Why Deep Green Resistance is Not Coming to The Flying Brick Library

  • Posted on: 16 July 2012
  • By: worker

<table><tr><td>From <a href="https://flyingbrickrva.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/why-deep-green-resistanc... Flying Brick</a>:

About a month ago, a group called Deep Green Resistance asked to come speak at the Flying Brick. We ultimately decided not to host them, and since it is rare that we turn down events or touring groups, we thought that we owed an explanation to our volunteers, friends, and comrades.</td><td><img title="Relationship between roles and safety. Discuss!" src="http://anarchistnews.org/files/pictures/2012/rabbits.jpg"></td></tr></ta...
Deep Green Resistance describes themselves as a group whose goal “is to deprive the rich of their ability to steal from the poor and the powerful of their ability to destroy the planet. This will require defending and rebuilding just and sustainable human communities nestled inside repaired and restored landbases. This is a vast undertaking but it needs to be said: it can be done. Industrial civilization can be stopped” (from the “About” section on deepgreenresistance.org).

Based on this description, many of us were extremely excited, as it tied into our interests, passions, and our work regarding environmental and anti-civilization projects.

However, after we sent the request out over the list-serve for feedback and approval, we were surprised and dismayed by the reaction. There were several responses that brought up issues of transphobia, transmisogyny, classism, and racism within the organization– specifically, this following passage, part of an email written by Lierre Keith, co-author of the DGR book:

<blockquote>Try this on. I am a rich person stuck in a poor person’s body. I’ve always enjoyed champagne rather than beer, and always knew I belonged in first class not economy, and it just feels right when people wait on me. My insurance company should give me a million dollars to cure my Economic Dysphoria.</blockquote>

<blockquote>Or how about this. I am really Native American. How do I know? I’ve always felt a special connection to animals, and started building tee pees in the backyard as soon as I was old enough. I insisted on wearing moccasins to school even though the other kids made fun of me and my parents punished me for it. I read everything I could on native people, started going to pow wows and sweat lodges as soon as I was old enough, and I knew that was the real me. And if you bio-Indians don’t accept us trans-Indians, then you are just as genocidal and oppressive as the Europeans.</blockquote>

<blockquote>Gender is no different. It is a class condition created by a brutal arrangement of power. I can’t fathom how mutilating people’s bodies to fit an oppressive power arrangement is frankly anything but a human rights violation. And men insisting that they are women is insulting and absurd.</blockquote>

When we responded to DGR, we made it clear that we were willing to host them as a group – as long as they were willing to discuss these issues and how environmental and anti-civ work are intrinsic to resisting gender oppression – and vice versa.

Sadly, Deep Green Resistance made it clear that they are not willing to let anybody but themselves guide the conversation, and that as we insisted on such, that we are not ready to fight the (so-called) “real fight”.

We find it necessary, in return, to make something perfectly clear:

The Flying Brick Library is intended as a safe space. Transphobia and transmisogyny are not welcome in this space any more than racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, sizeism, or other oppressive or hierarchical viewpoints.

As such, we reserve the right to choose whether to host – or not to host – any group, person, band, etc. at our own discretion.

This is a space for building knowledge.

This is a space for building support.

This is a space for building alliances across issues.

This is not a space for people to come proselytize to others without welcoming input, constructive criticism, or differing opinions.

And this is not a space where people can refuse to accept that our struggles are all connected.

If you are unwilling to adhere to these guidelines, then take your oppressive and destructive beliefs elsewhere – because they are not welcome here.


hmm, this should be an interesting one 2 watch.

The Deep Goth Resistance should speak instead!


Ok, I <3'd this a lot when I saw the title and the 1st paragraph, but after reading it all, I have to say this:

You don't have to "grasp at straws" of Lierre Keith's obvious and putrid transphobia nor assert your space as "safe" to reach the principled decision of barring this group. They are decidedly authoritarian on so many levels. They call for a hierarchically-structured organization. They have already collaborated with the FBI, and now they are looking to promote their ideology, program, and organization. They are looking for recruits. What does this mean? It means duping anyone who is naive enough to buy into their shit into being foot soldiers for a war they are too cowardly to fight themselves, as anything but high-and-mighty generals issuing orders from the safety of their books, speeches and web forums.

i.e. Fuck the DGR green Leninists, expose them at every turn, and not just for having some "politically-incorrect" stance on transsexuality (in this, they are just a drop in a sea of hatred, but they ACTUAL and IMMEDIATE threat they pose is in recruiting foot soldiers from anarchist circles, and the longer-term threat they pose is in circuiting real desires for freedom and for the end of civilization and so on into a giant TRAP!)

down with DGR!
against all authority!

"but they ACTUAL and IMMEDIATE threat they pose is in recruiting foot soldiers from anarchist circles," id imagine if you were a trans anarchist you would view both as ACTUAL and IMMEDIATE threats.

i wrote the above comment and i am a trans anarchist.

I just recently came across this and thought it would be interesting to post here:


Since they recruit in academic circles, they aren't much a big problem for the anarchist circles... just that we won't be able to fuck with those cute softy intellectuals for the university. Loss? You decide.

But yeah, every damn sect is a major problem, just like religion in general. Just other, more despotic, forms of hierarchies.

Too bad how generations don't seem to have a collective memory, relatively. Lesson we've learn from those evil '70s-'80s cults?

Anti-Intelectualism on the left. I love this shit.

Only people just like me can help foster a culture of revolution? You decide.

I'd rather call it "anti-elitism"...

"Only people just like me can help foster a culture of revolution?"

Leftist intellectuals are actually the first ones who foster that attitude, and are being *exceptionally* unapologetic about it... havign absolutely no problem pretending to have to intellectual edge over all those proles who can't properly articulate their thoughts into abstract, disconnected paradigms.

Screw armchair revolutionaries! Praxis of GTFO!

No real revolution ever came from reading sessions and lectures in para-academic circles, only more statism , despotism, policing. Deleuze, Adorno, Derrida & Co were never found to fight in the streets, why fighting in their names?

The fact that you choose those three as if they have anything in common shows just how well grounded your anti-intellectualism is.

And go tell Judith Butler and the queer movement that an intellectual never aided in radical reconceptualizations of social values.

That's what the oppressed people of the world demand these days, "radical reconceptualizations of social values," not food or housing, but "radical reconceptualizations of social values." Kewl,

Attacking the Intellectual you lowlife proles? Hummm!? How dare you!

Go back to doing actual real-life struggle in the streets while we busy ourselves between four walls reconceptualizing social values through radical paradigms of the non-existent!

They having everything in common, aside from their paradigms. They coudl all be found rotting somewhere in a faculty, and nowhere to be found in the streets.

Intellectuals are democracy's bitches!

Um Deleuze is probably the only relevant name you dropped and he offed himself, so how's that for praxis?

I actually took this fact into consideration in my charge, but then again a lot of people off themselves everyday for tons of reasons that usually have to do with society and how it screwed them or broke their lives apart.

How's the suicide of yet another French dickhead is any more relevant as a statement towards the oppression of society, than that of any other person?

Furthermore, I'm still fairly convinced that there hasn't been any real, genuine philosopher in Europe since the times before the First World War. Last one was possibly Gurdjieff, and in a minor way Novatore. All post-World War that followed were just recyclers or at best actualizers of past theory. The Frankfurt school being the worst... with the longest string of posers and hacks, who did nothing else than reformulating Oriental philosophy and sell it as their own brand, with a language that can be understood only in academic circles. Elitists suck ass, period.

Gurdjieff, for real? In the past 70 years of theory this aphorism peddling self-help guru is who you wanna showcase? You trollin'?

The claim about the Frankfurt school reformulating Eastern philosophy in arcane language could use some backing up too. Revealing the contradictions and horrors of Western civ/thought =/= a hollow rearticulation of its not-so-counterpart. Anyway, Deleuze and Foucault spent their lives theorizing about power and its historical transformations. Sounds relevant to anarchiez. I'm all for continuing their project in more accessible language - the elitism and solipsism they fall into is a problem.

The suicide thing was a joke. But really, it's better praxis than just trolling online and being dutiful hostage to hegemony offline.

Furthermore, anarchism and anarchy are NOT the Left.

Read a history book, primmie.

Didn't you mean to say "Read a history book, person who advocates Anarchy"

"And if you bio-Indians don’t accept us trans-Indians, then you are just as genocidal and oppressive as the Europeans."


as an actual Native American descendant from my grandmother's side, this disgusts me. it's like reverse racism. i do alot of antifascist work and the fascists in amerikkka listen to alot of hip hop, not to mention they have rallies around "reverse-racism". rather sickening.

p.s. though I have Native American blood I have never built a teepee or owned any books to read about them.

uh what?

Lierre Keith was pointing out the sheer disgustingness of the idea of "trans-Indianness" on the way to reaching her own disgusting conclusion about the legitimacy of the struggles of trans people in general and trans women in particular. Your grievances are legit, but Keith was not herself expressing support for the ideas you find offensive.

I'm no expert on safer spaces but this letter glossed over the fact that DGR is completely full of shit too.
Unless you consider posturing as the vanguard of an imaginary militant movement to be a valid use of time?

Definitely an important point.

Fuck DGR, but fuck your reasons for not hosting them so much more.

no, fuck you for expecting them to lend their house and their attention to diarrhea-preaching assholes. flying brick is a house. probly queers and trans people live and hang out there (i havent been to richmond in a while so im not 100% sure). anyway, i wouldn't want dgr in my house, especially lierre. you wanna tell people what they can and can't do in their own house-- youre santorum, pigfucker.

Did you just cut the "fuck DGR" part of my comment? I wouldn't host or want anyone else to host them or their presentation.

Now, try again.

(diff anon) you didn't give us much to go on, shall we assume generic dismissal of safer spaces?
Something about femi-nazis and disabled trans people needing to cry less about their feelings?

I mean ... unless you wanted to make an actual point

I wish I was surprised at the amount of seriousness and speculation my brief and vague expression was met with... if I had intended to make an "actual point" or to have been taken seriously enough to warrant presumptuous, defensively primed and loaded responses, I would have been more elaborate.

General dismissal of safer-spaces is the fairest presumption yet, though.

When did a vague, internet comment like "fuck this" become so worthy? I wish it was mere curiosity that made it just so interesting that someone said "fuck this," but it's fairly obvious that this subject matter has you (and others) cat-crouched, anxious to pounce with ready-made projections any any statements that might object to your point of view. Your perspective (and those who would favor the reasoning in the article) is not the only perspective compatible or complimentary queer-theory or of how to approach these issues.

All I said was "fuck this." Look at the *several* loaded speculations that followed! The proportional word count and complete thought ratio from my original "fuck this" to that of the responses should be telling, and at least indicative of what might concern me enough to say "fuck this reasoning" in the first place. In addition, the complete disregard for the "fuck DGR" part of my statement is similarly troubling. Unfortunately, it's predictable that it was ignored in favor of pathetically spouting "OH SO THEY SHOULD HAVE LET THEM?!?!?", as if that's not the shallow, easiest route to argue... you all wanted me to be saying that SO BAD that you invented it to argue it. It's really fucking sad.


"expecting them to lend their house and their attention to diarrhea-preaching assholes"

"you wanna tell people what they can and can't do in their own house-- youre santorum, pigfucker"

"I don't understand why safe(r) spaces don't let bigots come over and tell people why they're existence isn't valid. It just doesn't seem fair."

Good job, anarchists! Quite the bastions of clarity being exemplified, here. Without having to have made an original "point," and without intending to be any less vague than I am right now, analyzable insight in to the dynamic source of my original comment presented itself quite sufficiently.

I'm not going to argue, those responding have, at least in this instance, demonstrated their lacking capacity for consideration and rational discourse.

*any any = at any

* compatible WITH or complimentary WITH



Despite that I don't have any interest in telling people what they can and can't do in their house as you need to assure yourself of in order to defensively dismiss my commentary, the "diarrhea" actually WAS attempted to be welcomed in to the house, even with full knowledge of the offending Keith quotes.

""When we responded to DGR, we made it clear that we were willing to host them as a group –... as long as they were willing to discuss these issues"

"You're santorum, pigfucker."

Really? I live for moments of people like you actually feeling as stupid as they sometimes act. Unfortunately, the internet will never provide enough transparency for appropriate determination of this occurring. If you have it in you, let me know if you feel stupid about being shown to have fabricated allegations and obliviously applied only selective information in order to maintain your approach, here. Thanks.

Yeah. I don't understand why safe(r) spaces don't let bigots come over and tell people why they're existence isn't valid. It just doesn't seem fair.

I know, the original poster of this comment should enlighten us more to his truly "anarchist" ways.

I know you shouldn't assume the original poster of this is a he. Asshole.

I know you shouldn't assume a poster of a careless gender assumption is an asshole, asshole.

Did you just cut the "fuck DGR" part of my comment? I wouldn't host or want anyone else to host them or their presentation.

Now, try again.

Maybe it was the fact that you implied being transphobic isn't sufficient reason to bar someone.

Maybe your superficial interpretation is derived from the same reactionary bias the prompted my original comment.

maybe you're purposely being cryptic so you can yell at people for not understanding you

I elaborated above. The comment you just responded may be the condensed version of the aforementioned elaboration, but no, I am not being cryptic, nor yelling about being "misunderstood."

I specifically said "fuck DGR," and it was selectively ignored. My original comment was not detailed, but to react to the fact that *one* of the *two* sentiments in it were unaccounted for in several responses to it *is not* the cryptic baiting you insinuate.

The irony... Forgive my accusation of "superficiality" requiring more involved consideration for identification of the intended implications.

After they said "I'm not going to argue" someone's a goddamn troll

I meant about the analytic specifics for/against the "barring" and/or the implications of Keith's offending quotes... Also, by "argue," I more meant "be persuasive with expectations of mutual consideration of points and ideas."

Not trolling... but maybe u r teh twoll

In all your blather and defensiveness, you never did actually explain why "fuck your reasons for not hosting them so much more."

You're either a troll or an idiot.

Explanation of such was NOT MY INTENTION.

Perhaps our communicative impasse here is definition of "troll?" I typically take it to imply that the content being presented is not actually meant by the person posting, and is for the *sole* purpose of bringing out *any* emotional/absurd reactionary response.

I meant all of what I've said, but there are aspects that are baiting for purposes of illuminating verification OF the source for my original statement (such as absence of clarification of the original provocative "fuck this/that" statement which predictably garnered reactionary irrationality... irrationality that I find in common with the article).

since you're actually either a troll or an idiot, and you happened to actually imply interest (after so much absurd spouting of accusatory fabrications):

They wanted them to speak (first mistake), they reconsidered upon the offending Keith quotes, but then bargained time to speak on THOSE issues instead (thus shifting an UNRELATED topical discussion about resistance that they WERE INTERESTED IN to the topic they assert they AREN'T INTERESTED IN EVEN ASSOCIATING WITH). DGR even comments back on the original website and states that there are ways of addressing those issues with the communities they're visiting that are valuable (such as a post-presentation discussion), but that their demands were not of that sort. Also, a presentation, an entire organization, and presenters that aren't even the originators of the offending comments are being "held accountable" for not just one separate individual, but that one separate individual's brief, dated comments on one unrelated topic. Not only is that not representative of an anarchist approach to individual responsibility, but that type of blanketing is impossible to apply any way but arbitrarily. Like holding your entire body aggressively accountable for the soreness of a sliver in your toe. Do they do a background check on every presenter of specific topics at their space to ensure that they don't disagree with something ELSE that they've said in order to green-light a presentation?

Eh, that's as elaborate as I feel like being right now. Someone also mentioned "generic dismissal of safer spaces," and other than meaning "general" instead of "generic," a similar sentiment would eventually be applied in further elaboration... so fill in the blanks on that one.

AND JUST IN CASE, SINCE ALMOST THE ENTIRE BODY OF RESPONSES TO ME FALLACIOUSLY AND IGNORANTLY PRESUMED OTHERWISE: This is not, in any way, advocating for the notion that they, or anyone should have hosted their presentation. The only part of DGR worthy of attention is the "cascading systems failure" tactical approach they outline and suggest... and you can watch that shit on youtube.

"Fuck DGR, but fuck their reasons for not hosting them even more." worked just fine for me.

Would like to add: if there was such a thing as "the real fight," then DGR would be correct in their assertion. The reasoning exhibited by these kids is poor; even DGR aren't idiots ABOUT what they're crappy and wrong about. I'd unarguably get more from discussion with DGR (no matter how adverse I am to their approach, program & leadership) than anything represented by the responses from these "safer space" infoshoppers.

Nope, I actually meant "generic" (you pompous ass)

Because I've been involved with "safer space" conflicts enough to find most of the arguments against them to be tediously generic (although not always completely invalid). That's the way I sees it anyway.

Also, I can't believe how much typing you did here to rationalize why you won't float an actual argument.
Could have explained yourself three times over with the same amount of energy but whatever, not like I care.
It's just funny.

" I can't believe how much typing you did here to rationalize why you won't float an actual argument"

Another predictably (or maybe I mean "generic", haha yeah) shallow interpretation. The greater body of that comment WAS "floating" my actual argument, and has the greatest length of any other comment I've made... Your "energy expenditure" analysis is similarly remedial... do you have some device for accurate measurement you'd like to share with the class, orrrrrr...

What would tiresome for my "energy" is ending this post with a prompt for follow up discussion with you, because your interpretive abilities (as far as this exchange has indicated) are exhaustively banal.

Despite my disagreement with your assessment of the situation, even granting your analysis some validity leaves you incorrect, because it actually *wasn't* enough for them to outright bar them, as stated in the article:

""When we responded to DGR, we made it clear that we were willing to host them as a group –... as long as they were willing to discuss these issues"

Fuck, fucking read, fucking dammit, christ.

Safe(r) space? "Safe"? You afraid for your safety from LIERRE KEITH, the physically disabled person who was pied during a presentation she was doing?

Fucking come on. I don't exactly appreciate the more conclusion-based aspects of that famed "anti-trans" quotation, but it definitely is an *unfair* stretch to refer to that delineation as an attempt at "invalidating their EXISTENCE." There are *accurate* things you could attack that quote for, you need exaggerated fabrications.

*don't need

Also, dick, they DID say they'd let them come in and say just that, if they wanted.

"When we responded to DGR, we made it clear that we were willing to host them as a group –... as long as they were willing to discuss these issues"

Umm...so, the transgender thing is the only reason you didn't let DGR to speak at your premises?



Wait. Lierre is one person. Two, appearance-wise, Lierre is prolly the most transgender of all. Three, if all identities are performative, then recognize that. If you do, then it should be noted that maybees modification to meet civilization's expectations of gender isn't all that cool. This is more important because they vary from culture to culture. You can only define your gender per American standards. If identity isn't performative, then you can't actually speak against anyone.


Gender is different everywhere. Even defining what trans is is pretty racist colonialism.

what do you mean by "defining what trans is"?

does that mean answering the question "what does it mean to be transgender?" with a positivity?

gender isn't only different in different places, it's different from person to person. that's the point. gender is something that everyone should define for themselves. it's not lierre's place to tell someone what gender they are, regardless of gender's status as a social construct. gender isn't like race or class because there are many more factors determining what one's race or class is (family history, for example) that don't apply to gender. this doesn't necessarily mean that gender isn't a construct that should be undermined (and few things undermine it more than the trans identity itself, anyway) it just means that it's not anyone's place to define for others how they engage with it.

You're right, but few people truly do define their gender individually. The fact is most people whether cis or trans are implicitly accepting and reinforcing a normative gender system that needs to be completely thrown away before we can know our true genders.

This is a topic that I would hope could be open for discussion among anarchists and in anarchist places.

Of course, DGR said that they would not be willing to discuss that at all if they came to The Flying Brick. To me and also apparently the people at Flying Brick, it's this unwillingness to even discuss certain issues that's the real problem with DGR more than Lierre's statements themselves.

tell me more about these "true genders"

i know right? as if anyone has a "gender" outside of socialization. my deal isn't that dgr won't talk about their transmisogyny, it's that they have transmisogyny to discuss. i don't feel any obligation to create more space for people to be idiots in.

Okay. True gender is a part of your larger true identity. True identity is who you really are or would be if systems of oppression and normative socialization--including normative concepts of "transgender"--didn't squash the development of your innate spirit.

Dominant theories of psychology tell us that our personalities can never develop outside of social programming, but we all know better than that. There is a true me that exists inside the shell of enculturation and that is the me that shines through in my best moments.

What is true, though, is that we will never actually be able to get rid of all social programming since humans will always be part of society, but if we can at least be aware of its full range of influences we can maximize the expression of our true identities--be more unique, beautiful, and authentic people.

i dunno man. pretty sure this whole "true identity" thing is more or less bullshit. what makes you think this is real? on what are you basing this? human beings have always had some kind of constructed identity of who they are, back to tribal societies. the point is *if* and *how* they are imposed. are you saying that a "true identity" is one that isn't imposed at all? if that's the case, then it's entirely self-defined, and for all you know, being trans IS someone's "true identity."

this whole mystical "true identity" thing just sounds a bit too religious for my tastes, a bit too certain in some kind of "one true way" to exist. is it possible that you're deluding yourself?

and everything is meaningless why care about revolution at all or people being nice or not being transphobic or whatever? You have to believe in some sort of innate human potential, how you choose to refer to it is your business but there has to be something there.

and a super fuck you to dgr but at least their project has some root in an entire cosmology, not just this weird individualist atomized "everyone can be whatever they want regardless of their relationship to anything" thing some people have seemed to pick up.

-not op

i dunno, the way i see it, the reason to care about revolution or people being nice or not being transphobic is because i *don't* believe in some sort of innate human potential. i choose to care about these things, because i like my life better when i care about these things. but there's an extremely large amount of people who simply disagree. there will always be an extremely large amount of people who disagree, and it's not because they're not living up to some "innate human potential."

and i always thought "everyone can be whomever they want depending on their relationship to whatever"

I guess this idea sounds "religious" to you because it's non-discursive. And because of that you want to throw it away.

Do you really think that only knowledge obtained through reason is real? That everything else is religion and delusion?

What a narrow mind you have. Reason and logic have their place, but there's so much about the world and ourselves that they will never be able to help us umderstand. You need to open yourself up to other ways of knowing. That means religion, yes, but also aesthetics, emotions, morality, intuition. These are all different ways of knowing things, each with a domain as full and deep as reason's.

Until you have developed each of these faculties to the point where they're at least as strong and reliable as your ability to reason, your understanding of humanity, society and the world, of our probelms and their solutions, will all be worthless.

what? who are you arguing with? who said anything about reason? who said anything about one way of knowing? how is saying that someone doesn't think there is an innate sense of humanity common to everyone in the species rejecting aesthetics, emotions, morality, and intuition? what are you talking about? you might be reading things into some of the above comments that aren't intended to be there...

Well, I dont know, I did put my post under the wrong message. Maybe you're actually not the anon I was talking to.

I meant to reply to the post above that said the idea of true identity sounded religious. Confusing religion with other forms of non-discursive thinking is common in people who haven't developed those other forms of thinking. Plus, questions like "what makes you think this is real" and "what are you basing this on" seek a rational, discursive, empirical answer to a concept which is clearly outside the domain of that kind of thinking.

ok. i'm not sure why that's the case though...someone asking "what are you basing this on" could easily be inviting the answer "my intuition, my aesthetics, my gut.." why does it need to be part of a "rational, discursive, empirical" world view necessarily? how is it that someone saying that they don't believe in a "true identity" is all of a sudden insisting on a particular world view? isn't saying that there isn't one particular overarching commonality amongst all members of a given species kind of opening things up a bit more than the concept of a "true identity" does?

Lierre Keith is a confused petit-bourgeois piece of shit. Derrick Jensen's a rat goof who made a career out of selling ALF/ELF actions in books, only to turn around and seek support from the very institution that entraps those brave freedom fighters that Jensens privileged goofy ass can only write about.
None of the quotes from Keith are at all surprising; I already understood her to be a fool after she came out with that ridiculous vegetarian myth book. Nevertheless, it is disgusting and I do see an ever more pervasive presence of white middle class petit-bourgeois attitudes within the writings of the anti-civ authorship.

Good for y'all for not hosting these racist, mysoginist fools.

racism is demanding that everyone agree to Western definitions of gender. Just because you agree with white power's definition of male/female and attach modifiers like trans or cis to it doesn't mean everyone is going to buy into it. How about abolishing gender altogether...? Because you couldn't feel special if you did. How could you be an ally or trans yourself if you decided that Western definitions of gender were bullshit?

Abolish gender?? How about all of the intrinsic privilege that comes with being read as male? Are you saying that gender is an illusion, and you as a male are actually as likely as me to experience discrimination and sexual assault?? Please, give us your five point plan for abolishing gender, I'm very interested. This is the most nonsense, privileged, unaware comment ever. Seriously.

1. Never assume gender. You fucking patriarchal and transphobic piece of shit!

2. Don't buy into gender. How about that? Republicans have privilege, too! Should everyone become a Republican?

3. Actively destroy all institutions that push gender-specific *anything*

4. Destroy capitalism.

5. Destroy civilization, you know, that root of the very problem of gender?

1.) never assume any gender. if you refer to arnold schwarzeneggar as a "he" without asking them personally you are a sexual predator.
2.) don't buy into gender. or clothes. clothes are the tools the patriarchy uses to divide us. never wear clothes. unless you're bio-male, then you should not take your clothes off under any circumstance. even your socks. this is a safe space for chrissakes
3.) the best way to personally attack institutions that push gender binaries is to destroy every single building that has seperate bathrooms. start with the library. all bathrooms should be gender neutral or end in fire. everyone should be able to use every bathroom. unless you're bio-male. then you should not use the bathroom. this is a safe space for chrissakes.
4.) ok I can't really make fun of this one
5.)yes there was no gender before civilization. ever. yup. I swear

Well gender is a social construct so it is tricky but I imagine it will be abolished the same way all social institutions will be. In a long, violent process of egalitarian social reorganization. I imaging that abolishing class would be a good push in that direction.
But then that's only one point...

Gender seems like an institution that lends itself to explosion. I'm hoping for thousands of gender fragments.

you realize your comment doesn't really make sense in the context of the on youre responding to, right?

Irrational thinking comes from people with irrational ideas??? No way!!!

DGR came to Atlanta and they were thoroughly trolled.

On this tour these kids are giving the soft sell. They speak vaguely against "technology" and bringing down "civilization". Most people that were not already familiar with Jensen Thought seem to imagine a post civ world being an agrarian hippy commune.

In ATL the DGR kids were pressed to name the carrying capacity of the earth. They pointedly wouldn't. They became extremely uncomfortable on this point.

In Asheville the transphobia of Keith was raised during DGRs presentation and they completely deflected the question by saying that they don't believe in gender so being trans doesn't matter. No shit gender needs to be abolished, but that doesn't mean you're not accountable for your LEADER (eww) being fucked up about it.

Its like 60's militant men saying that they'd deal with their sexism after the revolution.
And that's only one reason no one but the Jensen Cult and the FBI care about DGR.

Who thinks that there is one defining carrying capacity that could be pinpointed?

Primitivists. A mass die-off is part of their ideology I think.
I'm anti-civ, however I believe that human ingenuity can go a long way toward sustaining human populations once that ingenuity is redirected from the motives of profit and control. The forgotten dreams of permaculture hint at that. But who knows?

does anti-civ mean anything if it doesnt mean against domestication

you think... Maybe try a different pursuit

Oh "pilot." you jackass.

Thank you for your post and attention-whoring. Your institution shall receive appropriate capital for your advertisement.

there's still primitivists in 2012? really??

There's still syndicalists, platformists, and mutualists too. Every time we make a step forward with the theory, there's still a section of the anarchist demographic that sticks with the last progression made; all the while no real advancement in terms of sheer numbers of anarchism as a whole ever occurs. Because of this, as we create "the next big thing" every decade or so, those at the forefront of anarchist theory become a smaller and smaller population, until at some point all new anarchist thought is made by one person who never leaves their home, writing volumes of theory that nobody understands, nor even wants to. Or more accurately, wants to put the effort to. They will post all of it on @news anyway, in a futile effort to get everyone to stop thinking of things in doer-deed oriented paradigms.

who the fuck is we?

and fuck your "progress of theory" bullshit

"we" being anarchists

and I guess if you don't believe in progress of theory, you should be just as antisemitic as Proudhon was

no, thats your own shit, im saying theres no linearity of development of ideas. so i can just say "im an anarchist" and also "proudhon was an anarcho-liberal" and not contradict myself. do you think i only know what freedom is because some european had a poor idea about it 300 years ago and some people referenced him since then?

No, and that was almost exactly my point. What is believed today reflects, generally, the realities of the conditions of today, but is built upon the ideas of yesterday. Though really it was just a fucking joke and not some attempt at insight, so the only reason I can think of you being trolled this bad is if you're a syndicalist or a primitivist who can't read between the lines.

i'm glad you can cover your ass by playing it out as a joke. and, youre still wrong. there's no such thing as "the ideas of yesterday" in any coherent sense.

that's possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read

A++++ thanks for the laffs

LOL... so true. Emile is caught pants down, the landless emperor has no clothes.

"X in a Y's body" statements strike me as pretty cis-centeric and one dimensional. Just sayin'.


Well ... some kind of enforcement anyway.
I'm leaning towards sexy anarchists in ski-masks that laugh while bigots bleed and die.

Who's with me?! ... anyone?

True... hence why I prefer to stay away from these "safe spaces". They aren't very open to non-political proles and crusties like me as well.

Only safety that's okay with me is the one that keeps cops, snitches and nazis out. Other than that, individuals must stand up for themselves and others, that's the rule of freedom. Countercultural forms like trans/queer aren't impervious to internalized social oppression.

Derrick Jensen 2012 !!

Jensen-Paul 2012!

The Deception!

Similar concerns here in Madison, Wisconsin. Thanks, Flying Brick, for sharing. It's also helpful to read comments from other rad spaces around the U.S.



I've been sending you emails and you haven't responded. I want to take down the system, but also rely on the police and FBI to help us out.

Derrick "The Raccoon Sweater" Jensen
Lierre "I am woman, hear me roar about transwomen" Keith
Deep Green Resistance- Ben Barker Chapter (Kid Cutbank Terror Crew)
Deep Green Resistance Headquarters (Lierre Keith and Derrick Jensen's Cayman Islands condo)

A fuckity fuck fuck mutha fuckas.
For real?
An organization felt that on their moral grounds they didn't want to support an organizations message. These are choices people make. Get over it, all this petty arguing is really helping your 'cause' ... go protest something, like you own incompetence

I'm glad that the vast majority of trolls here can come together on at least the stupidity of dgr.

Also, one of them said that "destroying civilization will destroy gender," someone please call them out on that ridiculousness.

What makes Jensen and Keith special? Because they're now founders of their own sect(tm). Like so many others in the long history of middle-class "radical intellectuals", they've decided they're too good for other ideologies and set out to construct their own branded following. That way they can escape all the "baggage" that contrasting ideas and historical traditions like anarchism involve, and create a "movement" modelled entirely around their own pet peeves about activist culture. It's like the Disney version of Ted Kaczynski.

The fact that some of it bears a little resemblance to actual anarcho-primitivist writers (Zerzan, etc) really doesn't impress me. They're not anarchists. They've shown clearly enough that they don't care for all the "difficult" parts like solidarity.

Moral of the story: if you don't like vegetarians and trans-folks, you probably wouldn't like our bookstores.

Riots not paleo-diets!

Hey, leave the paleo diet out of this. I've been on it for about 2 months and I feel awesome.

If there's one thing I can be mad at L.K. for (and trust me, there are probably DOZENS), it's for truly fucking up what could have been a strong critique of veganism with her terrible, terrible book.

I thought DGR was like anarcho-capitalists - only existed on the internet.

yeah that is a website.....kinda disproves your point that they don't "only exist on the internet". any news articles or like pictures of large actions they've done? the main thing they've done so far is just piss of a bunch of @s.

They've done quite a few liberal lefties too, I think. I mean doing them somewhere under the pants.

No, not anarcho-capitalists. They are only a cult of lefties.

"Try this on. I am a rich person stuck in a poor person’s body. I’ve always enjoyed champagne rather than beer, and always knew I belonged in first class not economy, and it just feels right when people wait on me. My insurance company should give me a million dollars to cure my Economic Dysphoria."

Keith really wrote this? Oh shit... this made my day! Rich, white privileged pricks bent on maintaining their privileges through leading a cult and collecting "donations" from disciples.

Great thing that you blocked those shills from going any further, and deeper in the anarchist milieu!

There's been a split within DGR recently over the issues of trans-inclusivity and the black bloc stuff Derrick and Chris Hedges have been saying. This split lead to a whole bunch of people who disagreed being purged from the organization by Derrick and Lierre. I don't know to what extent it's still ongoing, but the big schism happened in the spring.

Do you have any proof of this or is it just word of mouth? Not that it's unbelievable (I'm sure it's true), I'd just like evidence before I start running my mouth....

So now there's gonna be a sub-cult of Hedgeists? Oh damn... leftists are insane.

Economic Dysphoria sounds like the seed for some class war.

i think you made the correct decscion in not letteing them speak. anyone group not willing to have a conversation about their ideas and only wants to preach to an audiance to me seems alot like a cult. thats before i even start a rant about the other issues here. love to all, fuck the haters. A

Gender is not a social construct, it is a spatial expression defined by various movements of novelty and habit within human existence, it comes from morphogenetic resonances that go back to the canopies and the hunting planes respectively. Social constructivism in general is one of those bad 1968 based ideas that comes from other bad ideas like historicism and others like it where it is believed that humans can be internally programmable in a controlled or intentioned manner. There is no notionally operating social body. I don't particularly want to go back to the epoch of crude realism and essentialism, but a new theoretical framework is needed for these kinds of discussion.

Who's to say what these relations will be like in the future, but the language will be defined by spatial terrains. Also identity like reputation is not something you own, it is not something to be applied to individuation(the indescribable naked ape), it belongs to the they more then it belongs to you, it's language that is agreed upon over long habitual uses, YOU don't have a say in these things. The idea of fluctuating identities is in all likelihood a reflection of the latter 20th century service sector economies and all the multifarious commodities that it offers.

Also the laci green affair on youtube makes me think that transphobia like many leftist things steeped in resentment and weakness is another one of those terms prone to abuse.


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.