I don’t reckon we can criticise the ideas, by criticising the one who verbalises them. Yeah, maybe this motherfucker is not on the front line throwing cherry-bombs. But what he says rings true with some of those who are, and most are not hypocritical. You can criticise the ideas, but not the man, because he’s just some schmuck, not an idealised super-man.

You can knock non-violent civil disobedience all you want. At least those that engage in it practice what they preach. They preach non-violence as a means to social change, and they live by it. People like Jenson never seem to actually practice what they preach. They just go tour around talking and making money while others listen to their rhetoric and go to prison for them.

Tell me Jenson, how would the Black Bloc have dealt with the Death Star? All I’ve ever seen from them is a few broken windows and some overturned dumpsters. Is that what they would have done to the Death Star? Would they have run through it’s hallways dumping garbage as they went, maybe occasionally smashing a window? And you’re going to tell me that that’s so much more effective that what civil disobedience has accomplished?

You know, if there’s one lesson we should learn from the RNC it’s that the government WANTS us to be violent. That’s why they attempt to entrap us into making bombs. That’s why they send in provocateurs. That’s why when the police attack a peaceful crowd with tear gas and pepper spray, they can say, “The anarchists done gone made me done it!”

I’m not really in the habit of policing other people’s protest tactics. If you absolutely feel you have to engage in property destruction, well then have at it. But Jenson can take his civil disobedience critique and shove it up his hypocritical ass. Have a nice day y’all and keep fighting the power. But be fucking smart about. Peace.

The Final Solution: http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/26597

“he’s criticizing non-violence.”

No, he is mocking those who dogmatically insist upon non-violence while considering other tactics as unthinkable.

In his book Endgame, (which this comedic section is from) he actually goes out of his way to remind people that “we need it all.” Meaning, that yes, we need sit-ins, protests, media campaigns, letter writing, legal actions, lawsuits etc. However, at the same time we also need militant direct action, property destruction, and yes, what the corporate super-state would refer to as “violence.” I would call it self defense.

From the tone (and words) of your comment it seems you at least agree that something needs to be done. Me too. I would just say that different people are comfortable with different tactics. I’m personally not ready to use certain tactics that Jensen has referenced in his work, but I would not judge those who did; we just have different skill sets that we are using to solve the same problem. We need mutual solidarity on both dimensions of this commitment.

“He’s angry and wants to commit violence and makes fun of people who understand better than he does the meaning and effectiveness of love and non-violent solutions–or rather, the INeffectiveness of violent solutions (especially when used by the less powerful.”

OK, he is angry! However I don’t think he has ever written about WANTING to commit “violence” but instead has talked about the necessity of certain acts if we’re serious about saving the natural world (meaning our home and thus ourselves.)

The next half of the sentence:

“…people who understand better than he does the meaning and effectiveness of love and non-violent solutions”

I would love to meet these “people.” I’ve been politically engaged now for almost ten years and have never seen one example of this statement being true…EVEN WHEN I BELIEVED THAT STUFF!

Quick, name one victory for: non-whites, (especially working class and poor non-whites) white working class (or poor whites/ 65% of poor Americans)single mothers, eco-systems, forests, oceans, media space and on and on and on.

I’ve never seen one victory. And I have tried. I’ve written essays, signed petitions, donated money to Left media, gone to protests, held candles…and nothing.

I think we’re in a situation where non-symbolic action trumps symbolic action (meaning magical love and non-violent ’solutions’.)In other words if we really want to stop a clearcut we don’t send the government/corporations our prayers, hearts and bunnies: we instead should break all of their equipment and block their supply lanes. Everything else is wishful thinking.

This next part though, is especially telling and is what caught my eye:

“…especially when used by the less powerful.”

Ah, since we’re doing DJ here, here is premise four:

Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.

This speaks for itself.

“He has good reason to be angry–furious in fact–as we all do about the abuses heaped on us and the rest of nature. What we do with that anger will make the difference between winning and losing. If we recognize and own it we can finally begin to do something effective–effectively non-violent–about the abuse.”

I’m glad that you properly called it all abuse. And I almost agree with the rest. I just think that if we really do care about the things we say we do then–just like our corporate government says about it’s ambitions and dreams–all options should be left on the table.

peace, love and explosive bunnies

mb