when i say that if you are violent then you become like the perpetrator,i mean for example,if someone abuses an animal and then you beat up that person,then YOU DO become like that person and that is not dumb.
@navidsonpuzzle One, they are redundant statements (= same thing), and Two, they are opposing, yet simultaneously (= same time), creating duality. I believe. I realized it the second time through, this time.
I remember something one of my teachers once told me. When you are attacked, if all you do is defend then you will loose. If you spend 100% of your energy defending, your attacker can spend 100% of their energy attacking. If you do nothing to stop their aggression, then they will simply keep attacking you. You have to make them want to no longer continue the fight. That is what Self Defense truly is, fighting back to stop the others aggression.
Violence lowers the consciousness and attracts more violence. The only way out is love. Love your enemy. Love yourself. The outer world is only a reflection of the inner drama everybody is going through. Peace comes from within.
I dunno... the person that turns to violence becomes violent. Haven't there been others among us throughout history that made war in our minds rather than our streets?
I love utopians. Sure, violence creates change. But, does it solve anything? If so, does it solve anything permanently? Is violence the true nature of mankind? If so, that kind of suggests the cycle can be never ending. It also suggests that war is paradise. If that isn't a bit Orwellian, I don't know what is.
When does the fighting end, Derrick? Ever? How do we know when enough is enough? What is your goal line? Or,do you leave that nebulous like other Messiahs?
@bobjfs Don't quote Orwell in your rationalization of why YOU won't fight. George Orwell fought on the side of the Anarchist army in the Spanish Civil War. He took it for granted that one had to take up arms. Derrick Jensen names very specific goals in this talk, so he's defined where it end.
@truthtopower Strange. Did I quote Orwell? No. I suggested your line of argument, that War is Peace essentially, is Orwellian.
Did the Spanish Civil War settle anything? No. It was the blood-stained proving ground for Hitler's weapons, just as Lend Lease was the same for American weapons prior to the US entering WWII.
Did the Spanish Civil War kill socialism in Spain and prevent socialists from holding power again? No!
Now, answer my questions rather than obfuscate. Maybe you have none?
Well, the way I learned it while getting my political science B.A., anarchism and socialism are two different things. Anarchism is the belief there should be no government. I realize that is an oversimplification. There are different degrees (anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-capitalism, et al). Socialism is the belief people should come together as government to provide some or all goods and services, and to administer commonly made laws and a social contract.
@bobjfs Interesting. I don't have a B.A. in anything but I'll bet you 2 paypal'd dollars that your definitions are wrong. Anarchism translates to "without rulers". Government is a form of social organization, a horizontal classless government would be anarchist government. Socialism is critical to historical anarchism and it means worker owned means of production. What you're describing as socialism is social democracy and a welfare state. Anarcho-capitalism isn't an accepted in anarchism.
@thenoorys You believe what you believe. No amount of argument will change that. For people, reality is perception filtered through belief. And I'm glad you decided what is and is not part of the Anarchist taxonomy. It's helpful to people who haven't actually DONE THE WORK. I have. It falls on my deaf ears.
" Where there's injustice, I always believed in fighting. The question is, do you fight to change things or to punish? " -- Gandhi (1982)
" I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour. " -- Mahatma M. K. Gandhi (1869-1948). I agree 100%, with DJ & G. Namasté !!
My first reaction while listening to this : Sounds like same rationale as the 9/11 bombers . I will listen further to what this person has to say to see if I am understanding and whether he can change my mind.
The golden rule & universal love might give one pause to reflect if pacifism make be the better course to respond to a wrong, but neither require that pacifism be put into play.
cont'd: 'depraved' I think means 'can't change'...'eternally damned'..'animalistic' and so on. perhaps, yes people can be conditioned to become animalistic, just as Michael Jackson can condition himself to do the robot and the moonwalk. But I don't think this means Hitler couldn't have changed and done the moonwalk too, if he was given a chance...
con'd #2: or the belief that there will always be wars! the words 'always', 'absolutely', 'forever' and so on applied to human beings seem absurd dogmas. I mean, I sometimes don't even know my partner! How do these prophets know so much about people ahead of getting to know them? Even if they did get to know them, isn't the assumption that some people are 'inferior' simply a belief, not borne out by the facts of learning and education? Thus, the idea that some people like Hitler are depraved
another interesting thought. 1) why is it when Monbiot and others who support the nuclear industry in the wake of the Fukushima disaster always say the alternative of coal would be worse? I mean, why do they decide that the listener is so stupid as to think that COAL is the alternative to nuclear!! That there are no other options, non-polluting green ones for example. 2) This assumption that there will always be waste, seems much like the conservative belief that there will always be the poor.
hi falkajamine, 2 points: 1) at what point does a baby become a Hitler? 2) at what point do you decide that baby becomes a Hitler? and further 3) at what point does a baby become compassionate? (singing hymns could be part of it...) 4) at what point do you decide? These questions are important because if you can't perceive when a person changes, you are dealing with opinions and labels, not knowledge. Asians, via spiritual praxes learn to become more sensitive, compassionate, perceptive..
"there is no enemy..." ~ where did this idea come from? when did it begin? i just laugh at "dogmatic pacifists" who are as adamant (in a nice way of course) in refusal to think beyond their assumptions as the most fundamentalist religious people...
We are all brothers and sisters here. I will not kill my brother, even if he misbehaves. If hes out of his mind and mad, I might give him a slap into face and say "come to your senses". But I will not become mad with him. Because then we would both be mad. And what good is that?
not sure if you're contradicting yourself here... violence is not ineffective.. violence is obviously effective but in all the wrong ways.. if you don't want to sow the seeds of future violence, then don't get involved in it in the first place. that's the Buddha's teaching.. no one I know says violence per se is ineffective in meeting short-term goals (often labeled self-interests). the question is whether violence can ever end if it is justified as a legitimate means to the goal of peace.
@sexdrugsRnR interesting.. 'the problems that present themselves'... i wonder what you mean by this. surely, you mean the problems as they are presented to us in the corporate media. sadly, i don't think their problems are mine or yours. their problem is to stall for as long as possible, to pretend that climate change isn't happening and that capitalism isn't to blame for the world's ills in large part. what we need is something like what Skolimowski, Bucky Fuller and Krishnamurti advocated..
@sexdrugsRnR that is to say, what we need is a kinder world. not a violent or vengeful one. if the planet is now in self-destruct mode due to the actions of a few powerful corporations, then perhaps the wise thing to do is a) to speak to them directly as to how they can transform their actions specifically towards sustainability long-term and b) be ready for the self-destruct when it comes with a calm and undisturbed mind, just the sort of mind we need when we wish to die peacefully..
@sexdrugsRnR turns out option b) isn't all that different to option a) since 'dying to oneself' means realizing the interconnectivity of the planet, capitalism, violence and self-destruct modes of living as products of our own desire to perpetuate desire. Hobbes, if you recall, also thought modern sovereignty, or the desire for power, was based on its promise to perpetually secure the objects of all other desires. i.e. modern sovereign power is like Genghis Khan's exploitative mode of life..
@sexdrugsRnR not being exploitative means being frugal, and taking pleasure in simple things. this mode of apprehending the world is averse to complex scheming, war and violence. if we worship simple organic food made in our garden, the sun, the sea, friendship and sleep, where is the time to exploit? Where is the time for anger and hate when we would rather live and love? Perhaps, mine is a doctrine of natural self-help, especially apt post-Fukushima when in a year's time, our food will be
@kingofaikido no, i do not mean the problems presented by corporate media. il take a look at those people you just mentioned. i agree with you, but you are pointing to something which is a long term solution, and i think it is necessary in order not to repeat the same mistakes, but the problems we face are much more immediate and that is why 'we' shouldnt take violence off the table. it all depends on context. not everyone can transform their anger and hate into 'love' so might as well vent it.
@sexdrugsRnR OK, so it's difficult to love is it? yeah, but the very people we love to hate have exactly the same problem. why else would we have such a loveless, careless, destroyed world? if we had affection, it would be impossible to pollute, to be unethical, to be callous and crude.. if you read George Lakoff's 'think of an elephant' or even better his book 'Moral Politics', you'll see that the people who believe in violence tend to be conservative and/ or libertarian anarchist...
@sexdrugsRnR Lakoff's point I think is that if you look at the language used by libertarians and conservatives, you'll find they both endorse hierarchical worldviews of humanity, believe in and have had authoritarian upbringings, implicitly believe in leaders and the use of violence because it was used on them as a form of punishment as they grew up. in other words, there are some people for whom violence is the first port of call rather than the last resort. conflict resolution is not ...
@sexdrugsRnR .. in their vocab. this is a tragedy, not to mention how this tragedy amplifies others when it's applied in different real world settings. a tragedy because, as Lakoff points out in Moral Politics (last chapter), in the last 100 yrs, studies in child development have shown, there are so many better ways of child rearing than the idea of punishment. punishment has been shown to be counter-productive to creating healthy and happy, responsible democratic citizens. those who tend to
@sexdrugsRnR cause all the problems, whether it's delinquency, violent assaults, bullying etc tend to come from people reared on the idea of punishment. sadly, without correcting for this primitive method of child control, we will continue to hand down the same attitude to the next generation. this is why I am also, with Lakoff, against your idea of 'letting off steam' or 'venting' anger. Transforming anger is actually one of the easiest things to do, if you know how...
@sexdrugsRnR if you're interested in transforming anger, i would really recommend the film 'doing time, doing vipassana' and, if you get a chance, Goenka's vipassana courses are really worth checking out.
not sure if you're contradicting yourself here... violence is not ineffective.. violence is obviously effective but in all the wrong ways.. if you don't want to sow the seeds of future violence, then don't get involved in it in the first place. that's the Buddha's teaching.. no one I know says violence per se is ineffective in meeting short-term goals (often labeled self-interests). the question is whether violence can ever end if it is justified as a legitimate means to the goal of peace
so if everyone long ago would have just joined hands and started singing hymns then, Hitler would have just simply woken up one day and said "hey i'm going to stop slaughtering everything in sight" sometimes force must be used. and it's usually to counter a force that is acting wrongly. just MO
Thats an interesting perspective. I cannot think of the a time in my life when an animal was about to eat me , but, I get your drift. Abinivesha is the Sanskrit word for Fear of Death. When our life is threatened, we instinctively trigger this. It is the reflexive run to safety or turn to defend. Violence, on the other hand, begins with a thought. That thought of anger is generally triggered by fear. Gandhi's method was to intercept the Fear/Anger trigger, and replace anger with compassion.
Cont.>> When we interrupt the auto trigger into anger, the dynamic shifts and compassion leaves anger hanging in the wind. The greatest martial artists understand that to defeat your enemy, you must have compassion. When you understand his heart, he is easier to defeat. When it comes to survival, one does what one must to find safety. Anger and violence are not sustainable strategies for enduring success. Fear is a useful emotion. It tells us there is danger. Anger is just fear misunderstood
@pavanatanaya Anger is a source of strength as well. It allows us to overcome fear in an emergency situation. Not sure if you you have been subjected to violence, but those who had to fight for their life before may know what I am talking about. Fear can paralyze you or weaken your resolve. Anger has the opposite effect. I have to admit that I can not find it in my heart to feel compassion for someone who harms or murders others for his own amusement or greed.
@pavanatanaya (cont.) I disagree with your statement that anger is always the result of fear. There is anger over injustice, for example...I think this may be one of the most powerful forms of anger. Compassion on the other hand, as great a virtue as it may be, is not the remedy to all ails. One who seeks to harm you and your loved ones will always try to bring conflict and pain to you, no matter how much you pity him or how far you run. Better to destroy him first and keep those you guard save.
@peri2502 'One who seeks to harm you and your loved ones will always try to bring conflict and pain to you, no matter how much you pity him or how far you run.'
Compassion is not cowardice nor is it pity.
'Better to destroy him first and keep those you guard save.'
When you say this, even internally, you become the monster even if that monster is imagined,that is trying to destroy you
@pavanatanaya Maybe I expressed myself badly. I do not consider compassion related to cowardice, but I do consider pity and extension of compassion. How can you feel compassion if you can not feel pity?
Becoming the monster by whose standards? Survival and ensuring the savety of innocents are not the acts of a monster.
@peri2502 Pity is seeing another as separate. Compassion is seeing another as oneself. That might sound subtle or abstract, but it is a significant distinction. Like saying empathy and sympathy are the same thing.
Survival and ensuring the safety of others can be totally done without anger. Tich Nat Han was exiled from Viet Nam for teaching compassion in the face of aggression. Why would they exile him and not just kill him?. Because aggression is a cowards toolbox.
@pavanatanaya Your take on compassion sounds a bit too metaphysical for me...I can't really relate to it myself, but I guess you make a fair enough point. :)
I look at anger in a differently. I consider myself a fairly nice guy, but if you would punch me in the face I would get angry and probably attack you. Does that make me a coward? I disagree with your view of anger being always connected to fear.
As to why Tich Nat Han wasn't killed, they probably wanted to avoid making him a martyr.
@peri2502 Too metaphysical. Ok let me try again. Compassion is something that is practiced not at individuals but to every living thing. Really more of a strategy.Pity is directed at individuals, usually from a position of perceived superiority.
As to Tich Nat Han, if his practice of deep compassion was a threat to the powers that be,and his death would cause martyrdom, he wins on either account. If he had started an uprising, he would have been killed and his message would have been lost .
@pavanatanaya I don't think it was so much the message of Tich Nat Han that was perceived a threat. Communist governments have always practiced low tolerance towards ideologies that differed from theirs. They are totalitarian in nature. I do argue against a victory of sorts on behalf of Han, however. His message may have endured, but seriously...so what? Nothing had changed. Former enemies putting aside their differences is not a result of compassion, but mutual advantage, if given.
@peri2502 Again, I am trying to come from a place of discussion and not arguing to be 'Right'. If I sound that way,,,Apologies,,, Derrick Jensen is promoting violence. I fundamentally disagree with the use of violence to achieve his desired outcome. Likely, it will draw violence into the issue and then the issue actually becomes violence. My initial posts were about how Jensen pissed on Gandhi for being celibate. It was a digression at best, and slander at its worst.
@pavanatanaya Oh as I said I am not a follower of Jensen. I consider violence a reality of life, but do not promote it as a solution for every problem. Especially in the West, people have a lot of power to influence decision making of Governments and economy, simply by changing habits and by being vocal and demanding on a large scale towards their governments. Sadly, nobody cares enough to go through the inconveniences, but I don't see how blowing things up would change that.
Gandhi observed Ahimsa. He promoted Ahimsa. He was not afraid of death. The fact that Gandhi maintained Chastity through his adult life was a personal tenet called Bramacharya. Jensen saw Gandhi's discipline as evidence of some imagined weakness. Psh!. Mohandas Gandhi was a Man. Derrick Jensen showed his ignorance by Conflating strength of character as weakness. Gandhi was not an advocate for violence. That discipline won him many more victories than losses. His discipline sent the Brits out.
@pavanatanaya I never said that Ghandi was a coward. My point is that rejecting the sword still means that you can die by it. His discipline drove the Brits out, but they were reluctant to commit large scale murder; all more so in the face of global scrunity. But a man like Ghandi would have fared far less well against a character like Stalin or Hitler, and that is for sure.
@peri2502 Got it. That Gandhi would have not fared better against Stalin or Hitler is a point I can see, hypothetically, but, Jensen elevated his rationale of the use of violence by degrading Gandhi's tactic of Ahimsa. As I see it, Derrick Jensen's 'cause' is hardly greater than Gandhi's, yet he promotes the use of violence as a tool toward what? What would be accomplished through violence? Dams would simply be rebuilt. Gandhiji saw the futility in force and brought awareness through Karma Yoga.
@pavanatanaya Well, it is always hard to find right or wrong in matters of spirituallity since they are so subjective, but when you look at Ahimsa in a more practical way, I would go as far as calling it anti-survival. Does killing the one who seeks to murder you put you on the same level? I don't think so. Is it really more enlightened to allow a wild animal to eat you, just because you refuse to fight it off? I doubt it. Violence is part of our life on a mere natural basis...
@pavanatanaya (cont.) Aggression serves a function that is there for a reason. Now, that being said: I do not think that violence should be the first answer to every problem. It has it's place, but it is not always an appropriate means to an end. I do not really share Jensen's convictions, I just support the statement he made in this video.
I may not agree with Ghandi's philosophy, but I do respect him for for his courage, strength of faith and dedication to his cause.
Derrick Jensen will end up dead in a river. A dammed river. Promoting violence will certainly draw violence Derrick. You will lose this Sophomoric battle.
Pissing all over Gandhi's work is positively assinine. Gandhi was Bramacharya Jensen. Did you know that? If so, shame on you for puking on his observation. If you didnt know it and you pissed on him anyway, well then you are just ignorant. What you fail to realize is that Gandhi was not afraid of death. Lay off the bong Derrick. Your view of the world is narrow. Gandhi was an activist. You are a Walrus on the beach. All bluster and little action
Pissing all over Gandhi's work is positively assinine. Gandhi was Bramacharya Jensen. Did you know that? If so, shame on you for puking on his observation. If you didnt know it and you pissed on him anyway, well then you are just ignorant.
This guy sounds like a high school class clown. He is shaming the people who have realized the fact that, "there is no way to peace, peace is the way." We don't need any more entertainer's giving social and ecological criticism. We have enough Glenn Becks.
@zooland12 Always critisim never any answers. When you look out at the world through your computer where do you see peace? The only people who think peace is real are the ones who have enough money to buy it or ignorance to believe in it. Welcome to "generation sit"!
@u5578u The only people who believe peace isn't real are those desensitized by the media to believe violence and war must be a "part of life." We have CHOSEN violence and impetuosity over love and understanding. The choice is ours everyday, and our intellectual incompetence can only settle for choosing the path of least resistance: the fist over the heart. "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." Isaac Asimov
When I read Derrick's stuff or hear him speak it resonates with my heart. I feel relief and kinship knowing there are others who actually want to understand what is happening and seek solutions.
on the personal level violence is toxic. when within a violent system it may be that you are forced to use violence to overcome that system. our 'everyday lives' are not peaceful even though we think we move through our days peacefully. a lot of people had to be exploited of killed RECENTLY (not just the past) so that i could, for example, be sitting at this computer, leaving this comment. i want out. i want to live with honor, and reconnect with my origin, and destiny. also, this is love.
Oh get real Jensen. Animals do NOT organize fukin war,
When was the last time you warred fellah? Are are you the equivalent 'suit' who just pontificates bout it whilst others do your talk.
War is ignorant and I never mention Ghandi or Buddha. I can see it. This doesn't mean to say I would protect my loved one from some random attack but that is totally different.
@zezt It's not totally different, it's just a question of scale. Pattern recognition is a sign of intelligence. Jensen freely admits he's a theorist because it's something he's good at. He's bad with explosives and he's too absentminded to be much of a warrior.
Violence is a tool, utility depends on the user, same with "war".
Pacifism is a fucking privilege. Pacifism is convent for those who have a lot to lose and still want to feel really great about themselves.
It's never been a question of violence, it's a question of self-defense and efficiency. Little do many know, if it wasn't for violence - against property, person, and with weapon in hand, the question of pacifism wouldn't even be relevant.
passionate but stupid: i want to dismantle power and i dont care how i do it: FAIL: if u dont plan; u plan to fail: This isnt pleading for violence but for the right to selfdefense: the stupid part is that he isnt even aware that he is delivering the most passionate speech i have heard in a while favouring selfdefense all the while staying obtuse 2 the longterm effects of violence: Jensen; love u but you faceplanted on this one: peace in constant fear of retaliation*vindication aint worth shit
I totally agree. If someone wants to fight you, you have every right to fight back. But to what degree???? And how do we all agree on what is fair and balanced?
In my opinion, it all starts with encouraging the end of violence. Fight fire with fire and you WILL get burned.
Peace is what's needed to start this change Derrick....PEACE
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
So, this man is a comedian. That's fine and dandy, but pacifism is too serious a subject to talk about in a whimsical fashion such as what Jensen does here. If the choice comes between you dying and killing another nation's children during war, what choice will you make? It is really quite appalling and disturbing how this speaker takes it all too lightly, and even more dark is the fact that people will listen to any speaker out of psychological convenience.
Pacifism means if you see a cruel person and know they are going to be cruel to you, you sit there and accept it.
Intelligent truly loving individuals see this as a farce and not physically sound, rather than trying to fight in order to prevent it from happening again, you allow it.
I equate it to a body with cancer, this earth has beings that are sometimes obviously cancerous, it is our duty to cure this body of the cancer by attempting our best to remove it.
You're not really seeing the whole thing. Pacifism is a way of life, which means having peaceful relations and not being a world bully like America is. It also means having a quiet mind not constantly occupied by thoughts & ambitions. Peace starts by having peace within and then outside of you. You certainly won't have pacifism when people are poorly educated. Also, using cancer as an argument for killing people doesn't quite cut the mustard, even though chemo therapy is brutal in it's effects.
Chemo therapy is a method of killing ALL cells in an area, it's the cell equivalent of an A-Bomb.
If you think A-Bombs on highly human populated areas would NOT help this planet in the long run, I feel you are very misled.
Now, I am NOT suggesting we A-Bomb large human populations, I am suggesting we meticulously attempt to weed out who is acting destructive and sacrifice our life/freedom (suicide/jail possibly) in order to attempt to either convert them or kill them.
They've tried this, and it has failed: the violence has continued. You don't seem to understand that violence begets more violence. You will never stop people with violence. Do you understand anything about resentment and revenge? Violence will breed violence. And, if you attempt to try to find all the guilty people, you sacrifice liberty for security, and we end up totalitarian. The Anakin Skywalker method doesn't work. You just end up taking out innocent people with the killers. Sorry dude.
I don't care if other people fail at this, I know I won't, the principle is 100% scientifically sound:
Someone is violent, I kill them subtly, they can no longer be violent. Simple.
My method is physically sound, yours is some fantasy of "spreading love energy" which somehow magically fixes the world, show me scientific data to support your claims or I won't bother listening.
@wonderwhaz797 it's about intention. The elites who oppress all others do so for greed, economic gain, complete power and control. Sometimes non-violent resistance can be effective, sometimes, it's not. It's not a matter of being violent and destructive...it's a matter of intention...and fighting back for the greater good. The bottom line is it's entirely too layered to be painted in one stroke.
Pacifism means ignoring the fact that humans are and have always been in a constant state of war with themselves and their home. Pacifism is ignorance. Pacifism is strong.
Jensen elaborates in his books that pacifism today is "consumer-oriented". The concept, as I understand him, has been distorted to the point that pacifism pacifies pacifists.
The distortions (particularly abuse of the concept of love by modern cultural standards) renders much of what pacifists do as relatively worthless inactivity which lets Killer Capitalism do what it does worst.
i have been wondering... If pacifism is more of a modern thing, strengthened by technology and posture. It's a tactic that can be useful just as much as any other in the right context.
It seems like derek needs to prove his point by attacking pacifism, but all of of us postulate arguments by drawing a contrast. I think both sides can both be right... not everyone is comfortable with pacifism, some people really are, ... I am, but its cool if you're not, its better if you're who YOU are...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The complete lack of intelligence themhambone displays speaks for itself. Nice display of "internet balls" btw. Now boy, go continue to masturbate in front of your computer. As I said this jensen freak need to wake up and smell the coffee, way to stupid and naive.
Prove it wrong. My mind is open to new ideas but i don't just swallow everything the man--any man, feeds us. Listen to yourself man, do you really not give a shit what the world is like for children?
Here you are again idiot loser upstart 1776, why are the most intelligent speakers always hounded by subhuman pathetic chestbeaters like you. Why don't you crawl back into your cave and hibernate for another 16 years of your life. You have been and shall always remain it seems a complete dunce
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
bs eugenics crap man i do not like how we treat the environment but it is not mother earth it is earth and we should be good land owners sure more hemp as it is wonderful and has many uses but come on I wonder if he is one of the environmentalist who are part of the big oil think tanks part of the cfr all ment to divide us all.
I agree with almost all of what derrick says in his books and stuff... but i gotta say...
Salmon.
Can't he change the record occasionally? I mean sure the plight of the salmon is pretty damn important, but of all the animals... surely there are countless others equally deserving of mention... but no its salmon, salmon salmon.
a possibility; key to much of what derrick communicates about in the most recent books is 'landbase'.. your connection to yours. my connection to mine.
not the grocery store (as i am now trained).. but the actual land that surrounds us, our immediate environment, which in the absence of civilization we would have to have a much more intimate connection to, to sustain us as we sustain it, to have responsibility for what we consume and its survival. a relationship. (cont.)
so,.. all of that in mind, derrick lives in the watershed of the klamath river in northern california...
the lands and waters there need nothing so much as they needs the salmon.
they feed the forest, ostensibly,.. in the absence of dams that prevent them from making their way upstream to spawn.
when allowed to do so, many thousands of Tons of salmon make there way through to the tiniest tributaries and sources, they ARE the health of the forest, the blood of the forest.. in derrick's landbase.
"look up "Orgonite." " I first read about it in metaphysical/occult books, which used wood and metal. I'm extremely open minded, but it seems to be quite worthless.
That is, in no way, shape, or form, "fighting back", even if it works, which is doubtful.
It does nothing to hinder or dismantle the harmful systems operating around us.
It might actually be detrimental(if it works), because people will have less reason to fight.
It is a cowardly cop out if used to replace normal tactics.
we need to fight folks, and there's not a damn thing wrong with defending your own. in fact, if you don't , you are a coward
for those who may actually investigate this before scoffing, look up "Orgonite." this is an effective way to fight back without using violence. anyone can do it, it's easy, and it works
that said, if it does come to violence swing your sword as hard and fast as you can and don't worry about the karma of hacking those who are trying to hack you
when i say that if you are violent then you become like the perpetrator,i mean for example,if someone abuses an animal and then you beat up that person,then YOU DO become like that person and that is not dumb.
funklemonde 1 month ago
Can somebody explain the "dualism = bad "non-dualism = good" symbolic point to me? Thanks!
navidsonpuzzle 2 months ago
@navidsonpuzzle One, they are redundant statements (= same thing), and Two, they are opposing, yet simultaneously (= same time), creating duality. I believe. I realized it the second time through, this time.
Jatspage 1 month ago
@Anthraxsgaming O yeah the old ways, more fighting
PizzaGuy1511 2 months ago
I remember something one of my teachers once told me. When you are attacked, if all you do is defend then you will loose. If you spend 100% of your energy defending, your attacker can spend 100% of their energy attacking. If you do nothing to stop their aggression, then they will simply keep attacking you. You have to make them want to no longer continue the fight. That is what Self Defense truly is, fighting back to stop the others aggression.
SageBlackthorn 2 months ago
Violence lowers the consciousness and attracts more violence. The only way out is love. Love your enemy. Love yourself. The outer world is only a reflection of the inner drama everybody is going through. Peace comes from within.
paulcannibal 2 months ago
I dunno... the person that turns to violence becomes violent. Haven't there been others among us throughout history that made war in our minds rather than our streets?
Method9 5 months ago
I love utopians. Sure, violence creates change. But, does it solve anything? If so, does it solve anything permanently? Is violence the true nature of mankind? If so, that kind of suggests the cycle can be never ending. It also suggests that war is paradise. If that isn't a bit Orwellian, I don't know what is.
When does the fighting end, Derrick? Ever? How do we know when enough is enough? What is your goal line? Or,do you leave that nebulous like other Messiahs?
bobjfs 5 months ago
@bobjfs Don't quote Orwell in your rationalization of why YOU won't fight. George Orwell fought on the side of the Anarchist army in the Spanish Civil War. He took it for granted that one had to take up arms. Derrick Jensen names very specific goals in this talk, so he's defined where it end.
truthtopower 2 months ago
Comment removed
bobjfs 2 months ago
@truthtopower Strange. Did I quote Orwell? No. I suggested your line of argument, that War is Peace essentially, is Orwellian.
Did the Spanish Civil War settle anything? No. It was the blood-stained proving ground for Hitler's weapons, just as Lend Lease was the same for American weapons prior to the US entering WWII.
Did the Spanish Civil War kill socialism in Spain and prevent socialists from holding power again? No!
Now, answer my questions rather than obfuscate. Maybe you have none?
bobjfs 2 months ago
@bobjfs Huh? I'm confused, Anarchist were fighting for socialism, so are saying that the anarchists won? Because the capitalist/fascist won.
thenoorys 1 month ago
@thenoorys
Well, the way I learned it while getting my political science B.A., anarchism and socialism are two different things. Anarchism is the belief there should be no government. I realize that is an oversimplification. There are different degrees (anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-capitalism, et al). Socialism is the belief people should come together as government to provide some or all goods and services, and to administer commonly made laws and a social contract.
bobjfs 1 month ago
@bobjfs Interesting. I don't have a B.A. in anything but I'll bet you 2 paypal'd dollars that your definitions are wrong. Anarchism translates to "without rulers". Government is a form of social organization, a horizontal classless government would be anarchist government. Socialism is critical to historical anarchism and it means worker owned means of production. What you're describing as socialism is social democracy and a welfare state. Anarcho-capitalism isn't an accepted in anarchism.
thenoorys 1 month ago
@thenoorys You believe what you believe. No amount of argument will change that. For people, reality is perception filtered through belief. And I'm glad you decided what is and is not part of the Anarchist taxonomy. It's helpful to people who haven't actually DONE THE WORK. I have. It falls on my deaf ears.
bobjfs 1 month ago
@bobjfs Just curious, but why didn't the Spanish Civil War kill socialism in Spain and prevent socialists from holding power again?
tonyfalca 3 weeks ago
" Where there's injustice, I always believed in fighting. The question is, do you fight to change things or to punish? " -- Gandhi (1982)
" I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour. " -- Mahatma M. K. Gandhi (1869-1948). I agree 100%, with DJ & G. Namasté !!
wda013 5 months ago
My first reaction while listening to this : Sounds like same rationale as the 9/11 bombers . I will listen further to what this person has to say to see if I am understanding and whether he can change my mind.
pandora0070 5 months ago
The golden rule & universal love might give one pause to reflect if pacifism make be the better course to respond to a wrong, but neither require that pacifism be put into play.
donyunger 6 months ago
This guy is amazing. People need to hear this shit.
juliaisafilmbuff123 6 months ago
Jensen is the next Pol Pot!
linghun 6 months ago
i love you bro.
Lleldorynix 7 months ago
cont'd: 'depraved' I think means 'can't change'...'eternally damned'..'animalistic' and so on. perhaps, yes people can be conditioned to become animalistic, just as Michael Jackson can condition himself to do the robot and the moonwalk. But I don't think this means Hitler couldn't have changed and done the moonwalk too, if he was given a chance...
kingofaikido 8 months ago
con'd #2: or the belief that there will always be wars! the words 'always', 'absolutely', 'forever' and so on applied to human beings seem absurd dogmas. I mean, I sometimes don't even know my partner! How do these prophets know so much about people ahead of getting to know them? Even if they did get to know them, isn't the assumption that some people are 'inferior' simply a belief, not borne out by the facts of learning and education? Thus, the idea that some people like Hitler are depraved
kingofaikido 8 months ago
another interesting thought. 1) why is it when Monbiot and others who support the nuclear industry in the wake of the Fukushima disaster always say the alternative of coal would be worse? I mean, why do they decide that the listener is so stupid as to think that COAL is the alternative to nuclear!! That there are no other options, non-polluting green ones for example. 2) This assumption that there will always be waste, seems much like the conservative belief that there will always be the poor.
kingofaikido 8 months ago
hi falkajamine, 2 points: 1) at what point does a baby become a Hitler? 2) at what point do you decide that baby becomes a Hitler? and further 3) at what point does a baby become compassionate? (singing hymns could be part of it...) 4) at what point do you decide? These questions are important because if you can't perceive when a person changes, you are dealing with opinions and labels, not knowledge. Asians, via spiritual praxes learn to become more sensitive, compassionate, perceptive..
kingofaikido 8 months ago
"there is no enemy..." ~ where did this idea come from? when did it begin? i just laugh at "dogmatic pacifists" who are as adamant (in a nice way of course) in refusal to think beyond their assumptions as the most fundamentalist religious people...
antoniozart 10 months ago
We are all brothers and sisters here. I will not kill my brother, even if he misbehaves. If hes out of his mind and mad, I might give him a slap into face and say "come to your senses". But I will not become mad with him. Because then we would both be mad. And what good is that?
KvalnirFox 10 months ago
Dualism bad.
Non-dualism good.
bobbygnosis 10 months ago
not sure if you're contradicting yourself here... violence is not ineffective.. violence is obviously effective but in all the wrong ways.. if you don't want to sow the seeds of future violence, then don't get involved in it in the first place. that's the Buddha's teaching.. no one I know says violence per se is ineffective in meeting short-term goals (often labeled self-interests). the question is whether violence can ever end if it is justified as a legitimate means to the goal of peace.
kingofaikido 11 months ago 2
@kingofaikido the thing is, the problems that present themselves are becoming less and less long-term oriented.
sexdrugsRnR 6 months ago
@sexdrugsRnR interesting.. 'the problems that present themselves'... i wonder what you mean by this. surely, you mean the problems as they are presented to us in the corporate media. sadly, i don't think their problems are mine or yours. their problem is to stall for as long as possible, to pretend that climate change isn't happening and that capitalism isn't to blame for the world's ills in large part. what we need is something like what Skolimowski, Bucky Fuller and Krishnamurti advocated..
kingofaikido 6 months ago
@sexdrugsRnR that is to say, what we need is a kinder world. not a violent or vengeful one. if the planet is now in self-destruct mode due to the actions of a few powerful corporations, then perhaps the wise thing to do is a) to speak to them directly as to how they can transform their actions specifically towards sustainability long-term and b) be ready for the self-destruct when it comes with a calm and undisturbed mind, just the sort of mind we need when we wish to die peacefully..
kingofaikido 6 months ago
@sexdrugsRnR turns out option b) isn't all that different to option a) since 'dying to oneself' means realizing the interconnectivity of the planet, capitalism, violence and self-destruct modes of living as products of our own desire to perpetuate desire. Hobbes, if you recall, also thought modern sovereignty, or the desire for power, was based on its promise to perpetually secure the objects of all other desires. i.e. modern sovereign power is like Genghis Khan's exploitative mode of life..
kingofaikido 6 months ago
@sexdrugsRnR not being exploitative means being frugal, and taking pleasure in simple things. this mode of apprehending the world is averse to complex scheming, war and violence. if we worship simple organic food made in our garden, the sun, the sea, friendship and sleep, where is the time to exploit? Where is the time for anger and hate when we would rather live and love? Perhaps, mine is a doctrine of natural self-help, especially apt post-Fukushima when in a year's time, our food will be
kingofaikido 6 months ago
@kingofaikido no, i do not mean the problems presented by corporate media. il take a look at those people you just mentioned. i agree with you, but you are pointing to something which is a long term solution, and i think it is necessary in order not to repeat the same mistakes, but the problems we face are much more immediate and that is why 'we' shouldnt take violence off the table. it all depends on context. not everyone can transform their anger and hate into 'love' so might as well vent it.
sexdrugsRnR 6 months ago
@sexdrugsRnR OK, so it's difficult to love is it? yeah, but the very people we love to hate have exactly the same problem. why else would we have such a loveless, careless, destroyed world? if we had affection, it would be impossible to pollute, to be unethical, to be callous and crude.. if you read George Lakoff's 'think of an elephant' or even better his book 'Moral Politics', you'll see that the people who believe in violence tend to be conservative and/ or libertarian anarchist...
kingofaikido 6 months ago
@sexdrugsRnR Lakoff's point I think is that if you look at the language used by libertarians and conservatives, you'll find they both endorse hierarchical worldviews of humanity, believe in and have had authoritarian upbringings, implicitly believe in leaders and the use of violence because it was used on them as a form of punishment as they grew up. in other words, there are some people for whom violence is the first port of call rather than the last resort. conflict resolution is not ...
kingofaikido 6 months ago
@sexdrugsRnR .. in their vocab. this is a tragedy, not to mention how this tragedy amplifies others when it's applied in different real world settings. a tragedy because, as Lakoff points out in Moral Politics (last chapter), in the last 100 yrs, studies in child development have shown, there are so many better ways of child rearing than the idea of punishment. punishment has been shown to be counter-productive to creating healthy and happy, responsible democratic citizens. those who tend to
kingofaikido 6 months ago
@sexdrugsRnR cause all the problems, whether it's delinquency, violent assaults, bullying etc tend to come from people reared on the idea of punishment. sadly, without correcting for this primitive method of child control, we will continue to hand down the same attitude to the next generation. this is why I am also, with Lakoff, against your idea of 'letting off steam' or 'venting' anger. Transforming anger is actually one of the easiest things to do, if you know how...
kingofaikido 6 months ago
@sexdrugsRnR if you're interested in transforming anger, i would really recommend the film 'doing time, doing vipassana' and, if you get a chance, Goenka's vipassana courses are really worth checking out.
kingofaikido 6 months ago
@sexdrugsRnR ...radioactive...
kingofaikido 6 months ago
not sure if you're contradicting yourself here... violence is not ineffective.. violence is obviously effective but in all the wrong ways.. if you don't want to sow the seeds of future violence, then don't get involved in it in the first place. that's the Buddha's teaching.. no one I know says violence per se is ineffective in meeting short-term goals (often labeled self-interests). the question is whether violence can ever end if it is justified as a legitimate means to the goal of peace
kingofaikido 11 months ago
@kingofaikido
so if everyone long ago would have just joined hands and started singing hymns then, Hitler would have just simply woken up one day and said "hey i'm going to stop slaughtering everything in sight" sometimes force must be used. and it's usually to counter a force that is acting wrongly. just MO
felkajamine 8 months ago
he seems to love salmon!
polkadots55 11 months ago
Thats an interesting perspective. I cannot think of the a time in my life when an animal was about to eat me , but, I get your drift. Abinivesha is the Sanskrit word for Fear of Death. When our life is threatened, we instinctively trigger this. It is the reflexive run to safety or turn to defend. Violence, on the other hand, begins with a thought. That thought of anger is generally triggered by fear. Gandhi's method was to intercept the Fear/Anger trigger, and replace anger with compassion.
pavanatanaya 11 months ago
Cont.>> When we interrupt the auto trigger into anger, the dynamic shifts and compassion leaves anger hanging in the wind. The greatest martial artists understand that to defeat your enemy, you must have compassion. When you understand his heart, he is easier to defeat. When it comes to survival, one does what one must to find safety. Anger and violence are not sustainable strategies for enduring success. Fear is a useful emotion. It tells us there is danger. Anger is just fear misunderstood
pavanatanaya 11 months ago
@pavanatanaya Anger is a source of strength as well. It allows us to overcome fear in an emergency situation. Not sure if you you have been subjected to violence, but those who had to fight for their life before may know what I am talking about. Fear can paralyze you or weaken your resolve. Anger has the opposite effect. I have to admit that I can not find it in my heart to feel compassion for someone who harms or murders others for his own amusement or greed.
peri2502 11 months ago
@pavanatanaya (cont.) I disagree with your statement that anger is always the result of fear. There is anger over injustice, for example...I think this may be one of the most powerful forms of anger. Compassion on the other hand, as great a virtue as it may be, is not the remedy to all ails. One who seeks to harm you and your loved ones will always try to bring conflict and pain to you, no matter how much you pity him or how far you run. Better to destroy him first and keep those you guard save.
peri2502 11 months ago
@peri2502 'One who seeks to harm you and your loved ones will always try to bring conflict and pain to you, no matter how much you pity him or how far you run.'
Compassion is not cowardice nor is it pity.
'Better to destroy him first and keep those you guard save.'
When you say this, even internally, you become the monster even if that monster is imagined,that is trying to destroy you
pavanatanaya 11 months ago
@pavanatanaya Maybe I expressed myself badly. I do not consider compassion related to cowardice, but I do consider pity and extension of compassion. How can you feel compassion if you can not feel pity?
Becoming the monster by whose standards? Survival and ensuring the savety of innocents are not the acts of a monster.
peri2502 11 months ago
@peri2502 Pity is seeing another as separate. Compassion is seeing another as oneself. That might sound subtle or abstract, but it is a significant distinction. Like saying empathy and sympathy are the same thing.
Survival and ensuring the safety of others can be totally done without anger. Tich Nat Han was exiled from Viet Nam for teaching compassion in the face of aggression. Why would they exile him and not just kill him?. Because aggression is a cowards toolbox.
pavanatanaya 11 months ago
@pavanatanaya Your take on compassion sounds a bit too metaphysical for me...I can't really relate to it myself, but I guess you make a fair enough point. :)
I look at anger in a differently. I consider myself a fairly nice guy, but if you would punch me in the face I would get angry and probably attack you. Does that make me a coward? I disagree with your view of anger being always connected to fear.
As to why Tich Nat Han wasn't killed, they probably wanted to avoid making him a martyr.
peri2502 11 months ago
@peri2502 Too metaphysical. Ok let me try again. Compassion is something that is practiced not at individuals but to every living thing. Really more of a strategy.Pity is directed at individuals, usually from a position of perceived superiority.
As to Tich Nat Han, if his practice of deep compassion was a threat to the powers that be,and his death would cause martyrdom, he wins on either account. If he had started an uprising, he would have been killed and his message would have been lost .
pavanatanaya 11 months ago
@pavanatanaya I don't think it was so much the message of Tich Nat Han that was perceived a threat. Communist governments have always practiced low tolerance towards ideologies that differed from theirs. They are totalitarian in nature. I do argue against a victory of sorts on behalf of Han, however. His message may have endured, but seriously...so what? Nothing had changed. Former enemies putting aside their differences is not a result of compassion, but mutual advantage, if given.
peri2502 11 months ago
@peri2502 Again, I am trying to come from a place of discussion and not arguing to be 'Right'. If I sound that way,,,Apologies,,, Derrick Jensen is promoting violence. I fundamentally disagree with the use of violence to achieve his desired outcome. Likely, it will draw violence into the issue and then the issue actually becomes violence. My initial posts were about how Jensen pissed on Gandhi for being celibate. It was a digression at best, and slander at its worst.
pavanatanaya 11 months ago
@pavanatanaya Oh as I said I am not a follower of Jensen. I consider violence a reality of life, but do not promote it as a solution for every problem. Especially in the West, people have a lot of power to influence decision making of Governments and economy, simply by changing habits and by being vocal and demanding on a large scale towards their governments. Sadly, nobody cares enough to go through the inconveniences, but I don't see how blowing things up would change that.
peri2502 11 months ago
@peri2502 derrick jensen does not promote violence as a solution for every problem.
heirloom2010 10 months ago 2
Gandhi observed Ahimsa. He promoted Ahimsa. He was not afraid of death. The fact that Gandhi maintained Chastity through his adult life was a personal tenet called Bramacharya. Jensen saw Gandhi's discipline as evidence of some imagined weakness. Psh!. Mohandas Gandhi was a Man. Derrick Jensen showed his ignorance by Conflating strength of character as weakness. Gandhi was not an advocate for violence. That discipline won him many more victories than losses. His discipline sent the Brits out.
pavanatanaya 11 months ago
@pavanatanaya I never said that Ghandi was a coward. My point is that rejecting the sword still means that you can die by it. His discipline drove the Brits out, but they were reluctant to commit large scale murder; all more so in the face of global scrunity. But a man like Ghandi would have fared far less well against a character like Stalin or Hitler, and that is for sure.
peri2502 11 months ago
@peri2502 Got it. That Gandhi would have not fared better against Stalin or Hitler is a point I can see, hypothetically, but, Jensen elevated his rationale of the use of violence by degrading Gandhi's tactic of Ahimsa. As I see it, Derrick Jensen's 'cause' is hardly greater than Gandhi's, yet he promotes the use of violence as a tool toward what? What would be accomplished through violence? Dams would simply be rebuilt. Gandhiji saw the futility in force and brought awareness through Karma Yoga.
pavanatanaya 11 months ago
@pavanatanaya Well, it is always hard to find right or wrong in matters of spirituallity since they are so subjective, but when you look at Ahimsa in a more practical way, I would go as far as calling it anti-survival. Does killing the one who seeks to murder you put you on the same level? I don't think so. Is it really more enlightened to allow a wild animal to eat you, just because you refuse to fight it off? I doubt it. Violence is part of our life on a mere natural basis...
peri2502 11 months ago
@pavanatanaya (cont.) Aggression serves a function that is there for a reason. Now, that being said: I do not think that violence should be the first answer to every problem. It has it's place, but it is not always an appropriate means to an end. I do not really share Jensen's convictions, I just support the statement he made in this video.
I may not agree with Ghandi's philosophy, but I do respect him for for his courage, strength of faith and dedication to his cause.
peri2502 11 months ago
Derrick Jensen will end up dead in a river. A dammed river. Promoting violence will certainly draw violence Derrick. You will lose this Sophomoric battle.
pavanatanaya 11 months ago
@pavanatanaya Ghandi did not promote violence and got shot in the end...do the math.
peri2502 11 months ago
Pissing all over Gandhi's work is positively assinine. Gandhi was Bramacharya Jensen. Did you know that? If so, shame on you for puking on his observation. If you didnt know it and you pissed on him anyway, well then you are just ignorant. What you fail to realize is that Gandhi was not afraid of death. Lay off the bong Derrick. Your view of the world is narrow. Gandhi was an activist. You are a Walrus on the beach. All bluster and little action
pavanatanaya 11 months ago
Pissing all over Gandhi's work is positively assinine. Gandhi was Bramacharya Jensen. Did you know that? If so, shame on you for puking on his observation. If you didnt know it and you pissed on him anyway, well then you are just ignorant.
pavanatanaya 11 months ago
"we are humans. if we cannot be absolutely nonviolent our brains are a waste."
More nonsensical crap. In what way is this statement true? It operates entirely on presumptions, moral and physical.
Nonviolence is exactly what this culture wants. To be strictly nonviolent is to cooperate with its demands.
You see someone being attacked; You do nothing; They die.
You see a culture destroying everything; You do nothing; Everything dies.
How is the world a better place with you in it?
withindarkness 11 months ago
Best video on youtube.
deathtotheism 1 year ago
This guy sounds like a high school class clown. He is shaming the people who have realized the fact that, "there is no way to peace, peace is the way." We don't need any more entertainer's giving social and ecological criticism. We have enough Glenn Becks.
zooland12 1 year ago 2
@zooland12 Always critisim never any answers. When you look out at the world through your computer where do you see peace? The only people who think peace is real are the ones who have enough money to buy it or ignorance to believe in it. Welcome to "generation sit"!
u5578u 1 year ago 2
@u5578u The only people who believe peace isn't real are those desensitized by the media to believe violence and war must be a "part of life." We have CHOSEN violence and impetuosity over love and understanding. The choice is ours everyday, and our intellectual incompetence can only settle for choosing the path of least resistance: the fist over the heart. "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." Isaac Asimov
zooland12 1 year ago
we are humans. if we cannot be absolutely nonviolent our brains are a waste.
kuruantigenic 1 year ago
@kuruantigenic Please start teaching the rest of the world to use their brains, because the violent don't care how enlightened you think you are.
u5578u 1 year ago
this is why batman's a cunt
and why religion poisons everything
violence and the right to kill is a sacrosanct sovereign right as a human being
the individual takes it upon his own head the responsibility of his own actions.
As such, it should be as an act of desperation, like a desperate plea to a deity.
NOT something to be taken lightly.
just like giving birth, it cannot be rationalised as part of a blanket rule, or taken back. It is what it is.
romans->red head celts
brits->redskin indian
natmanprime 1 year ago
There is no truth in flesh, only betrayal.
There is no strength in flesh, only weakness.
There is no constancy in flesh, only decay.
There is no certainty in flesh but death.
— The Dogma Mechanicus
12345combination 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When I read Derrick's stuff or hear him speak it resonates with my heart. I feel relief and kinship knowing there are others who actually want to understand what is happening and seek solutions.
gearlockT 1 year ago
I think violence in the heart is different than violence in the head.
supermanky 1 year ago
on the personal level violence is toxic. when within a violent system it may be that you are forced to use violence to overcome that system. our 'everyday lives' are not peaceful even though we think we move through our days peacefully. a lot of people had to be exploited of killed RECENTLY (not just the past) so that i could, for example, be sitting at this computer, leaving this comment. i want out. i want to live with honor, and reconnect with my origin, and destiny. also, this is love.
caseyforever 1 year ago
The sea is rising! Please shoot yourself
bgroovy2 1 year ago
d'accord ! d'accord !!
wda013 1 year ago
d'accord ! d'accord !! d'accord !!!
wda013 1 year ago
d'accord ! d'accord !! d'accord !!!
---
Self-love is not so vile a sin, my liege, as self-neglecting. -- Shakespeare (1564-1616), Henry V, II.4
wda013 1 year ago
Oh get real Jensen. Animals do NOT organize fukin war,
When was the last time you warred fellah? Are are you the equivalent 'suit' who just pontificates bout it whilst others do your talk.
War is ignorant and I never mention Ghandi or Buddha. I can see it. This doesn't mean to say I would protect my loved one from some random attack but that is totally different.
zezt 1 year ago
@zezt It's not totally different, it's just a question of scale. Pattern recognition is a sign of intelligence. Jensen freely admits he's a theorist because it's something he's good at. He's bad with explosives and he's too absentminded to be much of a warrior.
Violence is a tool, utility depends on the user, same with "war".
UglyFacet 1 year ago
@zezt
then I suggest you connect the way "random attacks on your loved one" with the 'suits' who command others to do the attacks for them
TheArthen 1 year ago
Powerful ending
gabepinnick 2 years ago
The world is not dangerous because of those who do harm but because of those who look at it without doing anything. Albert Einstein.
The slogans of Newspeak are, War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength. George Orwell.
Google: Can Bush Be Prosecuted? & Zeitgeist - The Movie
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. Krishnamurti.
Wiki. Sheeple.
MaSteRKuSH010 2 years ago
Pacifism is a fucking privilege. Pacifism is convent for those who have a lot to lose and still want to feel really great about themselves.
It's never been a question of violence, it's a question of self-defense and efficiency. Little do many know, if it wasn't for violence - against property, person, and with weapon in hand, the question of pacifism wouldn't even be relevant.
LovexandxRage 2 years ago 2
@LovexandxRage so MLK and his movement were "privileged"?
irgy709 5 months ago
passionate but stupid: i want to dismantle power and i dont care how i do it: FAIL: if u dont plan; u plan to fail: This isnt pleading for violence but for the right to selfdefense: the stupid part is that he isnt even aware that he is delivering the most passionate speech i have heard in a while favouring selfdefense all the while staying obtuse 2 the longterm effects of violence: Jensen; love u but you faceplanted on this one: peace in constant fear of retaliation*vindication aint worth shit
fruitsofnews 2 years ago
yeay...obama is the world leading peace-dude now!!!! Lets all join blackwater and go wage peace in Afpak!!!!
fruitsofnews 2 years ago
walk away but dont injure, injure but dont maim,maim but dont kill, kill when no other options are presented
shetterly1 2 years ago
I totally agree. If someone wants to fight you, you have every right to fight back. But to what degree???? And how do we all agree on what is fair and balanced?
In my opinion, it all starts with encouraging the end of violence. Fight fire with fire and you WILL get burned.
Peace is what's needed to start this change Derrick....PEACE
SOCRATES012 2 years ago
Pacifism does not equal permissiveness.
wonderwhaz797 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So, this man is a comedian. That's fine and dandy, but pacifism is too serious a subject to talk about in a whimsical fashion such as what Jensen does here. If the choice comes between you dying and killing another nation's children during war, what choice will you make? It is really quite appalling and disturbing how this speaker takes it all too lightly, and even more dark is the fact that people will listen to any speaker out of psychological convenience.
wonderwhaz797 2 years ago
" If the choice comes between you dying and killing another nation's children during war, what choice will you make?"
staying in context with the video, one might think about killing the thing forcing said choice...
whether that system is a being or an organization...
8:23 - on
or just let it continue to force that choice...
whispers83 2 years ago 2
Pacifism means if you see a cruel person and know they are going to be cruel to you, you sit there and accept it.
Intelligent truly loving individuals see this as a farce and not physically sound, rather than trying to fight in order to prevent it from happening again, you allow it.
I equate it to a body with cancer, this earth has beings that are sometimes obviously cancerous, it is our duty to cure this body of the cancer by attempting our best to remove it.
Pacifism is cancers best friend.
Seedr0 2 years ago
You're not really seeing the whole thing. Pacifism is a way of life, which means having peaceful relations and not being a world bully like America is. It also means having a quiet mind not constantly occupied by thoughts & ambitions. Peace starts by having peace within and then outside of you. You certainly won't have pacifism when people are poorly educated. Also, using cancer as an argument for killing people doesn't quite cut the mustard, even though chemo therapy is brutal in it's effects.
wonderwhaz797 2 years ago 2
Chemo therapy is a method of killing ALL cells in an area, it's the cell equivalent of an A-Bomb.
If you think A-Bombs on highly human populated areas would NOT help this planet in the long run, I feel you are very misled.
Now, I am NOT suggesting we A-Bomb large human populations, I am suggesting we meticulously attempt to weed out who is acting destructive and sacrifice our life/freedom (suicide/jail possibly) in order to attempt to either convert them or kill them.
Seedr0 2 years ago
They've tried this, and it has failed: the violence has continued. You don't seem to understand that violence begets more violence. You will never stop people with violence. Do you understand anything about resentment and revenge? Violence will breed violence. And, if you attempt to try to find all the guilty people, you sacrifice liberty for security, and we end up totalitarian. The Anakin Skywalker method doesn't work. You just end up taking out innocent people with the killers. Sorry dude.
wonderwhaz797 2 years ago
"They've" tried this? Who and how?
I don't care if other people fail at this, I know I won't, the principle is 100% scientifically sound:
Someone is violent, I kill them subtly, they can no longer be violent. Simple.
My method is physically sound, yours is some fantasy of "spreading love energy" which somehow magically fixes the world, show me scientific data to support your claims or I won't bother listening.
Seedr0 2 years ago
@wonderwhaz797 it's about intention. The elites who oppress all others do so for greed, economic gain, complete power and control. Sometimes non-violent resistance can be effective, sometimes, it's not. It's not a matter of being violent and destructive...it's a matter of intention...and fighting back for the greater good. The bottom line is it's entirely too layered to be painted in one stroke.
FaeLeah4 1 year ago
Pacifism means ignoring the fact that humans are and have always been in a constant state of war with themselves and their home. Pacifism is ignorance. Pacifism is strong.
21288003771215 2 years ago
Jensen elaborates in his books that pacifism today is "consumer-oriented". The concept, as I understand him, has been distorted to the point that pacifism pacifies pacifists.
The distortions (particularly abuse of the concept of love by modern cultural standards) renders much of what pacifists do as relatively worthless inactivity which lets Killer Capitalism do what it does worst.
plenum222 2 years ago
Derrick Jensen fucking rules!
Deadleader555 2 years ago 4
i have been wondering... If pacifism is more of a modern thing, strengthened by technology and posture. It's a tactic that can be useful just as much as any other in the right context.
It seems like derek needs to prove his point by attacking pacifism, but all of of us postulate arguments by drawing a contrast. I think both sides can both be right... not everyone is comfortable with pacifism, some people really are, ... I am, but its cool if you're not, its better if you're who YOU are...
clearshquarter 2 years ago
Jensen nails it.
Themhambone 2 years ago 28
@Themhambone Violence will never end. Nothing is justified. The only choice we have about violence is whom we're directing it toward.
somefaggotcunt 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ok boys & girls, let's all think like spiders & geese, drink the Jensen kool-aid.
acs5pall 2 years ago
Better than thinking like a faggy retard, your gut's clearly already full of someone's kool-aid.
Themhambone 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The complete lack of intelligence themhambone displays speaks for itself. Nice display of "internet balls" btw. Now boy, go continue to masturbate in front of your computer. As I said this jensen freak need to wake up and smell the coffee, way to stupid and naive.
acs5pall 2 years ago
Prove it wrong. My mind is open to new ideas but i don't just swallow everything the man--any man, feeds us. Listen to yourself man, do you really not give a shit what the world is like for children?
Smell the coffee indeed.
-A:H
Themhambone 2 years ago
Dumb twat...don't you mean you 'love fucking derrick?"
upstart1776 2 years ago
Here you are again idiot loser upstart 1776, why are the most intelligent speakers always hounded by subhuman pathetic chestbeaters like you. Why don't you crawl back into your cave and hibernate for another 16 years of your life. You have been and shall always remain it seems a complete dunce
keithnotis 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
bs eugenics crap man i do not like how we treat the environment but it is not mother earth it is earth and we should be good land owners sure more hemp as it is wonderful and has many uses but come on I wonder if he is one of the environmentalist who are part of the big oil think tanks part of the cfr all ment to divide us all.
showmemoblues 2 years ago
read your comment again....has time changed much?
find anything to solid?
eugenics?
is he part of some big oil think tank?
cfr?
kick some knowledge this way....
whispers83 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
sweet Christ, what a queen this guy is.
upstart1776 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"I'd rather talk about maturbation , frankly"
This is the only thing this asshole says that makes sense. No doubt he is a Master Bater.
I swear this asshole makes all of this shit up just to get dumb college girls (or guys) into bed.
upstart1776 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"I'd rather talk about maturbation , frankly"
This is the only thing this asshole says that makes sense. No doubt he is a Master Bater.
I swear this asshole makes all of this shit up just to get dumb college girls (or guys) into bed.
upstart1776 2 years ago
I agree with almost all of what derrick says in his books and stuff... but i gotta say...
Salmon.
Can't he change the record occasionally? I mean sure the plight of the salmon is pretty damn important, but of all the animals... surely there are countless others equally deserving of mention... but no its salmon, salmon salmon.
Hairyfreak 2 years ago
a possibility; key to much of what derrick communicates about in the most recent books is 'landbase'.. your connection to yours. my connection to mine.
not the grocery store (as i am now trained).. but the actual land that surrounds us, our immediate environment, which in the absence of civilization we would have to have a much more intimate connection to, to sustain us as we sustain it, to have responsibility for what we consume and its survival. a relationship. (cont.)
gleefulsabotage 2 years ago
so,.. all of that in mind, derrick lives in the watershed of the klamath river in northern california...
the lands and waters there need nothing so much as they needs the salmon.
they feed the forest, ostensibly,.. in the absence of dams that prevent them from making their way upstream to spawn.
when allowed to do so, many thousands of Tons of salmon make there way through to the tiniest tributaries and sources, they ARE the health of the forest, the blood of the forest.. in derrick's landbase.
gleefulsabotage 2 years ago
"look up "Orgonite." " I first read about it in metaphysical/occult books, which used wood and metal. I'm extremely open minded, but it seems to be quite worthless.
That is, in no way, shape, or form, "fighting back", even if it works, which is doubtful.
It does nothing to hinder or dismantle the harmful systems operating around us.
It might actually be detrimental(if it works), because people will have less reason to fight.
It is a cowardly cop out if used to replace normal tactics.
withindarkness 2 years ago
we need to fight folks, and there's not a damn thing wrong with defending your own. in fact, if you don't , you are a coward
for those who may actually investigate this before scoffing, look up "Orgonite." this is an effective way to fight back without using violence. anyone can do it, it's easy, and it works
that said, if it does come to violence swing your sword as hard and fast as you can and don't worry about the karma of hacking those who are trying to hack you
self defense is allowed
lightsabre6 3 years ago
Brilliant Human!
I too, thank you for this posting.
Christinecedar 3 years ago 3
Can't get enough, inspirational,thanks for post
SmokeOut315 3 years ago
Wowza
ExDeeXD 3 years ago
this might really be the most relevant 10 minutes on the whole of youtube. thanks for posting it.
my two favorite points;
"..and i think mother grizzly bears will back me up on this."
and
"does the tiger who kills the zookeeper risk becoming a zookeeper?"
gleefulsabotage 3 years ago 20
We need to love our selves enough. Good stuff.
Thanks for posting.
Claybird121 3 years ago 2
we are gonna win
pennilesscripple 3 years ago 3
thanks for posting!
zzz33333 3 years ago
Let's go bro
themajikat 3 years ago