Tuesday, February 27, 2007

The End of the American Empire

Listening to DemocracyNow! this morning, I caught an interview with Chalmers Johnson about his new book, Nemesis. The last book in his trilogy that includes Blowback and Sorrows of Empire. I've never read any of them, but I've listened to a few interviews with CJ. I have a pretty good idea of what his work is about, and I really like what he has to say. I hope to read the trilogy some day.

The answers to the last two questions that Amy Goodman asked him have really stuck with me. The reason why they have is because basically he is saying there really is no salvaging the American empire and way of life. Here they are:

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Chalmers Johnson, you have just completed your trilogy. Your first book, Blowback, then Sorrows of Empire, and now finally Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. What is your prediction?

CHALMERS JOHNSON: Well, I don't see any way out of it. I think it's gone too far. I think we are domestically too dependent on the military-industrial complex, that every time -- I mean, it's perfectly logical for any Secretary of Defense to try and close military bases that are redundant, that are useless, that are worn out, that go back to the Civil War. Any time he tries to do it, you produce an uproar in the surrounding community from newspapers, television, priests, local politicians: save our base.

The two mother hens of the Defense Facilities Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the people committed to taking care of our bases are easily Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and Dianne Feinstein of California, the two states with the largest number of military bases, and those two senators would do anything in their power to keep them open. This is the insidious way in which the military-industrial complex has penetrated into our democracy and gravely weakened it, produced vested interests in what I call military Keynesianism, the use and manipulation of what is now three-quarters of a trillion dollars of the Defense budget, once you include all the other things that aren't included in just the single appropriation for the Department of Defense.

This is a -- it's out of control. We depend upon it, we like it, we live off of it. I cannot imagine any President of any party putting together the coalition of forces that could begin to break into these vested interests, any more than a Gorbachev was able to do it in his attempted reforms of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s.

AMY GOODMAN: Is there anything, Chalmers, that gives you hope?

CHALMERS JOHNSON: Well, that's exactly what we're doing this morning. That is, the only way -- you've got to reconstitute the constitutional system in America, or it is over. That is that empires --once you go in the direction of empire, you ultimately lead to overstretch, bankruptcy, coalitions of nations hostile to your imperialism. We're well on that route.

The way that it might be stopped is by a mobilization of inattentive citizens. I don't know that that's going to happen. I’m extremely dubious, given the nature of conglomerate control of, say, the television networks in America for the sake of advertising revenue. We see Rupert Murdoch talking about buying a third of the Los Angeles Times. But, nonetheless, there is the internet, there is Amy Goodman, there are -- there's a lot more information than there was.

One of the things I have experienced in these three books is a much more receptive audience of alarmed Americans to Nemesis than to the previous two books, where there was considerable skepticism, so that one -- if we do see a renaissance of citizenship in America, then I believe we could recapture our government. If we continue politics as in the past, then I think there is no alternative but to say Nemesis is in the country, she's on the premises, and she is waiting to carry out her divine mission.

Monday, February 26, 2007

WildeRix: Another Changed Mind

I just ran across this new Quinn inspired blog.

From WildeRix: Several years ago, while waiting tables in New York City, a friend turned me on to the writings of Daniel Quinn. If you have ever read any of his works, I’m sure you’ll understand when I say that it completely changed my life. That is no hyperbole. From that point on, I had to rethink everything. I began to realize that everything in the world comes from the earth and that all life comes from the sun. It reshaped not only my view on civilization, but it made me rethink my faith as well.


Ever since reading Ishmael I have always found hope in reading stories like these. It's just one more person who sees the culture for what it is, a prison. I just wonder how many people are out there with changed minds that we don't read about.

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Response to a Letter to the Editor of Mine

Here is a response to a letter I wrote to my local newspaper about a month ago.

It's really interesting how peoples reactions differ. A few weeks ago someone actually dug up my phone number and called to say that he felt the letter was really amazing. He mentioned as a retired social studies teacher he would've talked about things like this in his class. I forgot to mention that it was inspired by Ishmael. I think I'll call him this morning and let him know.

Sorry for you

I recently read the Jan. 4, Reader Opinion in the Spooner Advocate on “Myth Making.”

I am saddened by the hopelessness that must reside in the home of the writer. The bleak outlook of our past, present and future has got me wondering, “Why would anyone want to get up in the morning?” and “Where is the hope and purpose in the life you describe?”

But, before we flush all of our hope, maybe we should take a little closer look at some of the writer’s ideas. We have to remember that ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have bad consequences.

Let us look at Darwin’s rather flawed theory of evolution. In the letter, that theory seems to play out a rather pivotal role.

First off, evolution as it is stated is a theory, not fact as the letter’s author would have us believe.

Secondly, I have yet to see complete fossil support for Darwin’s Tree of Life.

Thirdly, chronology or the aging of time periods has not been proven as an effective way of tracing back man’s advancement through the ages.

And fourthly, it is my understanding that the earth’s age itself is another problem to those who swear allegiance to evolution. There are many different dates floating around. Henry Whipple had pointed out that on the average, the “age” of the Earth has been doubling every 15 years for the past three centuries. (Harold Slusher, Critique of Radiometric Dating). Apparently evolutionists need more time to make their theory work.

We could go on and on with the disproving of Darwin’s theory of evolution, but I find some other rather terrifying statements in the letter. Let me quote the author, “We really think that we can grow our population without limits.” What would the author do to control the population? What people or group of people (age, handicap, ethnicity, or religion, etc.) would the writer start with to control population, and how would he exact that control on the whole world? A similar issue like this was addressed in Europe in the 1940s, was it not? Be careful, for those who do not know history are destined to repeat it.

How about these statements of his: “And we really think that we can get away with hunting down our biological competitors, destroying their food or denying access to their food. We act like rebels.”

Remember bad ideas have bad consequences. So let’s follow his idea through. If I am at the top of the food chain because I evolved there, then does not survival of the fittest take precedence?

Earlier in the letter the writer referred to Hell as a mythical place, but how can I be a rebel if I am not accountable nor can I be punished because I am the highest evolved form? My desire reigns supreme.I would hope (no pun intended) that the writer would reconsider the mythical evolution and honestly weigh the facts from the fiction. It is important to hand down the truth and not a myth to the next generation.

May the author find the hope he seeks.

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Support our Troops?

Where I live you see a lot of people with the yellow ribbons on the back of there cars that read, Support our Troops. I've always understood this statement as Support our War. And most of the time, whenever I see a car sporting the yellow ribbon, I can't help but think about how horrible war really is. I always wonder if the person that stuck the ribbon on their car is thinking about this too. Things like: torture, bombings, rapes, Post Traumatice Stress Syndrome, death, murder, prison camps, and so on. It's just crazy.

Back to the yellow ribbons. Yesterday I ran across a really good explanation of why statements like Support our Troops are so deceptive. They're meaningless.

"The point of public relations slogans like 'Support our troops' is that they don't mean anything. That's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody's going to be against, and everybody's going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything. Its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something: Do you support our policy? That's the one you're not allowed to talk about." - Noam Chomsky -

Friday, February 23, 2007

The Role of Government

In responding to a post over at IshThink.org, I dug up these quotes by Adam Smith, John Locke and James Madison about the role of government in our lives. They've always stuck with me since I first read them.

When they were laying out the Federal Constitution James Madison emphatically argued that the goal of the American political system was "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, 1:449-450

Or to quote John Locke out of the Two Treatises of Government, "Government has no other end but the preservation of property."Second Treatise, Sections 138-140

And lastly to quote the godfather of modern economics, Adam Smith, "Civil government...is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, of those who have some property against those who have none at all." An Inquiry into the Nature and the Wealth of Nations, 413

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Advice

I really hate the effects schooling has on most people. And if I had the chance to put together a small booklet or pamphlet explaining why school is what it is I 'd include this advice Ran Prieur gave to a 19 year old college freshman on Feb. 20th.

I really like this part: If you're not going into debt, college isn't so bad. The main thing you're learning is not the content of the classes, but how to think and act like an "educated" person. For that reason, college is much more valuable for lower class people than for higher class people who already know how to act like that.


Thursday, February 15, 2007

Evil

In A Language Older than Words, Derrick Jensen said something like hell is when one forgets that all life is interdependent. Welcome to our culture. Anyway, Ran Prieur had what I thought was a really good definition of what evil is on his blog yesterday.

My definition of evil is a compulsive withdrawal or reversal of empathy. Empathy is simply the extension of the sense of "self." The root of evil is in the original splitting of the One Mind into many perspectives, which, I'm guessing, was done to create free will and surprise. So, when you have the option to move back toward the One, to expand your sense of "self" from, say, your material wealth to your body, or from your body to the bodies and feelings of the people around you, and you refuse, and that refusal becomes compulsive, that's what we call evil.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Death

Lately I've been thinking about death. I think it is safe to say that I've feared death for most of my life. And I also think it is safe to say that the reason this culture has a death urge is because of its overall fear of death.

This morning I dug up a quote by Ed Abbey talking about the fear of death. I'm going to type it out here so that I have it for future reference and because its good.

From Pg. 41 out of Walking It Off, by Doug Peacock:

"If your life has been wasted, then naturally you're going to cling like a drowning man to whatever kind of semi-life medical technolgy can offer you, and you're going to end up in a hospital with a dozen tubes sticking in your body, machines keeping your organs going. Which is the worst possible way to die. One's death should mean something. Those who fear death most are those who enjoy life least. Death is every man's final critic. To die well you must live bravely." Ed Abbey

Sunday, February 11, 2007

What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire

This film looks like it is going to be one of the best I've watched in a long time. You can watch the trailers HERE.

VisionQuest Pictures presents a Storkboy Film WHAT A WAY TO GO LIFE AT THE END OF EMPIREA middle class white guy comes to grips with Peak Oil, Climate Change, Mass Extinction, Population Overshoot and the demise of the American Lifestyle.

What is it doing to us as thoughtful human beings as we face the overwhelming challenges of:

• Dwindling fossil fuel reserves?
• Critically degraded ecosystems?
• A changing climate?
• An exploding global population?
• Teetering global economies?
• An unstable political climate?
• And what is it doing to the rest of the life on this planet?

Featuring interviews with Daniel Quinn, Derrick Jensen, Jerry Mander, Chellis Glendinning, Richard Heinberg, Thomas Berry, William Catton, Ran Prieur and Richard Manning, What a Way to Go will look at the current global situation and ask the most important questions of all:

• How did we get here?
• Why do we keep destroying the planet? and
• What do we truly want?
• Can we find a vision that will empower us to do what is necessary to survive, and even thrive, in the coming decades?

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Letter to the Editor About Schooling

Last week my letter that I wrote to the editor was posted in my local newspaper. It's really tough to get in what you want to say in 300 words. I felt really constricted and frustrated writing it. I wish I had about a 3000 word limit to work with.

Death means Renewal

This letter is in response to the article about the Spooner School Citizen Action Group. What I got from the article is that we need to spend more money on a dieing school system. The students need bigger and better buildings, more teachers, smaller classroom sizes and better curriculums. But like always these prescriptions fail to do what they set out to do, and that is to “awaken” young minds. That’s what education is supposed to do. But the system has the opposite affect; it deadens the instinctual wonder and curiosity of children.

Very little of the information (except basic reading, writing and arithmetic) that students are forced to learn in their 12 to 16 years of schooling is ever retained and used throughout their lifetimes. Students know this. The most famous question when I was in school was: When am I ever going to use this information? It’s simply a waste of their time.

What our current educational model accomplishes with almost 100% efficiency is that first, it keeps children out the job market for the most part until they are 18 yrs. old, and if you go to college it can be 25 yrs old. If children were able to enter the job market at the age of 14 you would have a lot of jobless people running around instead of a consumer class spending their parent’s money. The jobs just aren’t there for this age group like they were in our highly agrarian society that existed 100 to 150 years ago. It should be noted the more urbanized and industrialized this society has become the more years of schooling has been required.

Second, graduates have little survival value outside the confines of our economy. They are forced to either get a job or starve.

Our current educational model meets the needs of our economy but doesn’t meet, and never was meant to, meet the needs of human beings; therefore it can’t and never will work. (I always have to laugh when administrators say it’s all about the students but yet they never ask the students what they want to learn.) No amount of taxpayer money spent on new buildings, educators and curriculums will ever fix this. Let the system die. With all death comes renewal!

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Kunstler Mentions Quinn

Here is James Howard Kunstler's latest article in Orion Magazine.

He actually mentions Daniel Quinn: "We have to do better. We have to start right away making those other arrangements. We have to begin the transition to some mode of living that will allow us to carry on the project of civilization—and I would argue against the notion advanced by Daniel Quinn and others that civilization itself is our enemy and should not be continued. The agenda for facing our problems squarely can, in fact, be described with some precision. We have to make other arrangements for the basic activities of everyday life."

I really don't think JHK truly understands what Daniel Quinn is saying in his work. Heres page 90 out of Beyond Civilization that clearly shows that Quinn doesn't hate civilization:
"People who dislike what I'm saying will often try to reassure themselves with the thought that I'm just someone who hates civilization and would rather live "close to nature." This will bring a smile to the face of anyone who knows me, for I'm a great lover of civilization and live happily in the heart of the fourth largest U.S. city, in easy walking distance to drugstores, supermarkets, video rental shops, art galleries, restaurants, bookstores, museums, pool halls, universities, and tattoo parlors. (And I live "close to nature" every second of every day, 365 days a year, since "nature" is something no one can escape living close to, no matter where you happen to live.)

"Or they challenge me to say how I'd like living without air conditioning, central heating, indoor plumbing, refrigerators, telephones, computers, and so on. They think I'm an apostle of poverty, though they can't point to a single word in any of my writings to support such a notion.

"I'm not a Luddite or a Unabomber. I don't regard civilization as a curse but as a blessing that people (including me) should be free to walk away from--for something better. And something better is what I'm after; and nothing less. Those who are looking for something worse definately need to consult a different book." Pg. 90

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Inspiring Manifesto

This morning Dominic Ebacher posted this at the Wisconsin Ishmael Reader's Group. I highly recommend checking out his Manifesto. I thought it was well done.

Hello everyone here - especially curt. I've never posted to the group before, but have responded to many of the individual posts. I just wanted you all to know that I've finally done it: and that for the first time in my life I am taking solid steps to leave taker culture and just walk away. I just earned my degree a few weeks ago, and starting in March I begin my transition to a simpler life. I couldn't think of too many people that would be excited, so I thought I'd post here; thinking maybe someone would find my thoughts or experiences even a little bit encouraging.

I wrote up the bulk of my thoughts on my homepage here:

http://ebacherdom.googlepages.com/dominicebacher%27smanifesto

I would be honored if you, my fellow aspirants towards a more simple way of life would read these few words of mine, and if possible leave me some words of encouragement of your own as I set off into my new life (as so many in my life are desserting me, now that I am not conforming to the taker lifestyle as they hoped I would). It really would mean a lot to me.

Thanks again Curt for all your wisdom and involvement - at the end of the month I return to Washington. If you're looking for a great getaway (and I mean FROM IT ALL) look me up. Mention ishmael, and I'll get you everything you need, you'll always be welcome in my home and that's the way it should be.

Be well!

Dominic Ebacher



I always enjoy reading and supporting people living there own stories. In fact, I do so much of it that I rarely get a chance to write about my own personal story. Oh well, right now I'm having fun supporting and reading about others.

Monday, January 29, 2007

Endgame on YouTube

Check out this really well done video on YouTube promoting this year's film festival for Derrick Jensen's amazing book ENDGAME.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

My Letter and Cassia's Essay

I'm going to post a letter to the editor that I wrote to our local newspapers and an amazing essay by 17 year old homeschooler Cassia Scarborough.

Here is my letter to the editor. I actually had a retired school teacher that was visiting his cabin in our area call me to say that he and his neighbors really liked the letter. I really felt good about this. It's always good to here praise.

Many cultural myths dispelled
Sawyer County Record


A few weeks ago, our 7-year-old son mentioned that a fellow classmate had the good intentions of letting him know that if he didn’t believe in God he was going to hell. I smiled. I was told the same thing when I was a child.

It’s been a long time since I’ve thought about what it would be like to spend eternal life in the fires of hell. By now I thought for sure this myth wouldn’t be as popular as it once was in our children’s culture, apparently not.

This story has led me to question how cultural myths change over time. Take a look at the three dirty tricks the gods have played on us so far. First off, they didn’t put the world in the center of the universe where we would’ve liked it to be. We can thank Nicolaus Copernicus for that.

Secondly, they didn’t make us in a separate act of creation. It was arranged so we evolved from the common slime, just like spiders and centipedes have. We can thank Charles Darwin for that.

And lastly, this trick is one most of us haven’t fully realized yet. The gods made it so were not exempt from the same biological laws that govern the lives of ticks and timber wolves. And why would it be any other way?

We’re not exempt from the laws of gravity. Anyhow, we can thank Daniel Quinn for this.

Like Darwin, Copernicus and Quinn we can start to question these so-called “self evident truths” that have been handed down to us through the generations. Look at how we conduct ourselves within the biological community. We really think we can grow our population without limit. And we really think that we can get away with hunting down our biological competitors, destroying their food or denying them access to their food. We act like rebels.

There are consequences for members of the biological community who’ve made it a policy to behave like this. It’s called extinction. And the gods aren’t going to save us.


I am the King of the World
An Essay on Conquest and Consequences
by Cassia Scarborough


What if the world was made for a single person? What if, for example, it was made for you? What would you do if you knew for a fact that from the moment you were born, the world was yours. God himself had fashioned the universe so that your solar system could float in it. He made the solar system so that your sun could be in it. He made that burning coin so that it could warm the ninth rock that circled it like a befuddled moth. He made that ninth rock so that the ocean could be in it. He made the ocean so that slime and amoebas could wriggle and squirm into life. He made frogs and newts and such slimy things as those so that they could make use of dry land. He made reptiles so that they could evolve into mammals. He made mammals so that Homo Habilis could bask in what would be called Africa. He made Homo Habilis so that Homo Erectus could explore Europe and Asia. He made Homo Erectus so that they could one day become Homo Sapiens and of course Homo Sapiens came into existence solely so that you yourself, you child of fortune, you supreme being, you pinnacle of creation, you to whom the Gods have entrusted the world, so that you could be born.

If the world was made for you, then it follows obviously that it belongs to you. So, now you can kinda call yourself the ruler of the world, talk about an ego boost, eh? Imagine Leanardo DiCarprio on the helm of the Titanic, arms splayed apart, screaming, "I'm the King of the World!" Well, won't he feel silly when he hears the truth. You're not at the helm of some silly ship, you're leaning over the earth, running your fingers through your oceans, watching your seagulls swoop through your sky, running along the silken shoreline of your beaches, cackling with the insane unbelievable power rush.

Suddenly, all the old rules no longer apply. Sharing? Why should you share anything with anyone when everything and everyone was created for your benefit? Obviously trees were made so that you could have air to breath and pretty wooden furniture in your home. If you want to cut down a forest to make an army of ornate coffee mugs with intricately carved handles then you are goanna cut the fucking forest down and no one can say a thing because it's yours. And if you want a fox fur coat then the foxes are just gonna have to deal with that. And if you want sex with that attractive neighbor on Laurel St. well then, what is there to stop you?

You could make Hollywood into your own private night club. Africa could hold your huge, sprawling house of ten thousand rooms. You could have a pride of lions as your house cats and jackals as your guard dogs. The veldt could be fashioned into a nice lawn. Florida could become nothing but swimming pools and little bars that sold only your favorite drinks, as long as you got rid of those nasty alligators. School could be out, forever. Unless of course you have children of your own, in which case you could make school be twenty three hours a day, six days a week, giving you more time to enjoy your swimming pools and alcohol.

But obviously the world was not made for a single person. That would be impossible. Sorry to spoil your delusions of grandeur. Time to come back down to reality. However, what if instead, the world was made not for specific person, but a specific species? What if God created the solar system, sun, planet, ocean, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals for the sole benefit of a chosen race, a race of fortune, a race composed of supreme beings gifted with the knowledge needed to govern His realm. This species would obviously be the pinnacle of creation, the grand finale. What if the world was made for man?

"Think of the consequences of taking that as your premise. If the world was made for you, then what? ... If the world was made for us then it belongs to us and we can do what we damn well please with it... That's what's been happening here for the past ten thousand years. You've been doing what you damn well please with the world and of course you mean to go on doing what you damn well please with it because the whole damn thing belongs to you." (Ishmael, page 61)

Ishmael, the award winning novel by Daniel Quinn, posits that Humanity has taken as the premise of its culture the idea that the world was made for man. Daniel Quinn uses dialog to entrap the reader and attempts to answer the very fundamental question of how things came to be this way. How did it happen that global warming is causing huge storms, huge shifts in weather patterns, everything from droughts to floods, and no one seems to be worried? How is it that we can read about the imminent collapse of oceanic ecosystems without breaking a sweat? How did it come about that there are six billion people on the earth and overpopulation looks like it will lead somewhere nasty? How can we hear about pollution, war, starvation, the end of speciation itself without flinching? Or even if we flinch at these things, what is it that keeps us from actually stopping them? There are many reasons, but the main one is that we have all been lied to. Ishmael is an attempt to shed light on that lie, so that we as a species may just have a chance to survive its effects.

In Ishmael, the protagonist is a disillusioned writer who remains nameless. He was once an idealist, a man out to save the world that he saw slowly falling to pieces around him, but time passed and cynicism set in and by the time the story starts he has lost the dreams that used to drive him to search for something other than the life doled out to the masses. One fateful morning, our man opens his newspaper to see a strange ad in the classifieds section. It is three lines, in bold print, with an address below. The ad reads:

TEACHER SEEKS PUPIL.

MUST HAVE AN EARNEST DESIRE TO SAVE THE WORLD.

APPLY IN PERSON.

In order to assure himself that the whole affair was nothing but a hoax dreamed up by some money hungry guru spouting hymns to peace and urging people to love their neighbors, he goes to the address indicated. The place he finds doesn't look like his idea of a pseudo-guru's abode; it is a dingy office building in a run down part of town near the docks. The room that he enters is even further from what he had expected. It has only an armchair, a bookshelf, and a black glass window looking into an adjacent room. What our hero soon discovers is that the window also looks into a pair of big, black eyes. And that the eyes, when looking into his, speak. And what they say, will change not only his life, but the lives of anyone who reads Ishmael with an open mind and a an earnest desire to save the world.

The black eyes belong to Ishmael, the teacher. Ishmael is a gorilla. He and the the man meet almost everyday after that, slowly revealing the truth of how things came to be the way they are, what lies we have been told, and what happens if any one species begins to believe that the world was made for them.

In this novel, special meanings are given to certain words. When talking about a story, Ishmael makes it clear that he is talking about, "A scenario interrelating man, the world, and the gods." A story must always have a premise, as any writer can tell you. A premise is, "the question or problem that is the basic idea of a story. www.scriptsales.com/DDFundTerms.html." Finally, a culture is defined by Ishmael as, "A group of people living so as to make a story a reality."

What happens when a species takes as the premise of its story that the world was made for man? And what happens when a culture develops that is composed of people living so as to make that story a reality. It does what it wants with the world. If that species feels that it owns land, then it will claim it. If it claims it, it can do whatever it wishes with that land, and anything that used to live there just has to deal with it. So what if humans want Florida to become covered in pools and bars? It will mean that alligators will have to be killed, but what of it? We own the land known as Florida, we own the pools, the bars, and we own the alligators, they were all made for our benefit, so of course we'll do what we wish with them. If we want the Veldt to become a green, sterile lawn, then why the hell shouldn't it be one? If we want a lion for a pet, it's our right to put the great tawny cats in cages.

"...If a king comes to a city that will not meekly submit to his rule, what does he have to do?"(Ishmael, page 73) The answer is obvious enough. If the world was made for man, then it follows that man owns the world in which case man must be the ruler of the world. Another way to say this is that not only was it the god's intention to create the world for man, but it was also His intention to create man to rule over the world and the lower creatures. But as we can see, by the fact that man's rule has not been an easy one, the world refused to submit to god's plan for it. The crops that man planted, drought, insects, floods ruined. The walls that he built, the weather broke down. The orders he wrote, chance laid siege to. What does a king do when a whole world refuses his rule? He conquers it.

Now, we can articulate the premise of our culture's story better. It is, the world was made for man, and man was made to conquer and rule it. The problem with this premise is that by living so as to make it a reality, we really are conquering the world, and we are doing such a good job that if we don't stop soon, we are going to kill it. Why don't people riot in the streets when the hear about the rain forest burning, 90% of the large fish in the ocean dieing, storms that will get more deadly with each passing year, chemicals in our food and water and air that will kill us or make us glow or both. It is because they believe what they have been told.

They have been told a lie. The lie is that the world was made for man and man was made to conquer and rule it and that the price we've paid, the pollution, the destruction, the death of the only world we can survive on, was inevitable. It's what we've had to pay for indoor plumbing and microwaves. It's worth it. There was never any other option. This is what Humans were born to do, this is what we would have done no matter what, maybe we're flawed or maybe we're just stupid or evil or greedy or whatever, but no matter what, this is how things had to turn out. All this was just the price we've had to pay to fulfill our destiny.

"Would things have been this way if the world were made for jellyfish?... No, they wouldn't... Obviously not, if the world had been made for jellyfish things would have been entirely different... That's right, but it wasn't made for jellyfish, it was made for man... It's sort of a sneaky way of blaming the gods for everything. If they'd made the world for jellyfish, then none of this would have happened." (Ishmael, page 62)

The question then, is what is there left? If the story we are enacting is killing us, what can we do? Ishmael has some good news. If a whole species thought that the world was made for them, and that was the only story to enact, then we would be in trouble. Luckily for us, not all humans think the way that civilized people do. Scattered across the globe are the remains of native cultures, each one different from every other, some violent, some peaceful, all living in a way that is in harmony with the rest of the world. They are enacting a story as well, a story that does not cast them as the earth's enemies. Their story's premise can be articulated as this: man was made for the world.

What if every single plant, animal, stone and river was made for the world? What would you do if you knew for a fact that from the moment you were born, you were a part of a community. A community that relied on diversity for its survival. A community composed of other animals that were different from you, but also in some ways the same. A community in which there were laws as invisible and unbreakable as the law of gravity. What if the slime and amoebas lived, just to be alive, not as a stepping stone to some divine species? What if newts and frogs were alive simply to be newts and frogs? What if reptiles and mammals lived just for the sake of being alive in a part of a community? What if humans were just another species of animal, different, but not a pinnacle. What if there was something to come after man? What if there were lots of somethings to come after man?


This story talks about the world as if it were an apple tree. An apple tree can be said to grow apples, you could even say that an apple tree apples. Like a tree, the world grows people, or the world peoples. The apples belong to the tree that gave birth to them, they owe the tree everything. So too, the peoples belong to the earth, they owe everything to it. Just as there is no need for the apples to try to control the tree, or to conquer the tree, so there is no need for the peoples who enact this story to try to control the world, or to conquer the world. The tree gives the apples everything they need to survive, and in return, the apples hold within themselves the seeds of new trees which they will one day sow. The apples give themselves to the animals that need their flesh to survive and the animals give themselves to the soil at the tree's roots so that it may be left richer than it was before their deaths. So too, does the world care for her peoples. The world gives her peoples everything they need to survive. It feeds the lions and the zebra, waters the grass of the Veldt, sends fish to the alligator and insects to the fish, rain to one forest, fire to another, all to keep her children healthy and alive. The earth is old. The earth knows how to rule fairly. It does not need humans to rule, it needs humans to belong to it like every other animal.

"High overhead, moon and planets and stars swung in their long smooth curves. They had no eyes and they saw not; yet from the time when man's fancy first formed within him, he has imagined that they looked down upon the earth. And if so we may still imagine and if they looked down upon the earth that night, (when humanity disappeared) what did they see? Then we must say that they saw no change. Though smoke from stacks and chimneys and campfires no longer rose to dim the atmosphere, yet still smoke rose from volcanoes and from forest fires. Seen even from the moon, the planet that night must have shown only with its accustomed splendor-- no brighter, no dimmer."(Earth Abides, page 16)

The story we are telling by the way we live our lives will change. It must change. There is no alternative. "Peace will come, but whether of harmony or entropy I cannot say." (Unknown) Either humanity will kill itself, or the world will kill us, or we will redeem ourselves. If we kill ourselves, death will come in war. If the earth kills us, it will come in natural disasters. The earth will not let one species ruin eons of work. It is like a mother, it is hovering around us tapping its foot in the form of unseasonable frosts and huge storms, and it is glaring at our messy room and it is telling us that if we don't clean up after ourselves it will and if it has to clean things up we aren't goanna like how it does it. (anology by derrick jensen, i couldn't find the direct quote) In the long run, humanity's death will cause no more disturbance then the death of a fly. "Men go and come, but earth abides." (Ecclesiastes, I, 4)

"I consider myself answerable to -- responsible to -- the humans who will come after, who will inherit the wreckage our generation is leaving to them...I can sometimes lie to myself...But to them, to all of those to whom I hold myself responsible -- I could never lie. To them, and for them, I give my brightest, deepest truth." (Derrick Jensen, Endgame Volume I)

Author and activist Derrick Jensen takes the ideas presented in Ishmael a step further in his series of provocative non-fiction books. He takes us beyond ideas, beyond fiction, beyond civilization, beyond hope. Hope, he says, is what you do when you have no power over the outcome of a situation. You do not hope that you will take a breath, you take a breath. You do not hope that you will eat, you eat. You do hope that your crush has feelings for you, because you have no control over their feelings. When it comes to saving the world, there is no longer any room for hope. We no longer have the luxury to hope that someone does something. We cannot hope that things change. We cannot hope, we have to act. Now is the time to fight for our very survival as a species. Now is the time to write a new story, ten new stories, a million new stories for the people of our culture to make real by the way we live.

Evolution teaches us that there is strength in diversity, so diversify. Take as your premise, what if man belonged to the world? You write the rest. When you follow the path that this premise points to, you will know what to fight, what to strive for. Live this story if you have an earnest desire to save the world, and you will soon find that it's a lot easier, and a lot harder, then you ever imagined.

If man belonged to the world, then...

Monday, January 15, 2007

New Blog Link

Boy, it's been awhile since I've posted. It's kind of been nice spending some time away from the computer. Anyway, here is a pretty cool blog that has been created by UrbanScout that I'm going to link up to. There are a few other blogs I want to link up to out there but I just don't have the time do it right now.

I like these two quotes by Liebenberg that Scout cites in his Tracking Trumps Science post.

Speculative Tracking involves the creation of a working hypothesis on the basis of initial interpretation of signs, a knowledge of animal behavior and a knowledge of the terrain. Having built a hypothetical reconstruction of the animal’s activities in their mind, the trackers then look for signs where they expect to find them.

In contrast to simple and systematic tracking (following clear prints, such as in sand or snow), speculative tracking is based on hypothetico-deductive reasoning, and involves a fundamentally new way of thinking.


And:

I would argue that the differences between the art of tracking and modern science are mainly technological and sociological. Fundamentally they involve the same reasoning processes and require the same intellectual abilities. The modern scientist may know much more than the tracker, but he/she does not necessarily understand nature any better than the intelligent hunter-gatherer. What the expert tracker lacks in quantity of knowledge (compared to modern scientists), he/she may well make up for in subtlety and refinement. The intelligent hunter-gatherer may be just as rational in his/her understanding of nature as the intelligent modern scientist. Conversely, the intelligent modern scientist may be just as irrational as the intelligent Hunter-gatherer. One of the paradoxes of progress is that, contrary to expectation, the growth of our knowledge about nature has not made it easier to reach rational decisions.

Friday, December 29, 2006

Technology

Over the years I've been reading many different view points concerning technology. The other day I ran across a clear and concise definition and view of technology by Derrick Jensen over at the Derrick Jensen Discussion Forum. Once again, It's given me a lot to think about!

Here is the post:

I was just fantasizing about being interviewed by Stephen Colbert (I'm not starting a rumor that I'm going to be on there: I was just fantasizing) and I came up with a couple of articulations I think are really good.

"He" was asking, "Won't technology save us?"

I've been asked this a thousand times, and I'm happier now with what came to me today:

Technology by definition leverages power. That's its purpose. I'm all for leveraging power in both large and small ways whenever appropriate, but we have to ask: Who already has more power to leverage? Who controls this technology, these tools for leveraging power? Who _develops_ these technologies, these tools for leveraging power?

**

Of course this is old news, especially to anyone who's read In The Absence of the Sacred, etc. But I get it to a deeper level than I've understood it before.

And then later in the "interview," "he" asked "Who cares if salmon go extinct? Who cares if the oceans die?"

And I was thinking about what Lundy Bancroft says in Why Does He Do That: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men about this. I quote it in Endgame:

“It is also impossible to persuade an abusive man to change by convincing him that he would benefit, because he perceives the benefits of controlling his partner as vastly outweighing the losses. This is part of why so many men initially take steps to change their abusive behavior but then return to their old ways. There is another reason why appealing to his self-interest doesn’t work. The abusive man’s belief that his own needs should come ahead of his partner’s is at the core of the problem. Therefore when anyone, including therapists, tells an abusive man that he should change because that’s what’s best for him, they are inadvertently feeding his selfish focus on himself: You cannot simultaneously contribute to a problem and solve it.”
Let’s once again explicitly make the connection to the larger scale. It is impossible to persuade the civilized to change by convincing them that they would benefit and simultaneously allowing them to remain within the framework and reward system of civilization, because the civilized perceive the benefits of controlling those around them (including humans and nonhumans; including the land, air, water; including genetic structures; including molecular structures) as vastly outweighing the losses. This is part of why so many of the civilized initially take steps—or at least mouth rhetoric and pretend to take steps—to change their abusive behavior but then return to their exploitative ways. There is another reason why appealing to the self-interest of the civilized doesn’t work (apart from the fact that the entire economic system, indeed all of civilization, is based on this limited and unsustainable sense of self which leads people to believe it’s in one’s self-interest to exploit others, indeed, which causes it to be, within this limited sense of self, actually in one’s self-interest to exploit others): the belief of the civilized that their own needs should come ahead of the landbase’s is at the core of the problem. Therefore when people, including activists, tell a civilized person—for example, a CEO or politician—that he should change because that’s what’s best for him, they are inadvertently feeding his selfish focus on himself: You cannot simultaneously contribute to a problem and solve it.

***

So I was thinking about that and came up with an answer that I think gets to the point. If someone asks, "Why should I care about whether salmon live or die?" an appropriate response is, "Why should I care whether you live or die?"

If someone is in Nazi Germany and doesn't care whether Jews, Slavs, etc live or die, then I see no reason why someone in the resistance should care whether that German lives or dies. If someone is an 1830s US and doesn't care (except for economic reasons) whether a slave lives or dies, I see no reason why someone who cares about people who've been enslaved should care whether that slave supporter lives or dies.

It seems pretty clear.

In some ways it's David Ehrenfeld's question, of when you make some impassioned defense of some creature and someone says "What good is it?" to ask "Well, what good are you?" It is the same question pushed out a little bit.

Friday, December 22, 2006

Religions of this Culture

Here is a post that Mark Merrit posted over at Anthropik talking about the religions of this culture. I've read The Story of B a few times and I've never really picked up on this point. I want to post it here so I know that I have it for future reference. And I think he does a good job at explaining what the religions this culture has created are all about.

Here is the post:

On this note, no pun intended, here are the lyrics to a song I wrote that's pretty much in the spirit of this piece.

http://potluck.com/offerings/aftertheholidays.shtml

Worth noting, though, that on some level, we could have the same conversation about many high ideals held by civilized cultures. Daniel Quinn, in The Story of B, says directly that religions are the highest expressions of our culture, and he does so while suggesting that all of the "good things" that religions want us to do are that very highest expression. At first, I was confused by this -- how could the highest expression of our culture be about things that are so hard to do/be in our culture? I later realized, that's exactly the point. Civilization makes it hard to be lots of the good things that are our birthright, that come far more naturally to people in tribal circumstances. Those things then become what we idealize, and religion is the highest expression of those idealizations. Virtues are things to strive for, to struggle for, and if you don't reach them, and especially if you don't try, then you're a failure as a person. It's the old flawed being syndrome.

So, on some level, it seems to me that the point here isn't so much that Christmas is subversive, not any moreso than any of the high ideals of civilized cultures/institutions are subversive. It's really simply that Christmas is one of a gazillion features of our culture that jumble up the ills of civilization with the positive traits that are our birthright as humans, serving the whole mishmosh up to us dressed up in high ideals and a sort of longing about those high ideals never really being achievable yet without knowing why and without bothering to question why or to really make any attempt at all to separate the chaff from the wheat, the baby from the bathwater.

On one hand, this is distressing. The subversion is itself subverted because it's structurally wrapped up with things that counter that subversion, that work against those "uncivilized" qualities, and so there really is no subversion at all -- the jumble is really the status quo everywhere we look and has been all along. On the other hand, by seeing that this is the case everywhere and not just with Christmas, we find little bits and pieces everywhere we look that can be built on to generate change in the direction we'd like -- using appreciative techniques, of course. Appreciative Inquiry to the rescue....

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

What kind is it?







This morning, I was out messing around in my study area (The study area is a circle with the diameter of 200 paces in your backyard that you get to know intimately through awareness and observation exercises. Getting to know this area really well is the backbone of the Kamana program.) and found this skull.

Does anyone want to take a stab at it and guess what it is?




And lastly, I recieved this petition about global warming in my email. I thought some of would be interested in checking it out.

Subject: Help Al Gore Send a Message to Congress


Hi,

Al Gore is ready to build on the success of "An Inconvenient Truth" and start organizing to solve the climate crisis. He's working to get hundreds of thousands of messages to Congress demanding real action to stop global warming. And he's asking for our help.

Can you help out by signing the petition at the link below? If you do, Al Gore will personally deliver our comments to Congress. I just did it myself and it only takes a second.

http://pol.moveon.org/climatecrisis/

Thanks!

Monday, December 11, 2006

The Economy is not Life Affirmative

There are times when I sit down with a book to thumb through it and pick out small excerpts to read. I did this other day with Derrick Jensen's book Welcome to the Machine: Science Surveillance and the Culture of Control. I ran across this in the footnotes section:

"Corporate crime, however defined and measured, is a small fraction of the subsidies that prop up what is called "free-market" capitalismTM. The whole economic system is actually based on subsidies, that is, the externalizations of cost. Indeed it's not to much to say that the primary purpose of government is to oversee and administer this process, and to neutralize or kill anyone who to strongly opposes it. The entire economy would collapse immediately without constant massive subsidies of money taken from the public as taxes and then handed over to various sectors of the economy as "incentives." These tax subsidies range from bailing out industries ( banks, airlines, auto manufacturers), to tax breaks (most of the largest corporations pay little or no corporate income tax), to the whole military-industrial complex. Tax subsidies cost American tax payers billions of dollars each year, but these are only tip of the externalization iceberg. Indirect subsidies are far more onerous. Work place injuries cost Americans more than $100 billion a year, and work place cancer costs us more like $300 billion. Price-fixing and false advertising costs American consumers more than $1 trillion a year. Air pollution causes more than $200 billion a year in health care. But these are only current monetary damages. See Ralph Estes, Tyranny of the Bottom Line: Why Corporations Make Good People do Bad Things. ( San Fransisco: Berrett-Koehler,1996), 177-78. The global trading system results in the transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy. When industrial civilization destroys the productive capacities of soils and forests, the reduction in productivity and the quality of life are passed on to future generations. The true costs of over-consumption by humans are also paid by other species, with their lives."

I read something like this and think how could it be any other way. Of course, I know there are other ways to be, but is somethinglike the complex global economy to hard for the masses to rationally undo? Is it because the whole thing is not founded on rational premises? I don't know. Another thought that comes to mind is that we work at jobs most of us would rather not be doing, wouldn't we rather be contributing to a system that is more life affirmative?

Sometimes it all seems to crazy to try and comprehend.

Saturday, December 02, 2006

Heaven?

Is this what heaven looks like for a technosalvationist?

Check out the first post by MatthewJ in this thread.

Also, here is an article in the New York Time titled: "The End of Ingenuity."

Here is a quote from it that I thought was pretty amazing considering the fact it's the New York Times.

"But in the larger sense, we really need to start thinking hard about how our societies — especially those that are already very rich — can maintain their social and political stability, and satisfy the aspirations of their citizens, when we can no longer count on endless economic growth."

There is a really good discussion talking about this article over at MetaFilter.