially.

We are also due for another spiritual awakening, the last time anarchism was in mint form was when it was riding on the last waves of various spiritual movements throughout the western world for the latter half of the 19th century.

There WILL be a Roman style collapse. The difference this time is there is no Christian stasis which will trigger a dark age. We have to much access to information at this point, Eastern values are here, indigenous models ect. I'd wager that some type of 1789 event is coming and it may even coincide with the USA's 250th anniversary, historical City state Empires don't last much longer then that, the District of Colombia is about to enter it's Roman 5th century With a renaissance not that far behind.

As for the ecological problem, as I've said, what we are going to go through(which will be bad) is NOTHING compared to what happened 12000 years ago. By all means brace yourself, but the oceans ain't rising by 400 percent, we built megaliths before that and continued afterwords to even greater degrees.

your bitterness and cynicism and general asshole-ness is undesirable. next

"in 1998..." "anarchism doesn't comfort people", no duh, meat ball......dj is not a fucking whacked out zen hippie like zerzan, etc he's actually trying to DO SOMETHING IMPORTANT...real irrelevant...unlike you and your friends who gave up on life in the 90s after the green scare and are now just corpses with corpses in your mouths...you dont know your head from your ass, i dont care how ancient you are,,,,so quit bragging about it !!!

I would rather be a corpse with a corpse in my mouth than a butt shaped poodle dog with butt shaped poodle dogs in its butt shaped poodle dog mouth, you butt shaped poodle dog with hammer rings on your ears!

i'll take the butt-shaped poodle dogs (minus hammer rings in my ears, thanks) over being a rotting corpse vomitting corpses all day and night instead of contributing to the overthrow of this disgusting world

i think we have wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy different ideas about relevancy and super-fluidity here (by the way, that's actually a compliment in the literary sense...which i'm sure you did not mean, meat ball deadmouth.


It's funny how many people on here think that if you don't accept a fantasy role playing universe where anarchism is the absolutely most important thing for every one on the planet, than you are apathetic or corrupt. Anarchists are religious fundamentalists -- if you question their belief in imminent revolution, or insurrection, or collapse, they become prickly or even violent.



maoists are stalinists dummy.

yes, anyone who believes in anything or has an ideals or values, is a "religious zealot"...bleh...my thoughts on actual religion are well-known.

im realer than reala i be trans hatin for a coz yall dont front on the front fooz

you mean kt is obsessed with dj the way bob black was (is?) obsessed with murray bookchin?


Bob Black wrote a pretty good and influential short book criticizing Bookchin, and then a much longer one years later that no one published and even fewer people read. Yes, fewer than no one. KT wrote a poorly written but most agreeable rambling blog post criticizing DJ. I guess it's kind of comparable maybe.

Even if I do say so myself. And I do.

-- Bob Black (pig ffffucker and dental implant, top left, second from the back)

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!!

isn't DJ just trying to point out that in a world after civilization there won't be no Pfizer & Co.s to make hormone therapies for trans-tards who are so alienated from their bodies that they can't reconcile their mind with their biology?

there are herbal hormone therapies and there are plenty of indigineous cultures that have more than two genders and the cult of science in the one defining gender not nature
also DJ never makes that point

more like certain grammars
``genders suck, more just suck more

just do away with ``genders
its the best

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha please define gender/sex so we can see that you have no idea what the fuck you talking about and just use the word biology like fascists use the word nature

Why don't you define it instead of pretending you are so smart?

Leave me be guys, just back right down

-Bob Blackkk (pig fucker and salmon vagina aficionado)

I do not fuck salmon and the very idea of salmon vagina makes me sick. You all make me sick.

-- Bob Black (pig ffffucker and today's weather forecast)

enough with this DJ vs JZ bullshit. they both suck and are an embarrassment to all those who seek to expand their critique beyond the lame and archaic criticism of 'capitalism' that most anarchists cant seem to move beyond.

Lame and archaic criticism of capitalism? Is this referring to the idea that the contemporary notion of state-capitalism itself is outdated, or that critiquing and criticizing state-capitalism itself is outdated?

How do you truly draw a definitive line as to civilization and its origins. When it comes to horticultural complexity and even pre-civilized megaliths you have to see them as part of a transforming continuum.

My hypotheses is that we got symbolic thought from epigenetic interactions with Neanderthals, and took it from there. The evidence is mounting that humans had symbolic megalithic upper paleolithic organization going longer then civilization and agriculture itself(clear back at least 20 thousand years). It seems to me that this is the only tenable post-civilized model we can go for.

We don't have the psychology of African old world humans anymore, it's futile to even attempt to model or frame it in anyway. We can do what those who practice Zen do as much as we can but if what happened 12000 years ago(which was a lot) could not wipe out this symbolic psychology then nothing will. Ironically, the quest for origins is itself crudely symbolic. It's no wonder why the Green anarchist tendency got itself lost in that needless debate.

Wow that was super racist. Old world humans?? Wtf?

I think maybe the comment you are responding to is a bit hyperbolic but certainly not racist. Unless you are a highly advanced troll in which I give you 8/10.

Oh and now you're going to try to evade accountability for saying something racist, real cool. Talk about white fucking privelege!

and self hating(roleeyes)

I presume you are talking about the Neanderthal hypothesis I threw in there which while speculative does have some evidence behind it. For a long time humans were of a particular development until about-give or take-50000 years ago when some type of psychological explosion happened.

Neanderthals were the first hominids that we know of to master northern mountainous navigation and it was these spatial-relational factors combined with the need for cold climate calculation that may well have led to a more abstracting brain. We know that the difference in men and women seems to come down to who spatially operates more, so its not bad to take this to a species level and control for more complex navigational environments. There are events like the post Toba Volcano migration combined with the Aurignacian cultural revolution that makes backs up the hypothesis.

Yes their are racists that like to cluster around this hypothesis, but it doesn't have to be just them. Plus I come at it from a more Lamarkian epigenetic aproach then a Darwinian one, which is the preferred course of the racist/racialist types. And at the end of the day facts are facts.

Anarchism maintains its irrelevance to a large part because anarchists are primarily 18 to 25 year olds, and older people with Peter Pan complexes, who are consistently blinded by self righteousness from actually managing to learn or understand anything outside a very narrow body of ideas. They not only ignore but denigrate the vast majority of other peoples' experiences and understandings, and instead hold like religious zealots to their pre-decided ideologies and a relatively narrow range of activities. And they become ridiculously defensive when someone they thought might agree with them says anything that even smacks of not being in line with their world view, especially their cultishly millenarian ideas that a type of total and radical change is soon going to sweep across the planet in a form totally uncompromising and ideal by their evaluation.

I disagree, anarchism in the USA proves its irrelevancy over and over sure no argument there. And yes, the narrow range of activities defended *with* political ideas is endemic and a huge problem. But, it's really just an excuse and not some sort of problem with anarchism itself.

Pinning this on young people or older peter pans is a very poor analysis though. What revolution wasn't pushed, led or influenced by these types? And, your insistence that we care about the *vast* majority of others experiences is also a-historical. Who gives a fuck what most people think or feel, most of them don't care what they think themselves. The vast majority of people haven't ever and will never matter. This doesn't mean we can't appeal to people and in fact we should be talking to non anarchists to a much larger degree than we are. People spend their time jerking off with other anarchists cause they don't actually take revolution seriously. That said, we don't have to beg or convince the vast majority of people of anything. There's already a ton of people on our side that we just need to work with.

And yes, anarchists need to drop their holier than thou, moralistic liberal moms basement pat me on the butt and tell me everything is fine bullshit. Your moral arguments about how people should act are about 20 steps below on the importance level in regards to actually making shit work. And we need to explain this to the liberals in our midst and more so just fucking not pay attention to them. Look at Russel Brand for fuck sakes, he pushed an anti-authoritarian message to more people that English based anarchism has in decades. And, dumb liberal anarchists *still* don't get it.

What I am saying is, most anarchists and most people in general have no idea what is going on and they are irrelevant. Act in accordance.

Anarcho-solipsism, then?

But seriously, the amount of time people spend on here saying the equivalent of "yeah, you got this one thing right, but really you're totally wrong" is friggin' hilarious.

and why is that? its because your really actually wrong, and just making excuses to be assholes, or get laid, slobber all over their boring friends and bond over being mediocrtities, whatever it is, its really fucking stupid. have you read anything by crimethinc lately? 'anarchists in the US' are not any less effective than anarchists in greece (where fascism is now spreading at wild levels) or anywhere else. there are just more apathetic assholes with axes to grind here saying anarchists are ineffective- these are people who dont really want capitalism or neoliberalism to end, because they are actually just fine and comfortable with it, and actuallly have no values or ideals, or political consciousness or talent outside mouthing and chanting what other people do...which is slam anarchism, or anybody who tries to do something real or believes in anything. it s really a bore, on all possible levels. and its ugly....so, yes, solipsism.

I wouldn't characterize anarchism elsewhere with anarchism in the USA. Sure, there are similarities but that assumption is just flat out wrong. Having actually experienced life in other places let me restate, you are wrong there.

I truly believe that the USA produces some of the most fucked up selfish people that lack almost all empathy. You see it creeping into politics no matter anti-authoritarian or not. People get mad about identity politics changing into something unrecognizable and horrific over the years. It's due to this, it's due to kids born in a time of a dying empire. They really want to believe that their identity is special, it sucks when you find out it is not and all those promises are bye bye.

I wrote the original comment on here and it wasn't meant as some defense of egotistic selfishness, quite the opposite. We would do best to lead by example, by on one hand practicing empathy and actively rejecting those who push anti-social ideas. And by rejecting I mean telling people to fuck off. Which of course requires us to have some sort of critical awareness.

oh yeah, i can see ou are a seasoned world traveler...ever been to africa, syria, ukraine, israel, egypt, india, etc etc, where human life is worth nothing, and there are hardly no coherent critical arguments to the contrary. you are clearly very stupid and naive.

I can't believe I cooked DJ a meal.

ps. fuck everyone on the comments section that calls trans women "trans-men".
its not a cozy liberal identity, its my material reality.
pps. punx win

theyre trans-men. sorry. the 'one sex' (male) UN funded gender rapture hasnt happened yet, and a lot of them are have more in common w mra's than real feminists.

Anyone else way rather read what Ted Kaczynski wrote about Jensen and victimhood than what KT has to say? Cause that sounds like a read and a half, the man took down the Zerz like a champ and Derrick's so much riper for it.
Still a pretty decent read though, any shittalk about DGR is a guilty pleasure always, and he brings up some good points.

Yeah, DJ has some really good points and his personal experience with abuse resonates with the abuse our culture inflicts on Nature. Derrick wrote in Endgame that he admits he's a coward and does nothing he wants others to do. As with all people who are talking about progressive change on TV like Amy Goodman, Thom Hartmann, etc.(who I love), Derrick has become his own message and the actual point, rise up and fight to the death for what you believe in, gets lost. I was initially very impressed with DJ and really moved by his personal story, but then I saw his name on a T-Shirt and I thought, why the fuck would I wear your name when all you've done is TALK. Get out there and DO something or shut the fuck up and stop getting rich (becoming the capitalists you said you hated!) Until we take action we are all little babies pouting and scratching at the wall. Me included. FUCK ME!

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.
Enter the code without spaces.
Subscribe to Comments for "If you want to destroy his sweater... Beef with Derrick, unraveled."