and the earth did not devour him essay

funny essay about holocaust

Uses current technology to construct devices for computer-aided surgery, rehabilitation and tissue engineering. Electrosurgery devices Anaesthesia machines Telemetry systems Bio-medical signal processors Biosensors and transducers Strong project management Process improvement Excellent presentation skills Professional Highly organised. These cookies only collect personal data when you opt in to build a CV. Review Our Privacy Policy. Customize this CV. Emma Washington. Tel: emma-washington email.

And the earth did not devour him essay heart of aztlan essay

And the earth did not devour him essay

Vignette 10 ten involves of the deaths of 16 sixteen migrant workers when a drunk driver crashes into the truck they are in riding home. A European priest fails to understand his congregation in the eleventh vignette In the twelfth vignette 12, two men discuss an acquaintance whose imprisonment was likely racially motivated and who suffers from an unnamed disease. The 13th and final vignette features a poet, Bartolo , who writes poems about the migrant workers and urges them to read the poems aloud.

As he reflects, he describes the outcome of events discussed throughout the book, suggesting he is the thread that connects the various stories and anecdotes: tThey are his memories of what he has experienced and heard while also being the collective memories of a community. The guide themes, chapter outlines and character summaries are more detailed than other sites.

The information is chapter specific and so it's easy to target certain things. The shortest distance between you and an "A"! Access Full Guide Download Save. Chapter 1. Chapters Chapter Character Analysis. Important Quotes. Essay Topics. He depicts the struggle and the hard life of migrant agricultural workers in the United States in the s. Rivera makes his readers sympathize with the characters in the short stories from the book.

He shows the hardship of social and economic injustice and even the effects of the cultural religion of Chicano people, which makes the stories more powerful. In this essay, I explore how Tomas Rivera shows the significance of religion in the Mexican culture. I will show some examples used in the stories and the meanings behind those religious aspect and how Rivera tries to develop a more accurate idea of how the workers felt by showing the themes of struggle and helplessness.

To argue that Rivera uses religion as a form of strength for the people, he makes it seem that people only promote Catholicism when a bad situation is happening.

There is nothing more defining and transformative than our experiences of loss, trauma, and hardship.

And the earth did not devour him essay Coca cola introduction essay
Build the perfect resume 978
And the earth did not devour him essay Best report proofreading websites gb

HOW TO WRITE A GOOD ESSAY

In the third third vignette, two men who have been contracted for work in Utah debate whether it is a real state. The fourth vignette is a dialogue between two students about the value of school; one speaker says it is to prepare for opportunities while the other sees it as a potential trap. A boy is denied a haircut because of his race in Vvignette 5five and resolves to tell his father.

When it does not, he feels content and empowered. In the seventh vignette, a grandfather calls his grandson stupid for wanting his life to pass quickly so he can find out what happens to him. Vignette 10 ten involves of the deaths of 16 sixteen migrant workers when a drunk driver crashes into the truck they are in riding home. A European priest fails to understand his congregation in the eleventh vignette In the twelfth vignette 12, two men discuss an acquaintance whose imprisonment was likely racially motivated and who suffers from an unnamed disease.

The 13th and final vignette features a poet, Bartolo , who writes poems about the migrant workers and urges them to read the poems aloud. As he reflects, he describes the outcome of events discussed throughout the book, suggesting he is the thread that connects the various stories and anecdotes: tThey are his memories of what he has experienced and heard while also being the collective memories of a community.

The guide themes, chapter outlines and character summaries are more detailed than other sites. The information is chapter specific and so it's easy to target certain things. The shortest distance between you and an "A"! Access Full Guide Download Save. Chapter 1. To argue that Rivera uses religion as a form of strength for the people, he makes it seem that people only promote Catholicism when a bad situation is happening. The author foresees that religion has a negative influence on the migrant workers, because in their oppressed state they look for a promise from God or the spirits that might not be answered.

The son recognizes that their family must take action for themselves if there are to be any changes to their circumstance. The struggle of this family can be seen as a way of how there are situations when you must challenge your faith to realize how much you can handle and how strong you are.

There is another example in the book where the audience is able to comprehend the importance of religion, and the confusion children might have when practicing the Ten Commandments given by God for the first time. Throughout the story it is focused on how there is confusion among the children since it shows how religion is passed down by culture and traditions, but through this, many people are left confused with the true meaning and real ideas behind religion.

Confusion can be shown more on p. No, I better not say it. He finds himself questioning his own religion and trying to prove that God or another higher power is real. The meaning behind this story is merely the fact that the boy tries to find a powerful being in which he can rely on and be guided by that spirit, he is struck by the fright of meaningless and nothingness. It is common in Mexican tradition to pay the saints homage at their shrine and to make a promise in exchange of something else.

She does not only show a love for a son but also shows how faith gives us strength to overcome anything and that she is a strong believer that her son will come back.

Opinion useful idioms for essay lie

More than 90 percent of the water used by humans is used by agriculture and industry. The remaining 10 percent is split between municipalities and actual living breathing individual humans. Collectively, municipal golf courses use as much water as municipal human beings. So, even if we all took up cycling and wood stoves it would have a negligible impact on energy use, global warming and atmospheric pollution.

You recycle everything. You bring cloth bags shopping. You fix your toaster. Your toes poke out of old tennis shoes. Since municipal waste includes not just residential waste, but also waste from government offices and businesses, you march to those offices, waste reduction pamphlets in hand, and convince them to cut down on their waste enough to eliminate your share of it.

Municipal waste accounts for only 3 percent of total waste production in the United States. I want to be clear. So how, then, and especially with all the world at stake, have we come to accept these utterly insufficient responses? But we lose, because in doing so we give up our empathy, our animal humanity. And we really lose because industrial civilization is killing the planet, which means everyone loses.

Any option is a better option than a dead planet. Simple living as a political act consists solely of harm reduction, ignoring the fact that humans can help the Earth as well as harm it. We can rehabilitate streams, we can get rid of noxious invasives, we can remove dams, we can disrupt a political system tilted toward the rich as well as an extractive economic system, we can destroy the industrial economy that is destroying the real, physical world.

The second problem — and this is another big one — is that it incorrectly assigns blame to the individual and most especially to individuals who are particularly powerless instead of to those who actually wield power in this system and to the system itself. By accepting this redefinition, we reduce our potential forms of resistance to consuming and not consuming. Citizens have a much wider range of available resistance tactics, including voting, not voting, running for office, pamphleting, boycotting, organizing, lobbying, protesting, and, when a government becomes destructive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we have the right to alter or abolish it.

The fourth problem is that the endpoint of the logic behind simple living as a political act is suicide. If every act within an industrial economy is destructive, and if we want to stop this destruction, and if we are unwilling or unable to question much less destroy the intellectual, moral, economic, and physical infrastructures that cause every act within an industrial economy to be destructive, then we can easily come to believe that we will cause the least destruction possible if we are dead.

The good news is that there are other options. We can follow the examples of brave activists who lived through the difficult times I mentioned — Nazi Germany, Tsarist Russia, antebellum United States — who did far more than manifest a form of moral purity; they actively opposed the injustices that surrounded them. We can follow the example of those who remembered that the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take down those systems.

This article, along with other landmark Orion essays about transformative action, are collected in a new anthology, Change Everything Now. Order your copy here. Interesting angle, but I have to disagree with the overall message. Placing blame on industry in my opinion only removes the blame from the individual, and thus makes it less personal.

We as individuals are responsible for the industry which seems to be to blame. It creates the products and services that each individual consumes. So only by collectively saying no to these products and services are we able to truly change our destructive path.

This analogy can be used just about everywhere and helps bring back the responisiblity to the consumer and not project it onto some foreign concept such as the government or corporations. Now is the time. We hear the same message, over and over again about all the things that are wrong with the world.

No matter that it is true, there is never any alternative other than stop doing what you do now. And then, what? For that, Jensen provides no answer. Neither did Nader. He might have made a real difference had he been able to tell us what his future looked like and how to get there.

Nader did not do it and is now relegated to providing a few comments when the media needs someone to disagree. I doubt that Jensen will get that much. There is an alternative. The vision of that started the Green Party, one of ecological sustainability and an industry the practices sustainable permaculture on a massive scale, a vision of citizens who respond according to their needs, not their wants; a vision of a world at peace and not at war. Too many Greens are themselves caught in that old paradigm of protest.

Remember, we do not remember Martin Luther King for say stop it, but for sharing his dream with all of us. I wonder if Jensen dreams. You would never know. I was going to make the same argument that Joel did, but since he said it so well, I have very little to add. Industry and agriculture are not solely to blame — they cater to the consumers. There are certainly better methods to produce products, for instance in sustainable agriculture vs. The other comment by Wes needs a response — Wes claims that Jensen offers no solution or alternative.

That is simply not true. This is the point that Wes somehow missed in his reading of the article. I largely agree with Joel, but would place my emphasis on the human rather than the economic. For me, the most persuasive case for living simply is not to reduce the economic demand that fuels industry. Rather, it is the way that changing my own actions contributes to changing cultural values and norms.

When I bring my own tupperware to a restaurant instead of taking a to-go box, I am not just reducing the demand for styrofoam by a minuscule amount. I am also helping shift our collective cultural norms towards a world where using resources to create a single use to-go box is no longer acceptable. In turn, this might eventually move us towards a world where creating any item for a single use — be it industrial, corporate, military, etc. And it is only once we as a society come to regard single use production as unacceptable that large scale activism has any chance.

Without simultaneous efforts to shift our underlying cultural attitudes, our activism has very little probability of succeeding and may even appear as hypocrisy. No claim here to have thoroughly read everything Jensen has written, but I will side with him that we do need much more activism and much more truth in the face of power, lies and pablum.

Could it be his frustration with those who peacefully go about living their simple, low-impact lives, knowing that behavior can be contageous, is that there is no time to wait for that behavior to catch on in a large scale? We do need revolutionary change and we need it yesterday. Still, I think there is a place in this transition for all — a place for revolutionaries and I count myself one and a place for more diplomatic change agents.

Derrick, I think you have made some very important points about the clever way capitalism obscures political action by promoting smaller acts. Still, I think you have not included the importance of spiritual practice and individuals entering processes of political change through the doorway of individual action. I have seen this in the fair trade system. It is largely focused on consumption and, yet, it also helps people understand some of the system dynamics at play in trade.

This makes it an easy way to begin the journey which sometimes leads to political action. Real, dramatic, systemic change is necessary if we are to have any chance of preserving the planet in anything close to the condition in which it now exists to say nothing of the condition in which it existed years ago. The personal may indeed by political—but that is not to say that the political is exhausted by the personal.

Major political and economic change is not optional. I agree completely with Derrick Jensen. As he must have expected, he has ruffled some feathers. The scale of involvement necessary for real solutions is frightening to the timid. Who to trust? Most media are just branches of the corporate world. And making sense of the multitude of ideas most of them half-baked or worse on the internet is a labyrinth that few have time or intelligence to sort out.

As for the comments about dreams, Mr. I thank him and the editors of Orion for sharing this dream. Well-written argument, but essentially a luddite one. Great piece. You are absolutely right about the double-bind we place ourselves in when we let the powers that be convince us to approach the environmental crisis solely as consumers and not as agents of social change.

Many thanks. Putting aside all the fear that comes with lucid thinking on this crisis, can you really deny that industrial society is killing the earth, and that radically transforming society is the only hope for not killing the earth?

This is a totally logical conclusion and the author only makes a few logical steps from there. Recently I have been stirred by what can only be described as warning voices by scientists telling us things have grown a whole lot worse a whole lot faster than anyone had believed. So I began to read the thinking of those who were ahead of me on that curve of devising solutions.

The evidence is clearly documented. Those who are shocked and disturbed by what Derrick has written have not spent the time to consider all the facts, the options and the possible results of those options. Given the speed at which this destruction is happening and I am not talking about merely a few degrees of temperature rise and the certain consequences, people like Derrick are urging pragmatic, effective action. When they speak of the cost to humans of such action they balance this against the cost of continuing on the current path.

And I like it. Geektronica — the problem with the technological argument is that technology requires resources. Resources that are getting increasingly scarce. Industrial agriculture will be literally non existent by the end of this century due to oil becoming such a scarce resource. And their is no feasible alternative that can produce energy anything close to what we are consuming today.

You say that by looking at non-industrialised nations we can see that technology is not a function of environmental degradation. Is an axe not a form of technology? Is a saw not a form of technology? Clearly it is much easier to clear cut a forest with a chainsaw as opposed to bare hands. Technology is everything, it infinitely increases our capacity to consume the resources around us. Learning to live with the land rather than trying to manipulate it to our wants and needs will however.

Polytechnic approaches involve using many different technologies to meet human needs. Monotechnic approaches, on the other hand, prioritize technology for the sake of technology, to the exclusion of other options, regardless of the impacts on human beings or the planet. Indigenous societies are generally quite mobile, and can move to make use ot the many different foods available in different seasons in healthy ecosystems.

The same goes for other material gathered or hunted, such as firewood, furs, or medicinal plants. Agriculture also eliminated many of the birth control methods that were intrinsic to hunter-gatherer life. That, along with other changes, like the ability to replace breast-feeding in young children with foods made from stored grains, led to a trend toward constant population growth that worsened local ecological destruction.

Agriculture grew at the expense of technologies, skills and social structures used by indigenous peoples. Oh yes it does, Mr. Where is its spiritual component? As Anne Wilson Schaef so eloquently expressed it way back in , society has become an addict. And, as all of us in recovery know, addiction is an ultimately deadly disease. Yes, political action was neccessary to overthrow Tsarist Russia, just as it was to overthrow its more modern rendition, the USSR.

And it will be needed to overthrow Putin. Is it the political action that is actually RE-action or is it the political action that supports and is a part of the ground swell flowing up from personal change? One of the ways that many of my friends assuage their consciences is to be active at the macro level.

Instead of making a difference at the local level where they could make a difference as is done in the transition movement , they focus on Washington and even higher. Fifteen people willing to commit their time, energy and mindfulness could take over and utterly change my town of 7, people. And that could serve as the fulcrum to change our county of almost , Personal change is the first step. LOCAL change is the second. How many of the self styled activists actually take an active part in the governance of their local communities?

I appreciated the article as it refocused me to the real need to continue to work to effect change beyond our individual selves. While it remains a daunting task, real sustainability cannot be achieved through our own minor advances in conservation but requires a cultural and business shift away from greed.

By making us think and engage with the uncomfortable, he carries the collective conversation further along. That is, we need to act on the personal AND the collective, political levels. We need to work on ourselves AND on changing our structures institutions to be more life-giving.

I hold that simple living is a deeply political act, downright subversive in our time, even if the household doing is not politically motivated. Simple living IS the vision of the kind of society we could move toward! Not to mention, those who have reduced needs and commitment likely have more time to engage at the civic level. What would he have us do? My belief is that our top two activist priorities for reform must be broad and rather unsexy: 1 revoke corporate personhood, and 2 institute instant runoff voting, to give voters more true choice without the spoiler effect.

It is obvious from some of the later comments that I was not clear about my criticism of Jenkins. It is really from the fact that he tells us that he wants more activism and protest. I agree with that. However, he does not tell us what he would have in place of the current technological materialistic capitalism.

Without a solution to that problem, he will never have more than a small number of people who agree. Mass movements need to be based on creating something new, not just on tearing down what exists. We are stuck in an industrial global society with inhabitants that take all of the industrial infrastructure for granted. A history lesson is very much needed. The ordinary individual did not create the consumer. The industrial revolution did! In order to survive, what was one of the most horrific changes in Western culture, the individual consumer was born.

But with all of the natural resources at their feet, the American individual soared to the greatest hedonistic heights. Hobsbawn for some enlightening history about the IR. If we stop buying gas guzzling cars industry will start producing non gas guzzling cars. One would think that the individual is voting with their dollars. BUT, the individual is still buying cars!

And they will certainly produce fuel efficient behemoths for you to aspire to owning. Industry will continue to dictate how you should construct your lives. Unfortunately, my prediction is that there will have to be a crisis huge enough to precipitate the change that is needed.

So here we are, at another pivotal climatic moment, and we may have to make yet another monumental change — when food or energy sources are not so readliy available. Revoke corporate personhood. And there are some places, including towns in Maine, that have done it. To me, this is a most elegant, if extremely difficult, solution one solution among others, not THE solution as so much needs to be done.

And it is not new. Richard Grossman has been working on this for many years now. This is the perfect opportunity to bring in community currency. Towns did this in the Great Depression. It needs broad-based community support and active community participation. There are many other types of projects and models that could be used in this manner if only more of us would begin thinking and acting outside of the proverbial box.

This, to me, is the biggest disconnect in my life. And it contributes, I think, to inertia, and to denial. People want to believe that what we do not only matters but has the power to change. People also want to believe that we have plenty of time or that those who predict such a dire future, a future that is coming sooner than most believed possible even a short five years ago, are wrong. And there is a huge barrier between the two. The question is how can individuals destroy the barrier enough to transform the system?

I used to believe that we do have such power as individuals. I no longer do. However that does not absolve me from acting responsibly with regard to how I live my life. What I know is that once we wake up and begin to act and change things in the places where we live then the barriers will begin to come down. And I read about small communities or neighborhoods in larger cities that are beginning this process, even having some success, and I wonder, how could something like that happen where I live?

And I doubt, right now anyway given the politics, the economics, the blinders, the preconceived notions of local people here, whether such things like Transition in another article in this issue of Orion would find enough supporters willing to take the time and energy needed to actually bring it to reality. I say this because of the responses I get whenever I write about climate change or the economy or politics or the rampant development — at least four new housing developments within less than 17 miles of my home.

Despite the so-called recession, despite all the unsold, already-built homes, despite the vacant box stores, and so on. Who is going to build on these recently cleared acres? Private land, private capital, private profits are all that matter. This must change and it must not be considered anti-american to make this change. These new developments with no homes yet used to be woods and habitat for bear, deer, moose, birds, turkeys, and other creatures now rendered homeless.

Where are they supposed to go? I have no power to stop it. And the animals have no voice. I believe that great changes can happen in a short period of time if the will and the means are there. And if the will is strong enough we can force the means through. There are times when I believe only a violent revolution will do the trick, but in my heart I know that is not the solution.

It is just frustration and anger speaking. In my heart I know the way to the revolution must be through love and compassion and an iron will. But for this to work we need masses of people to agree and to be willing to do more than take shorter showers and recycle. We need to find a way to care for each other, to support each other in more than thoughts, if we expect people with families to take such risks.

To Lorraine typing as I was typing. We were not born consumers. Consumers were created by industry. We were born human beings, a part of Earth, one of many species here. We were born with an innate connection to and dependence on the natural world and the ability to participate and communicate with and within this world. As consumers we reject this connection and become separate, and sad. Then we consume to assuage the sadness. Personal and symbolic acts are not simply feel good gestures but meaningful forms of community formation and communication among ourselves and between us and other species.

They have ripple effects and serve as role models. Most of all they generate the feelings and connections with nature that help motivate the brainstorming, networking, institution changing and forming that are the activism Jensen advocates. They reinforce our vision that a dead planet is not an option by helping us to notice that it IS a living planet in the first place. Interesting rhetorical device here aimed to catch our attention and focus our energy, but not, I think, a real dichotomy.

It is precisely suicide — or some version of accepting death in its time, that must stand against the technologization of our civilization — and perhaps lies at the heart of it. I think of the Hindus or Jains who in old age retire to the forest eating less and less until they die and compare that to the resources we pour into not only deflecting death but even old age. We obviously cannot ignore personal choices and lifestyles but the real action on the climate change front is in policy— something we have yet to galvanize public action toward.

Remember, the Civil Rights Era was as much about policy and legal action as it was marches and protests. I want to thank Derrick Jensen for writing another wise and honest column. Joel 1 and Chris 4 , your critiques seem to take as a given that we have a truly free-market economy in this society.

Noam Chomsky and many others on the left have, I think, effectively debunked this idea. The largest heavy industry in America also the largest polluter is the weapons industry, and the military uses more oil than any other industry. Clearly, neither my consumption choices nor my vote plays a factor in these. Not exactly Smithian capitalism. More like sheer plunder.

Actually, Adam Smith warned explicitly against such abuses, and supported strong unions to prevent them. Moreover, as Jensen showed in his book Strangely Like War on the timber industry, co-authored with George Draffan , paper mills continually churn out far more paper than the economy calls for.

Likewise, the federally subsidized, biotech, pesticide laden, fossil fuel fertilized corn, soy, cotton, etc. Hence all the crazy, energy intensive, unhealthy innovations for dumping it HFCS, lecithin, TVP, corn oil, soy oil, inappropriate animal feed, and now, of course, biofuels. They did it simply because they knew their boys in Washington would approve it and that their propaganda would sell it to farmers, and that Monsanto would make a fortune. Major corporations are not out there trying to meet public needs.

Major industries do not produce less or destroy less when demand falls off which it does almost exclusively for economic reasons, very rarely for political reasons… even less so ecological ones. They turn to the government for bailouts, and they use their massive propaganda industry PR to manufacture new demand.

Look, I, like Jensen, compost, recycle, drive very little, buy almost only ethically produced local foods, buy only used clothes, occasionally dumpster dive, pee outside, bring tupperware to restaurants, and do many other little, tiny things to reduce my impact. Is it worth it? Does it pose any threat whatsoever to those who are destroying the planet?

We need lifestyle changes in order to sleep at night and be able to look at ourselves in the mirror, but we also need to stop kidding ourselves that these changes will suffice to save the profoundly imperiled community of life on this planet. Moreover, to refuse to fight back as effectively as possible is to value my luxuries, my relative freedom, my so-called life over future generations, over the planet, over my own dignity.

Wes 3 , you may be interested to know that Derrick is working on a book explicitly about dreams, and based on dreams. And, as Chris 4 noted, he definitely offers a clear vision, whether or not you agree with it. He is saying to resist by all means necessary. People understood what that meant when Malcolm X said it. Amanda 6 , it is really good that you like me bring tupperware for your leftovers at restaurants.

Hell, the school building is named for Andrew Goodman, an alum who fought and died for civil rights. And yet I was appalled on my first day when I saw every single student, teacher, administrator, and staff member throwing away disposable utensils, plates, bowls, cups, napkins, and a lot of food, with every meal. I pretty much always eat what I buy or forage , and I compost the rest. I never, ever use disposables.

I brought in a set of dishes and utensils the next day. For the next four years, I established myself as, frankly, a widely liked and respected member of the community, one of a couple of leaders on ecological issues. A few others, including some students, brought in mugs and sometimes use them.

And this is one of the most liberal communities you will find, where everyone talks about ecological issues daily. This is a rich community, where we could easily afford to change our behavior. This is a community where I was not strictly a peer to most, but in a clearly defined authority position, and I was widely liked, even loved by many, yet almost no one followed my lead on this one, tiny, easy issue. And we have far, far, bigger levers to use in our fight against global ecocide. And we must use them, if we truly value life.

By all means, compost too. Stephen 11 , fair enough. In my history classes, I am constantly making parallels to Hitler and the Nazis. Also to slavery. I do so, as I suspect Jensen does, because these are two of the only historical atrocities with which we, as a society, have any degree of both familiarity and moral clarity.

And what happens if we apply the justice at Nuremberg to the Reagan administration? Or the Clinton administration? Or Obama? Jensen says over and over, including in this column, that we should make those tiny, eensy-weensy changes, and that he does so himself. He also says that we must rid ourselves of the delusion that doing so will suffice to stop the omnicide. Read his work. He does not rule out engagement in the political process.

He also says, very clearly and forcefully in his new book What We Leave Behind, co-authored with Aric McBay that these must be done in the context of a culture of resistance. So environmental activists who run for public office, or focus on permaculture, or focus on urban gardening, or focus on education like me , or focus on writing books like him , etc, must see not only each other as allies to be supported but also people doing the crucial front-line work of confronting and dismantling the systems and infrastructures through which the dominant culture oppresses and destroys all living beings.

Be in politics, as the Sinn Fein leaders were in politics. You want to run for office? I see him tailoring his message to his audience. If you have not read Endgame, I strongly suggest you and everyone do so. BUT, it should also be clear that Derrick is not proposing some grand political program for us all to follow, like Lenin or even Bakunin. The revolution he supports is to dismantle empire and replace it with thousands of small, local cultures that are inextricable from their landbases.

Which is to say, indigenous cultures. Which are, by virtue of their size, their technics, and their oneness with the broader community of life, highly democratic, egalitarian, and most importantly, sustainable. Now, back to Geektronica OK, Derrick Jensen is a Luddite.

And then some. Because the Luddites only opposed industrial technology. Jensen goes further, to the dawn of agriculture as in, the dawn of ecocidal monocropping of annuals, not the dawn of putting seeds in the ground, which has always been done, including by non-humans. He is opposed to all civilized technology. Including metallurgy. Including the plow. But he is most opposed to industrial technology because it is so much more extreme and rapid in its destructiveness than pre-industrial civilized technology.

Living forests into junk mail and toilet paper. Living rivers into hydro-electricity, canned salmon, and bottles of wine from irrigated vineyards. Living prairies into stockpiles of grain. Living mountains into beer cans using hydro-electricity from murdered rivers , jewelry, and whole ecosystems laid waste by toxic tailings. And so forth. And this is in contrast to wild animals, including wild human cultures, who obviously also consume the lives and bodies of others while honoring them , but enhance and protect the communities from which those individuals come.

That is the crucial difference. In industrial society, salmon are a commodity, a resource. And how does one treat a resource, a commodity? No surprise that the culture that sees land as a resource, that sees trees, salmon, rivers, mountains, indeed the whole Earth as resources, also treats women, children, foreigners, minorities, the laboring classes, and so forth as resources.

It, civilization in its most fully realized and pathological form, industrial civilization , is a culture based on objectification and exploitation. Not all human cultures are like this. Indeed, ONLY civilized cultures are like this. It is a pathology that is literally consuming the planet, and if it is not stopped, there will be very little, if anything, left of the community of life by the time it has collapsed and its impact has been fully absorbed.

Further, the Abenaki lived where I now sit for thousands of years, and they did not deplete the forests, the cod now locally extirpated , the passenger pigeons fully extinct , the lobsters, the aquifers, the topsoil, and so on. They did not leave the land despoiled with waste and toxins. They took no more than the land could willingly and healthily give. For thousands of years. And they did not oppress women. And they did not invent money, or slavery. And they did not commit genocide against their human neighbors.

Same goes for the Mohawks who lived for eons where I grew up. Same goes for the paleolithic predecessors of the Etruscans who lived for eons where I lived for a year in Italy. Same goes for the Tolowa who lived for eons where Jensen now lives. Same goes for the San in Namibia, living much like their ancestors from hundreds of thousands of years ago: sustainably, peacefully, profoundly, democratically.

The qualities of civilization are not the qualities of the human. Indeed, they are starkly at odds with the qualities of the human, which is why life in civilized society produces so many discontents as noted by Freud and Jung , so many schizophrenics as noted by Joseph Campbell and Stanley Diamond , so many depressives, addicts, sociopaths, and so forth as should be obvious to anyone.

We are still wild beings, tamed into a highly imperfect submission, under which we rankle. There is now far more plastic than plankton in the oceans. Amphibians are dying off en masse, worldwide. The whole planet is on a horrific, anthropogenic warming cycle that will surely take an extremely heavy toll and even threatens the continuation of life itself.

The question is whether or not much of the still surviving community of life will make it long enough to weather that collapse and begin restoring health to this planet, so we might all have a future. As for the current human population level, it is grossly, absurdly beyond carrying capacity, and that is a major product of the dominant culture indigenous cultures maintained stable population levels.

The population is coming down, sooner or later, more or less horrifically. Should we continue assaulting and damaging and destroying the foundations upon which life is built in order to forestall and intensify the eventual collapse for another day, or week, or year? If it takes that long, how much worse will the collapse be? Will there be nine billion people? Will the Great Plains be the new Sahara? Will there be any vertebrates left on the oceans?

Will there be any indigenous human cultures left? Will not only Greenland but Antacrtica meltdown in whole or in large part, raising sea levels by around ft? Will all the methane in the permafrost and the oceanic clathrates release and spiral the planet toward irreversible warming and a Venus effect? Do you want to wait and see? There is not so much difference between these people, and those Derrick mentions in his last paragraph.

Hey Jim Bier 26 , I can define solipsism for you. The consequences are that no one else has a will, feelings, spirit and so forth, and that therefore there are no true moral implications to doing whatever one pleases with them or to them. And Descartes actually operated on these principles toward non-humans.

Of course, the dominant culture operates in this fundamentally objectifying, abusive, destructive, insane way on every possible level. And Derrick Jensen says we should do all we can to stop the dominant culture from obliterating the community of life.

Jensen recognizes that all beings, not just humans, not just organic life forms, value their own existence, probably no less than we do. He literally listens to and speaks to non-humans, as have indigenous people and many poets throughout time. So no, you are dead wrong. Jensen is the absolute opposite and worst nightmare of solipsists.

I have gone back and forth on this issue of what can I do, etc etc. Sometimes I am convinced that I should be saving water, because it is the right thing to do. Seriously, in our area, they tell us to conserve water but there is no mechanism to know that I am leaving the water in the river.

It just gets alloted out to the next subdivision because it is available. So well put. Also, I too am sick of being blamed for a lack of water because I like a bath once in a while. It is to keep us complacent. We need to change our industrial culture.

Every community has a different answer that only that community can figure out and hopefully it all leads to the same result. Good points about water. Read about it here:. I would argue, however, that water was consumed by proxy by the owner who purchased the car.

A number of comments above had appropriately indicated that the link between industrial use and consumer demand is complex. Golf players create a demand for golf courses, for example. In naming this complexity, they note that demand is the sum of individual choices which, if changed in some way, would affect the industry supplying the demand. I get hung up with another part of this linkage. Which, IMHO, weakens the individual-as-the-solution answer.

That is advertising. And advertising is carefully designed to remove reason from the buying decision. Making the purchase an impulse or an image choice rather than a utility choice. This makes rational and value based buying difficult. One solution is to base profit and price on the true cost of manufacture. Pollution controls, for example, moves some of the cost from the environment to the manufacture of the product.

That would create a basis for simpler living to change the industrial system. I came away wondering if universal lobotomies, vasectomies, or monkey-wrench-gang-style economic policies were the logical next step. No public action, no matter how radical, will make that happen. John Srsly. Also, evolution. Perhaps evolution is the real revolution! Since the industrial revolution Western culture has been in huge hurry to get somewhere fast. In fact the shift that took place in the human psyche, as a result of the mechanization of production, was so dramatic that there is every reason to believe that the suffering we have been experiencing and trying to heal from, is nothing less that the human divorce from nature.

Frederick Engels, in the middle of the 19th century, described the toll that the Industrial Revolution had on the lives of the English working person in his book, The Condition of the Working Class in England. It was nothing short of traumatic. Change during this time was swift, stressful, and wholly unnatural. The making of a working-class, that toiled 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, for close to a century, was the un-doing of centuries of rural peasant life.

Moving from a predominantly outdoor, rural, community based, and sustainable lifestyle that provided adequate food and shelter, to living in the crowded, unhealthy tenements of the cities and working in poorly lit factories would, undoubtedly, bequeath a sickness of mind, body, and spirit. The cultural rebellion of the nineteen sixties certainly helped create a growing awareness that mechanization, the commanding cultural force of Western culture since the 18th century, created a new sense of self that does not exactly go with the flow of nature.

Rather, the growing preference to manipulate, divert or alter interrupted the very essence of natural living, natural livelihood and the natural relationship that existed with the land. England in the early 18th century was, according to Hobsbawm, still a clean and beautiful country. Artisans, journeymen, and peasants alike enjoyed a slow paced work life, which included family and community. Food was grown locally and the diet low in protein, and almost devoid of stimulants. Life was not easy but it was simple, healthy, and, for the most part, relaxed.

The experience of community was not separate from work and joy was, undoubtedly, present in all aspects of work in pre-industrial peasant life. Changing the means of production, therefore, radically changed the lives of rural dwellers then at least three quarters of the population and our relationship to food, family, community and the natural world.

English culture, as well as the entire Western world and those that were affected by Westernization , saw the most profound human transformation since the advent of agriculture some 10, years ago. This cultural detour, which I describe as an unwholesome transformation, has taken us in the Western world, into a way of life that is no longer nourishing, no longer full of the wholeness of an alive and vibrant existence and unconnected to the natural rhythms and cycles of nature.

I agree with both sides completely. In reality, this is not an either-or thing. In fact, they can inform and temper and inspire each other. I will be a terrible activist if I am not motivated for right reasons and am not living the lifestyle I preach. Similarly, I will be changing nothing if I simply change myself and then pat myself on the back in front of the mirror while the outside world falls to ruin.

You see, for many, a new enlightened consumer choice can be the first step on a path to activism. They might have been alienated by a raw activist type, but a green consumer was a bridge to a new way of thinking… and acting. For you, thought precedes action. For them, it can be the other way around. What you see as a trendy and futile dead-end such as bringing your own bags to grocery store can actually be the first domino for someone. We can do better than that.

Be more visionary and less divisionary. If we are defined by what we are against, we will never become greater than that. We need not look further than American revolution. Many petty consumer acts regarding stamps, tea, and other boycotting and consumer-based activism was the tinder that lit the fire underneath citizen and soldier action.

First, no amount of violence that we can muster could begin to compete with the violent potential of the system. Second, the only way out of a double-bind — or the horns of a rampaging dilemma — is to stop presenting ourselves as a target and to stop feeding the beast. Every personal act that feeds the beast is a political act, and the most powerful political action is to refuse it sustenance.

We refuse it sustenance when we choose to disengage from the system, and we make it possible for many to refuse when we create alternative life-enhancing systems. To step outside of the materialist paradigm that has engendered our global crises, is to rediscover the spiritual principle that the wolf who wins the fight is the one we feed. If we use violence, we feed the predatory wolf. David killed Goliath with his sling, and then grew up to become the predatory nation of Israel. I agree with Bjorn Beer.

Bathing in the river saves water. Bathing in the river, drinking from the river, cooking soup with river water. Cleaning pots with sand, eating every meal from the same bowl. So you take a 1-minute military shower in your private home, so what? Who sees it?

And sure to get you arrested, in the best activist tradition. This beast is coming down, so just tend your garden and let it crash. You sound like an intelligent, well-informed, sensitive person, so I assume you have at least a fair grasp of the enormity of the devastation that has been and continues to be inflicted. Likewise that every year we lose a few more of the handful of remaining indigenous languages, and therefore, all or nearly all of their stories, myths, wisdom, spirituality, medicine, technology, knowledge of how to live sustainably, and so on.

Likewise that the US and a few of its allies are irradiating the planet more or less permanently with millions and millions of pounds of depleted uranium munitions. And so on. What are we going to do when we all develop tumors? Or just kills us for having shown another way to live, as it has so often done from indigenous cultures to John Africa?

And when they come to plunder us, the last reserve of free, sane people, and destroy our land, what do we do? Beg them to take us on as slaves rather than kill us? Or would we fight back? To step aside as industrial civilization, or capitalism, or patriarchy, or Leviathan, or Goliath, or whatever you want to call it commits further atrocities is A utterly callous and a complete abdication of our responsibility to those we purport to love and B just postponing the inevitable confrontation when Goliath catches up with us.

And he will. Because the whole planet is dying, or, more accurately, being murdered. Your lifeboat community better be well armed. I hope it will also support those who will fight to defend others and precipitate the crash. A few moments of research make that abundantly clear. The idea that the US picked up the mantle of fascism is, of course, true, and a truth lost on nearly all Americans. If they had not done this, Hitler would likely have gotten the bomb.

I am very, very happy that those resistance fighters took that action and succeeded. Hypotheticals are tricky, but I am pretty confident that things would have been worse if Hitler had gotten the bomb. Anyhow, the basic questions remain: 1. Where will you walk away to? How do you explain this behavior to those being exploited, raped, abused, murdered right now?

How will you avoid being, along with your lifeboat community, consumed by the death culture in its final throes? When a caged tiger mauls a zookeeper, does she risk becoming a zookeeper? The community of life is already fighting back, as it must. Running for office? What gets people to listen? What is truly a thorn in side of dominant paradigm? And what actually produces more adherents and support than it detracts and dissuades?

Are you thinking more civil disobedience? Do you have specific ideas that would do more good, or does it just give the dominant paradigm more cannon fodder? Will the crackdown be worse than the crack think you are causing? I have documented these in A Matter Of Scale. And yes, the system will fight back, but perhaps not before it has been sabotaged.

Jensen pretty much nails it. As did Karl Marx. Corporations merely hire humans to do the actual work of extracting and working the resources. Did the wonderful human beings who constitute our lovely Jeffersonian republic fall asleep in Econ or History when we hit the chapter on corporations? Everything that you lament is a human creation, but you expect humans en masse to tear down the things they have spent so long creating. We preserve the system because we LOVE the system. Only when this way of living applies too much negative pressure on us as individuals will we do anything about it, and, at that time, political activism will be redundant.

If I wanted to walk around the world, I could not possibly find enough leather to cover the surface of the earth. But just covering the soles of my shoes with leather works even better. Likewise, I could not possibly transform all bad things outside in the world. But if I can transform this mind of mine, what need do I have to transform everything else? But having given him a childhood full of love, encouragement and affection most likely could have.

Nothing is more radical than the small and daily acts of Love. Right on. Specifically, his belief that the only effective response to systemic violence is violently tearing down the machine of violence. Stating it that clearly should be enough to demonstrate its inherent contradiction. I would never advocate mere escapism.

What I not only propose but have lived for the 40 years of my adult life is a combination of non-violent but fierce confrontation, and building a new society within the shell of the old. I have publicly refused to pay taxes to the Empire for 30 years, have been jailed for non-violent resistance, and have spent much of that 40 years actively educating and organizing others for constructive social change. The downfall of most tyrants and of major empires has been either initiated or facilitated by predominantly non-violent movements, several of which have been undertaken after the failure of violent resistance.

But an offensive violent resistance, even with the intent to avoid human casualty which is more hope than certainty will not only elicit severe repression and state violence, but result in inculcating violence into our very souls and poisoning any positive future we hope to enjoy. We are witnessing the collapse of Western civilization and Empire. The most powerful weapon we have to facilitate that collapse is the withholding of our support.

That cannot be avoided. But what is most important now is to build alternative structures and relationships that can sustain us after the Fall. I believe that we do have enough time, and that individual, personal change is the ONLY possible method that will get us to the goal. All of recorded history backs me up. We serve as examples to others, and they are attracted to our more successful mode of being.

In turn, they attract others with their actions. Eventually the tide turns, and the bad ways are abandoned. The entire game plan, the only winning strategy that has ever worked or will ever. So with all due respect, Derrick Jenson can go stuff it. The problems he calls out are real enough, but they are merely symptoms, not the disease. The Fertile Crescent was, 4, yrs. The old prehistoric Manas people of the Andes also died as a result of over-use and insufficient stores.

The contentious nature of our kind was thus born. Consumptives never have gone on long. It worked while he was alive to model it. Power doth corrupt, as the state of our un-sustainable ecosystem slowly unravells, shows all too well. Not much can be done, short of a Monkey Wrench Gang weilding supreme power.

Golf courses and Corporate domination would be gone. I am younger. We need not agree on all points. Clearly, we are, in the broad scheme of things, on the same side. If I misunderstood you, I apologize for that. Honestly, looking at what you wrote, I thought that my interpretation of what you said was hardly an interpretation at all… it was nearly verbatim. That is, I believe, clear from my post, and I have the facts on my side.

There was considerable militancy in the Danish resistance, especially as the Nazi occupation dragged on. Whether or not your assertion about non-violence is true, I had not argued that specific point. I am glad to hear that you have no problem with authentic self-defense presumably with violence if necessary , of yourself or of those you love.

I had not gotten that from your first post, but I suspect only a deeply insane person would not fight back if she or her friend or her child was being raped or battered. So let me ask you this. Do you stand by MEND, the Ogoni resistance movement that is fighting for the very survival of the Ogoni people, their own families, their own land, themselves? MEND has given the Ogoni a chance, and done the same for their landbase. Do you stand by the Zapatistas, who rose up with arms and have rarely used them when the very existence of their indigenous Mayan communities was under dire threat?

Do you think it is appropriate to use all means necessary including, if necessary, violence when you and your community are being invisibly assaulted with PCB, plutonium, mercury, or any other industrial toxin that may or may not be prevalent in your neighborhood, your food supply, your water, your air? If not, why would you act any differently when the attackers use poison than when they use a machine gun? And all legal means fail. The whole community of life is under dire, existential attack.

Do you love the community of life? Bishops Westcott and Hort describe the original RV reading as "the obscure and improbable language of the text as it stands. The ambiguity of the original reading has motivated some modern interpretations to attempt to identify "they"—e. Latin, Syriac, and others - and does not appear until H,L, and P all 9th century.

As the original verse ended with a question, it is suspected that this phrase was taken from to serve as an answer. It was omitted from editions of the Greek New Testament at least as far back as , in Daniel Mace's edition. There are two passages both 12 verses long that continue to appear in the main text of most of the modern versions, but distinguished in some way from the rest of the text, such as being enclosed in brackets or printed in different typeface or relegated to a footnote.

These are passages which are well supported by a wide variety of sources of great antiquity and yet there is strong reason to doubt that the words were part of the original text of the Gospels. In the words of Philip Schaff , "According to the judgment of the best critics, these two important sections are additions to the original text from apostolic tradition.

KJV: 9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. Reasons : Entire volumes have been written about these twelve verses, [84] and considerable attention is paid to these verses in many or most texts on textual criticism of the New Testament, and many articles in learned journals. According to Reuss, the Greek New Testament of Tischendorf was the first to remove these verses from the main text.

The twelve verses shown in the KJV, called the "longer ending" of Mark, usually are retained [86] in modern versions, although sometimes separated from verse 8 by an extra space, or enclosed in brackets, or relegated to a footnote, and accompanied by a note to the effect that this ending is not found in the very oldest Greek mss but it is found in sources almost as old.

The RV of put an extra space between verse 8 and this verse 9 and included a marginal note to that effect, a practice followed by many subsequent English versions. The RSV edition of ends its main text at verse 8 and then in a footnote provides this ending with the note that "other texts and versions" include it; but the revised RSV of and the NRSV reverted to the practice of the RV.

Although the longer ending appears in 99 percent of the surviving Greek mss and most ancient versions, [87] there is strong evidence, both external and internal, for concluding that it was not part of the original text of the Gospel. Westcott theorized that these verses "are probably fragments of apostolic tradition, though not parts of the evangelic text. The preceding portion of chapter 16 tells how Mary Magdalene and two other women came to the tomb, found it opened and Jesus's body missing, and were told by a young man in a white robe to convey a message to Peter and the other disciples, but the women fled and said nothing to anyone because they were frightened.

It is nowadays widely accepted that these are the last remaining verses written by St. Mark ends somewhat abruptly at end of verse 8 "for they were afraid. No papyrus contains any portion of the 12 verses. Although this Longer Ending is of great antiquity, some early Church Fathers were familiar with mss that lacked it. Eusebius , in the first half of the fourth century, wrote, in response to a query from a man named Marinus, about how Matthew conflicts with the Longer Ending on which day Jesus rose from the dead, with the comment, "He who is for getting rid of the entire passage [at the end of Mark] will say that it is not met with in all the copies of Mark's Gospel; the accurate copies, at all events, making the end of Mark's narrative come after the words What follows, which is met with seldom, [and only] in some copies, certainly not in all, might be dispensed with; especially if it should prove to contradict the record of the other Evangelists.

This, then, is what a person will say who is for evading and entirely getting rid of a gratuitous problem. Jerome , in the first half of the fifth century, received a very similar query from a lady named Hedibia and responded, "Either we should reject the testimony of Mark, which is met with in scarcely any copies of the Gospel, — almost all the Greek codices being without this passage, — especially since it seems to narrate what contradicts the other Gospels; — or else, we shall reply that both Evangelists state what is true.

Burgon also found a patristic comment previously attributed to Gregory of Nyssa of the late fourth century , but which he suspected was more likely written by Hesychius of Jerusalem middle of the fifth century or Severus of Antioch middle sixth century , again answering the same sort of query, and saying, "In the more accurate copies, the Gospel according to Mark has its end at 'for they were afraid. Actually, Greek codex W also known as the Freer Gospels or the Codex Washingtonianus , dating from the fourth or fifth century, is the oldest known Greek ms that sets forth the Longer Ending [98] and it contains a lengthy addition which appears nowhere else , known as the Freer Logion, between the familiar verses 14 and The addition, as translated by Moffatt:.

But they excused themselves saying, "This age of lawlessness and unbelief lies under the sway of Satan, who will not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God; therefore," they said to Christ, "reveal your righteousness now. I was delivered to death on behalf of sinners, that they might return to the truth and sin no more, that they might inherit that glory of righteousness which is spiritual and imperishable in heaven.

Then a space of two lines is left, after which, in the same uncial hand, only in red, is written "Ariston Eritzou. They begin near the bottom of the second column of a verse, and are continued on the recto of the next folio. Conybeare theorized that Ariston was the Armenian version of the Greek name Aristion.

Of a number of Aristions known to history, Conybeare favored the Aristion who had traveled with the original Disciples and was known to Papias , a famous Bishop of the early 2nd century; a quotation from Papias, mentioning Aristion as a Disciple, is found in the Historia Ecclesiastica of Eusebius , But this situation is a bit more complicated.

Some other ancient sources have an entirely different ending to Mark, after verse 8, known as the "Shorter Ending". The RV of contained a footnote attesting to the existence of this Shorter Ending but its text did not appear in a popular edition of the Bible until somewhat later.

After this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. This Shorter Ending appears, by itself without the Longer Ending, after verse 8, in only one manuscript, an Italic ms Codex Bobbiensis, " k " , of the 4th or 5th century. The very existence of the Shorter Ending, whose composition is estimated as the middle of the 2nd century, is taken as evidence that the Longer Ending is not appreciably older, because the Shorter Ending would not have been worked up if the Longer Ending were then readily available.

As a result, there are five possible endings to the Gospel of Mark: 1 An abrupt ending at end of verse 8; 2 the Longer Ending following verse 8; 3 the Longer Ending including the "Freer Logion"; 4 the Shorter Ending following verse 8; and 5 the Shorter and Longer endings combined and we could add as a sixth possible ending, anything after verse 8 enclosed in brackets or otherwise distinguished with indicia of doubt. It would appear that the Longer Ending does not fit precisely with the preceding portion of chapter For example, verse 9 says Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene on "the first day of the week", yet verse 2 said that same day Mary Magdalene did not see Jesus.

Perhaps more significantly, verse 9 finds it necessary to identify Mary Magdalene as the woman who had been freed of seven demons, as if she had not been named before, yet she was mentioned without that detail being mentioned in and The Greek text used by the KJV translators is words long, using a vocabulary of very approximately words. Metzger speaks of the "inconcinnities" [ sic ] between the first 8 verses of chapter 16 and the longer ending, and suggests, "all these features indicate that the section was added by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with verse 8 and who wished to supply a more appropriate conclusion.

While Mark has no proper ending, these verses have no proper beginning. Not only does verse 9 not fit onto verse 8, but the texture of what follows is quite different from the texture of what precedes. A piece torn from a bit of satin is appended to the torn end of roll of homespun. The preceding verse, verse Although the KJV and most English translations render this as the end of a complete sentence "for they were afraid.

The Shorter Ending does not contradict this, but the Longer Ending, in verse 9, immediately contradicts this by having Jesus appear to Mary Magdalene while in Jerusalem, and in verse 12 to two disciples apparently not yet in Galilee. This inconsistency has been considered significant by some. Although the Longer Ending was included, without any indication of doubt, as part of chapter 16 of the Gospel of St.

Mark in the various Textus Receptus editions, the editor of the first published Textus Receptus edition, namely Erasmus of Rotterdam , discovered evidently after his fifth and final edition of that the Codex Vaticanus ended the Gospel at verse 8, whereupon he mentioned doubts about the Longer Ending in a manuscript which lay unpublished until modern times. A commonly accepted theory for the condition of the last chapter of the Gospel of Mark is that the words actually written by St.

Mark end, somewhat abruptly, with verse 8. This abrupt ending may have been a deliberate choice of St. Mark or because the last part of his writing after verse 8 was somehow separated from the rest of his manuscript and was lost an alternative theory is that St. Mark died before finishing his Gospel.

From the incomplete manuscript the copies that end abruptly at verse 8 were directly or remotely copied. At some point, two other people, dissatisfied with the abrupt ending at verse 8, and writing independently of each other, supplied the Longer and the Shorter endings. The "lost page" theory has gotten wide acceptance, [] other theories have suggested that the last page was not lost by accident but was deliberately suppressed, perhaps because something in St.

Mark's original conclusion was troublesome to certain Christians. Mark's own words end with verse 8 and anything after that was written by someone else at a later date. KJV: And every man went unto his own house. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground [] as though he heard them not. Hath no man condemned thee? Go, and sin no more. Reason: This familiar story of the adulteress saved by Jesus is a special case. Cerone, eds. The principal problem affecting this paragraph is that, although it appears in many ancient manuscripts, it does not consistently appear in this place in chapter 8 nor even in the Gospel of John.

Moreover, in the various manuscripts in which the passage appears, it presents a much greater number of variations [] than an equal portion of the New Testament — so much so, that it would seem that there are three distinct versions of the pericope. By its own context, this paragraph appears misplaced; in the verse preceding this pericope namely verse Jesus is conversing or arguing with a group of men, and in the verse following this pericope verse he is speaking "again unto them", even though verses —10 would indicate he was alone in the Temple courtyard and also that a day has passed.

It would seem possible that, originally, was immediately followed by , and somehow this pericope was inserted between them, interrupting the narrative. It is also missing from the Syriac and Sahidic versions and some Egyptian versions. The first Greek Church Father to mention the pericope in its familiar place was Euthymius, of the 12th century. However, one minuscule ms.

Its source might be indicated by Eusebius early 4th century , in his Historia Ecclesia , book 3, sec. This is to be found in the Gospel of the Hebrews. This pericope was framed with marks of doubt in Johann Jakob Wettstein 's Greek New Testament and some earlier Greek editions contained notes doubting its authenticity. Those which contain it vary much from each other. As it forms an independent narrative, it seems to stand best alone at the end of the Gospels with double brackets to show its inferior authority The two 'Majority Text' Greek editions set forth the pericope in the main text varying slightly from each other but provide extensive notes elsewhere [] attesting to the lack of uniformity in the text of the pericope and doubts about its origin.

But it is no part of that gospel. That is perfectly sure. KJV: 25 Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my Gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began: 26 But now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the Prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith, 27 To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ, for ever.

The quotation above uses the punctuation and capitalization of the original edition of the KJV. The WEB bible, however, moves Romans —27 end of chapter verses to Romans —26 also end of chapter verses. Textus Receptus places Romans —26 at the end of Romans instead of at the end of chapter 14, and numbers these verses — In some translations, verse 13 is combined with verse 12, leaving verse 14 renumbered as verse Thus verse 15 does not exist in the KJV.

The ESV, however, is quoted as having 31, This is solely because of this difference. The figure 31, is achieved by adding up the last verse for each and every chapter which is why it is impacted by end of chapter differences. The figure 31, does not account for the "missing verses" referred to above which are missing mid-chapter. Thus the actual number of verses in the ESV is less than 31, Some versions, including pre-KJV versions such as the Tyndale Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the Bishops Bible, treat the italicized words as a complete verse and numbered as , with similar words.

In several modern versions, this is treated as a continuation of or as a complete verse numbered RV: And he stood upon the sand of the sea. Some say "it stood" — the he or it being the Dragon mentioned in the preceding verses Among pre-KJV versions, the Great Bible and the Rheims version also have "he stood". Metzger suggests that the TR text is the result of copyists' assimilation to the verb form in "I saw a beast". From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Redirected from List of omitted Bible verses.

Wikipedia list article. See also: List of major textual variants in the New Testament. Main article: Comma Johanneum. Main article: Mark This section is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style.

April Learn how and when to remove this template message. Main article: Pericope adulterae. Bible portal. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated One reason for including this information is to refute the accusations made by some KJVOs that Bishops Westcott and Hort were the originators and instigators of all the omissions occurring in modern versions.

Bloomfield, The Greek New Testament first ed. Bruce M. B, page 5; Lincoln H. Stuttgart: United Bible Societies. Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Archived from the original on 2 January The NIV places Acts in a footnote because the preponderance of manuscript evidence indicates that these words are not part of the original text of Acts.

None of the Greek manuscripts of the NT include these words before A. None of the early translations of the NT include these words before A. Only a couple of Greek manuscripts were copied after A. The majority of Greek manuscripts copied after A. It is most unlikely, therefore, that these words are really part of the Bible.

Acts is omitted because the early witnesses to the New Testament text indicate that this was added to the text by someone for some reason between and A. The many witnesses we have to the NT text before that time do not include these words. Against Heresies. Translated by Wallis, Robert Ernest. For although in the Acts of the Apostles the eunuch is described as at once baptized by Philip because he believed with his whole heart, this is not a fair parallel.

For he was a Jew, and as he came from the temple of the Lord he was reading the prophet Isaiah. The Acts of the Apostles. New York: Scribner. See also F. III, page 80— And when Erasmus added the verse because it appeared in a suspiciously recent Greek ms, he added the note, "we have transferred from a British manuscript what had been said to be missing in our manuscripts Yet I suspect that it is corrected against our manuscripts.

Hyman E. Erasmus himself admitted adding the passage in his Annotations ; cf. Herbert Marsh 4th ed. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated and often reprinted, chapter The difference from the KJV's rendering seems significant. According to F. Press appendix page , the Amen appears in the Complutensian Polyglot , Colinaeus , Stephanus's first three editions , , , Beza's first edition , and manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate; but it is missing from all of Erasmus's editions , Stephanus's fourth edition , Beza's second thru fifth editions , the Clementine edition of the Vulgaate , and all the English versions before the KJV.

Press originally published as part of volume 18, Feb. Tischendorf put these verses in an extensive footnote. Mark: Revised from the ancient Greek Mss. Press pages It appears that St. Jerome saw this addition, and possibly in several mss, because he wrote ca. And they apologized saying, 'This age of iniquity and unbelief is substance [ substantia; one MS reads sub Satana, - under Satan], which does not permit the true worth [ virtutem ] of God to be apprehended through unclean spirits.

Goodspeed theorized that Jerome had seen these mss at the Nitrian monasteries at Alexandria, Egypt, which he visited in Bacon, Ariston Aristo , in James Hastings, ed. Revell Co. In the edition the Shorter Ending, captioned "A Late Appendix", appeared before the Longer Ending, captioned "Another Appendix", but in the revised edition this order was switched. Mark and St. Matthew from the Bobbio ms. There is a report of seven Ethiopic mss that also show the Shorter, but not the Longer, Ending.

Paul E. Kahle, The End of St. New Series 2, nr.

Accept. opinion, esl university essay ghostwriting for hire for masters and

And, as Chris 4 noted, he definitely offers a clear vision, whether or not you agree with it. He is saying to resist by all means necessary. People understood what that meant when Malcolm X said it. Amanda 6 , it is really good that you like me bring tupperware for your leftovers at restaurants. Hell, the school building is named for Andrew Goodman, an alum who fought and died for civil rights.

And yet I was appalled on my first day when I saw every single student, teacher, administrator, and staff member throwing away disposable utensils, plates, bowls, cups, napkins, and a lot of food, with every meal. I pretty much always eat what I buy or forage , and I compost the rest.

I never, ever use disposables. I brought in a set of dishes and utensils the next day. For the next four years, I established myself as, frankly, a widely liked and respected member of the community, one of a couple of leaders on ecological issues.

A few others, including some students, brought in mugs and sometimes use them. And this is one of the most liberal communities you will find, where everyone talks about ecological issues daily. This is a rich community, where we could easily afford to change our behavior.

This is a community where I was not strictly a peer to most, but in a clearly defined authority position, and I was widely liked, even loved by many, yet almost no one followed my lead on this one, tiny, easy issue. And we have far, far, bigger levers to use in our fight against global ecocide.

And we must use them, if we truly value life. By all means, compost too. Stephen 11 , fair enough. In my history classes, I am constantly making parallels to Hitler and the Nazis. Also to slavery. I do so, as I suspect Jensen does, because these are two of the only historical atrocities with which we, as a society, have any degree of both familiarity and moral clarity.

And what happens if we apply the justice at Nuremberg to the Reagan administration? Or the Clinton administration? Or Obama? Jensen says over and over, including in this column, that we should make those tiny, eensy-weensy changes, and that he does so himself. He also says that we must rid ourselves of the delusion that doing so will suffice to stop the omnicide. Read his work. He does not rule out engagement in the political process.

He also says, very clearly and forcefully in his new book What We Leave Behind, co-authored with Aric McBay that these must be done in the context of a culture of resistance. So environmental activists who run for public office, or focus on permaculture, or focus on urban gardening, or focus on education like me , or focus on writing books like him , etc, must see not only each other as allies to be supported but also people doing the crucial front-line work of confronting and dismantling the systems and infrastructures through which the dominant culture oppresses and destroys all living beings.

Be in politics, as the Sinn Fein leaders were in politics. You want to run for office? I see him tailoring his message to his audience. If you have not read Endgame, I strongly suggest you and everyone do so. BUT, it should also be clear that Derrick is not proposing some grand political program for us all to follow, like Lenin or even Bakunin. The revolution he supports is to dismantle empire and replace it with thousands of small, local cultures that are inextricable from their landbases.

Which is to say, indigenous cultures. Which are, by virtue of their size, their technics, and their oneness with the broader community of life, highly democratic, egalitarian, and most importantly, sustainable. Now, back to Geektronica OK, Derrick Jensen is a Luddite. And then some. Because the Luddites only opposed industrial technology. Jensen goes further, to the dawn of agriculture as in, the dawn of ecocidal monocropping of annuals, not the dawn of putting seeds in the ground, which has always been done, including by non-humans.

He is opposed to all civilized technology. Including metallurgy. Including the plow. But he is most opposed to industrial technology because it is so much more extreme and rapid in its destructiveness than pre-industrial civilized technology.

Living forests into junk mail and toilet paper. Living rivers into hydro-electricity, canned salmon, and bottles of wine from irrigated vineyards. Living prairies into stockpiles of grain. Living mountains into beer cans using hydro-electricity from murdered rivers , jewelry, and whole ecosystems laid waste by toxic tailings. And so forth. And this is in contrast to wild animals, including wild human cultures, who obviously also consume the lives and bodies of others while honoring them , but enhance and protect the communities from which those individuals come.

That is the crucial difference. In industrial society, salmon are a commodity, a resource. And how does one treat a resource, a commodity? No surprise that the culture that sees land as a resource, that sees trees, salmon, rivers, mountains, indeed the whole Earth as resources, also treats women, children, foreigners, minorities, the laboring classes, and so forth as resources. It, civilization in its most fully realized and pathological form, industrial civilization , is a culture based on objectification and exploitation.

Not all human cultures are like this. Indeed, ONLY civilized cultures are like this. It is a pathology that is literally consuming the planet, and if it is not stopped, there will be very little, if anything, left of the community of life by the time it has collapsed and its impact has been fully absorbed.

Further, the Abenaki lived where I now sit for thousands of years, and they did not deplete the forests, the cod now locally extirpated , the passenger pigeons fully extinct , the lobsters, the aquifers, the topsoil, and so on. They did not leave the land despoiled with waste and toxins. They took no more than the land could willingly and healthily give. For thousands of years. And they did not oppress women.

And they did not invent money, or slavery. And they did not commit genocide against their human neighbors. Same goes for the Mohawks who lived for eons where I grew up. Same goes for the paleolithic predecessors of the Etruscans who lived for eons where I lived for a year in Italy. Same goes for the Tolowa who lived for eons where Jensen now lives. Same goes for the San in Namibia, living much like their ancestors from hundreds of thousands of years ago: sustainably, peacefully, profoundly, democratically.

The qualities of civilization are not the qualities of the human. Indeed, they are starkly at odds with the qualities of the human, which is why life in civilized society produces so many discontents as noted by Freud and Jung , so many schizophrenics as noted by Joseph Campbell and Stanley Diamond , so many depressives, addicts, sociopaths, and so forth as should be obvious to anyone.

We are still wild beings, tamed into a highly imperfect submission, under which we rankle. There is now far more plastic than plankton in the oceans. Amphibians are dying off en masse, worldwide. The whole planet is on a horrific, anthropogenic warming cycle that will surely take an extremely heavy toll and even threatens the continuation of life itself.

The question is whether or not much of the still surviving community of life will make it long enough to weather that collapse and begin restoring health to this planet, so we might all have a future. As for the current human population level, it is grossly, absurdly beyond carrying capacity, and that is a major product of the dominant culture indigenous cultures maintained stable population levels.

The population is coming down, sooner or later, more or less horrifically. Should we continue assaulting and damaging and destroying the foundations upon which life is built in order to forestall and intensify the eventual collapse for another day, or week, or year? If it takes that long, how much worse will the collapse be? Will there be nine billion people? Will the Great Plains be the new Sahara? Will there be any vertebrates left on the oceans?

Will there be any indigenous human cultures left? Will not only Greenland but Antacrtica meltdown in whole or in large part, raising sea levels by around ft? Will all the methane in the permafrost and the oceanic clathrates release and spiral the planet toward irreversible warming and a Venus effect? Do you want to wait and see? There is not so much difference between these people, and those Derrick mentions in his last paragraph. Hey Jim Bier 26 , I can define solipsism for you.

The consequences are that no one else has a will, feelings, spirit and so forth, and that therefore there are no true moral implications to doing whatever one pleases with them or to them. And Descartes actually operated on these principles toward non-humans. Of course, the dominant culture operates in this fundamentally objectifying, abusive, destructive, insane way on every possible level.

And Derrick Jensen says we should do all we can to stop the dominant culture from obliterating the community of life. Jensen recognizes that all beings, not just humans, not just organic life forms, value their own existence, probably no less than we do. He literally listens to and speaks to non-humans, as have indigenous people and many poets throughout time. So no, you are dead wrong. Jensen is the absolute opposite and worst nightmare of solipsists.

I have gone back and forth on this issue of what can I do, etc etc. Sometimes I am convinced that I should be saving water, because it is the right thing to do. Seriously, in our area, they tell us to conserve water but there is no mechanism to know that I am leaving the water in the river.

It just gets alloted out to the next subdivision because it is available. So well put. Also, I too am sick of being blamed for a lack of water because I like a bath once in a while. It is to keep us complacent. We need to change our industrial culture. Every community has a different answer that only that community can figure out and hopefully it all leads to the same result.

Good points about water. Read about it here:. I would argue, however, that water was consumed by proxy by the owner who purchased the car. A number of comments above had appropriately indicated that the link between industrial use and consumer demand is complex.

Golf players create a demand for golf courses, for example. In naming this complexity, they note that demand is the sum of individual choices which, if changed in some way, would affect the industry supplying the demand.

I get hung up with another part of this linkage. Which, IMHO, weakens the individual-as-the-solution answer. That is advertising. And advertising is carefully designed to remove reason from the buying decision. Making the purchase an impulse or an image choice rather than a utility choice. This makes rational and value based buying difficult. One solution is to base profit and price on the true cost of manufacture. Pollution controls, for example, moves some of the cost from the environment to the manufacture of the product.

That would create a basis for simpler living to change the industrial system. I came away wondering if universal lobotomies, vasectomies, or monkey-wrench-gang-style economic policies were the logical next step. No public action, no matter how radical, will make that happen. John Srsly. Also, evolution. Perhaps evolution is the real revolution! Since the industrial revolution Western culture has been in huge hurry to get somewhere fast.

In fact the shift that took place in the human psyche, as a result of the mechanization of production, was so dramatic that there is every reason to believe that the suffering we have been experiencing and trying to heal from, is nothing less that the human divorce from nature. Frederick Engels, in the middle of the 19th century, described the toll that the Industrial Revolution had on the lives of the English working person in his book, The Condition of the Working Class in England.

It was nothing short of traumatic. Change during this time was swift, stressful, and wholly unnatural. The making of a working-class, that toiled 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, for close to a century, was the un-doing of centuries of rural peasant life. Moving from a predominantly outdoor, rural, community based, and sustainable lifestyle that provided adequate food and shelter, to living in the crowded, unhealthy tenements of the cities and working in poorly lit factories would, undoubtedly, bequeath a sickness of mind, body, and spirit.

The cultural rebellion of the nineteen sixties certainly helped create a growing awareness that mechanization, the commanding cultural force of Western culture since the 18th century, created a new sense of self that does not exactly go with the flow of nature. Rather, the growing preference to manipulate, divert or alter interrupted the very essence of natural living, natural livelihood and the natural relationship that existed with the land.

England in the early 18th century was, according to Hobsbawm, still a clean and beautiful country. Artisans, journeymen, and peasants alike enjoyed a slow paced work life, which included family and community. Food was grown locally and the diet low in protein, and almost devoid of stimulants. Life was not easy but it was simple, healthy, and, for the most part, relaxed. The experience of community was not separate from work and joy was, undoubtedly, present in all aspects of work in pre-industrial peasant life.

Changing the means of production, therefore, radically changed the lives of rural dwellers then at least three quarters of the population and our relationship to food, family, community and the natural world. English culture, as well as the entire Western world and those that were affected by Westernization , saw the most profound human transformation since the advent of agriculture some 10, years ago.

This cultural detour, which I describe as an unwholesome transformation, has taken us in the Western world, into a way of life that is no longer nourishing, no longer full of the wholeness of an alive and vibrant existence and unconnected to the natural rhythms and cycles of nature.

I agree with both sides completely. In reality, this is not an either-or thing. In fact, they can inform and temper and inspire each other. I will be a terrible activist if I am not motivated for right reasons and am not living the lifestyle I preach.

Similarly, I will be changing nothing if I simply change myself and then pat myself on the back in front of the mirror while the outside world falls to ruin. You see, for many, a new enlightened consumer choice can be the first step on a path to activism. They might have been alienated by a raw activist type, but a green consumer was a bridge to a new way of thinking… and acting.

For you, thought precedes action. For them, it can be the other way around. What you see as a trendy and futile dead-end such as bringing your own bags to grocery store can actually be the first domino for someone. We can do better than that. Be more visionary and less divisionary. If we are defined by what we are against, we will never become greater than that. We need not look further than American revolution.

Many petty consumer acts regarding stamps, tea, and other boycotting and consumer-based activism was the tinder that lit the fire underneath citizen and soldier action. First, no amount of violence that we can muster could begin to compete with the violent potential of the system. Second, the only way out of a double-bind — or the horns of a rampaging dilemma — is to stop presenting ourselves as a target and to stop feeding the beast.

Every personal act that feeds the beast is a political act, and the most powerful political action is to refuse it sustenance. We refuse it sustenance when we choose to disengage from the system, and we make it possible for many to refuse when we create alternative life-enhancing systems.

To step outside of the materialist paradigm that has engendered our global crises, is to rediscover the spiritual principle that the wolf who wins the fight is the one we feed. If we use violence, we feed the predatory wolf. David killed Goliath with his sling, and then grew up to become the predatory nation of Israel.

I agree with Bjorn Beer. Bathing in the river saves water. Bathing in the river, drinking from the river, cooking soup with river water. Cleaning pots with sand, eating every meal from the same bowl. So you take a 1-minute military shower in your private home, so what?

Who sees it? And sure to get you arrested, in the best activist tradition. This beast is coming down, so just tend your garden and let it crash. You sound like an intelligent, well-informed, sensitive person, so I assume you have at least a fair grasp of the enormity of the devastation that has been and continues to be inflicted. Likewise that every year we lose a few more of the handful of remaining indigenous languages, and therefore, all or nearly all of their stories, myths, wisdom, spirituality, medicine, technology, knowledge of how to live sustainably, and so on.

Likewise that the US and a few of its allies are irradiating the planet more or less permanently with millions and millions of pounds of depleted uranium munitions. And so on. What are we going to do when we all develop tumors? Or just kills us for having shown another way to live, as it has so often done from indigenous cultures to John Africa? And when they come to plunder us, the last reserve of free, sane people, and destroy our land, what do we do?

Beg them to take us on as slaves rather than kill us? Or would we fight back? To step aside as industrial civilization, or capitalism, or patriarchy, or Leviathan, or Goliath, or whatever you want to call it commits further atrocities is A utterly callous and a complete abdication of our responsibility to those we purport to love and B just postponing the inevitable confrontation when Goliath catches up with us. And he will. Because the whole planet is dying, or, more accurately, being murdered.

Your lifeboat community better be well armed. I hope it will also support those who will fight to defend others and precipitate the crash. A few moments of research make that abundantly clear. The idea that the US picked up the mantle of fascism is, of course, true, and a truth lost on nearly all Americans. If they had not done this, Hitler would likely have gotten the bomb.

I am very, very happy that those resistance fighters took that action and succeeded. Hypotheticals are tricky, but I am pretty confident that things would have been worse if Hitler had gotten the bomb. Anyhow, the basic questions remain: 1. Where will you walk away to? How do you explain this behavior to those being exploited, raped, abused, murdered right now? How will you avoid being, along with your lifeboat community, consumed by the death culture in its final throes?

When a caged tiger mauls a zookeeper, does she risk becoming a zookeeper? The community of life is already fighting back, as it must. Running for office? What gets people to listen? What is truly a thorn in side of dominant paradigm? And what actually produces more adherents and support than it detracts and dissuades? Are you thinking more civil disobedience? Do you have specific ideas that would do more good, or does it just give the dominant paradigm more cannon fodder?

Will the crackdown be worse than the crack think you are causing? I have documented these in A Matter Of Scale. And yes, the system will fight back, but perhaps not before it has been sabotaged. Jensen pretty much nails it. As did Karl Marx. Corporations merely hire humans to do the actual work of extracting and working the resources. Did the wonderful human beings who constitute our lovely Jeffersonian republic fall asleep in Econ or History when we hit the chapter on corporations?

Everything that you lament is a human creation, but you expect humans en masse to tear down the things they have spent so long creating. We preserve the system because we LOVE the system. Only when this way of living applies too much negative pressure on us as individuals will we do anything about it, and, at that time, political activism will be redundant. If I wanted to walk around the world, I could not possibly find enough leather to cover the surface of the earth.

But just covering the soles of my shoes with leather works even better. Likewise, I could not possibly transform all bad things outside in the world. But if I can transform this mind of mine, what need do I have to transform everything else?

But having given him a childhood full of love, encouragement and affection most likely could have. Nothing is more radical than the small and daily acts of Love. Right on. Specifically, his belief that the only effective response to systemic violence is violently tearing down the machine of violence. Stating it that clearly should be enough to demonstrate its inherent contradiction.

I would never advocate mere escapism. What I not only propose but have lived for the 40 years of my adult life is a combination of non-violent but fierce confrontation, and building a new society within the shell of the old. I have publicly refused to pay taxes to the Empire for 30 years, have been jailed for non-violent resistance, and have spent much of that 40 years actively educating and organizing others for constructive social change. The downfall of most tyrants and of major empires has been either initiated or facilitated by predominantly non-violent movements, several of which have been undertaken after the failure of violent resistance.

But an offensive violent resistance, even with the intent to avoid human casualty which is more hope than certainty will not only elicit severe repression and state violence, but result in inculcating violence into our very souls and poisoning any positive future we hope to enjoy.

We are witnessing the collapse of Western civilization and Empire. The most powerful weapon we have to facilitate that collapse is the withholding of our support. That cannot be avoided. But what is most important now is to build alternative structures and relationships that can sustain us after the Fall. I believe that we do have enough time, and that individual, personal change is the ONLY possible method that will get us to the goal.

All of recorded history backs me up. We serve as examples to others, and they are attracted to our more successful mode of being. In turn, they attract others with their actions. Eventually the tide turns, and the bad ways are abandoned.

The entire game plan, the only winning strategy that has ever worked or will ever. So with all due respect, Derrick Jenson can go stuff it. The problems he calls out are real enough, but they are merely symptoms, not the disease. The Fertile Crescent was, 4, yrs. The old prehistoric Manas people of the Andes also died as a result of over-use and insufficient stores.

The contentious nature of our kind was thus born. Consumptives never have gone on long. It worked while he was alive to model it. Power doth corrupt, as the state of our un-sustainable ecosystem slowly unravells, shows all too well. Not much can be done, short of a Monkey Wrench Gang weilding supreme power. Golf courses and Corporate domination would be gone. I am younger. We need not agree on all points. Clearly, we are, in the broad scheme of things, on the same side.

If I misunderstood you, I apologize for that. Honestly, looking at what you wrote, I thought that my interpretation of what you said was hardly an interpretation at all… it was nearly verbatim. That is, I believe, clear from my post, and I have the facts on my side. There was considerable militancy in the Danish resistance, especially as the Nazi occupation dragged on. Whether or not your assertion about non-violence is true, I had not argued that specific point. I am glad to hear that you have no problem with authentic self-defense presumably with violence if necessary , of yourself or of those you love.

I had not gotten that from your first post, but I suspect only a deeply insane person would not fight back if she or her friend or her child was being raped or battered. So let me ask you this. Do you stand by MEND, the Ogoni resistance movement that is fighting for the very survival of the Ogoni people, their own families, their own land, themselves? MEND has given the Ogoni a chance, and done the same for their landbase. Do you stand by the Zapatistas, who rose up with arms and have rarely used them when the very existence of their indigenous Mayan communities was under dire threat?

Do you think it is appropriate to use all means necessary including, if necessary, violence when you and your community are being invisibly assaulted with PCB, plutonium, mercury, or any other industrial toxin that may or may not be prevalent in your neighborhood, your food supply, your water, your air?

If not, why would you act any differently when the attackers use poison than when they use a machine gun? And all legal means fail. The whole community of life is under dire, existential attack. Do you love the community of life? Do you see whom is oppressing and destroying whom? The war we are in is not even a war, because there is only one side fighting. It would not be offensive violence, it would be defensive counter-violence, but it better be fierce, smart, and effective.

I help to do so, as a teacher, as a forager, as a poet, as a helper on organic farms, as an avid nutritionist and novice herbalist, and so forth. Yes, we need to be ready to support our communities and heal our landbases. But I want to know if you will support those who will do the monkey-wrenching, those who will stop hard-core criminals from committing further atrocities, with violence if necessary. I have largely withheld my support for a long time, as have innumerable other aware people.

They have the doctrinal systems in place to ensure that the large majority of people will not withdraw their support. Just by being a teacher and using that leverage, I effect far more change than by simply withdrawing my support. BTW, here are a few examples of successful militant resistance movements: 1. The underground railroad 2. The IRA 3. The Bougainville Revolutionary Army 4.

The Vandals and Visigoths against the Romans 5. The Ostrogoths against the Byzantines 6. The Viet Cong 7. The Cuban Revolution 8. The Zapatistas Quilombo dos Palmares. If you choose to reject some of the above because the militants were not pure enough, I would simply encourage you to compare them to those they were fighting.

Harriet Tubman carried a gun and was not afraid to use it. Would you have supported her? Would you have provided a safe house for the armed militants ferrying refugee slaves stolen property to the north? Finally, severe state repression and violence are a reality. Those in power will, of course, use at least as much violence as they feel they need to remain in power.

So any movement that seriously threatens them will elicit severe repression and violence, whether it is a strictly a civil disobedience movement or whether it also has a militant component. It is not violence that begets violence from the powerful.

It is threatening the basis for their power that begets violence. The real question is, are we willing to risk our very real necks by effectively countering the system? And if not, are we willing to support those who will? We need not choose between focusing on the problem and focusing on the solution.

We can do both. In fact, please help them in any way you can. But the very least is not turning them in. There is a madman in the house. You presume far too much. Self-defense is not violence. Defending against violence is not violence. Then you have not met the most sane of people.

Have you? There are only three things the Empire requires of us: wage slavery and material consumption, our bodies for war, and our tax money to feed their machine. If you have not withheld at least two of those three, then you are an enabler not a resister. He was overthrown , nonviolently. So they plunged into nonviolent struggle: boycotts, strikes, demonstrations of all kinds.

The result was the end of apartheid despite a very well-armed state with a terroristic police force. The Danes moved on to another set of diverse tactics: sabotage, nonviolent demonstrations, and labor strikes. Again, the tactics undermined each other; each act of sabotage gave the Germans fresh excuse to come down hard on the workers and the demonstrators.

What really worked in maintaining Danish integrity and undermining the Nazi war effort was the strategy which emerged: it included the underground press, major strikes even at one point a general strike , nonviolent demonstrations, and smuggling the Jews out to a safe haven in Sweden. The strategy that emerged was internally consistent, and the tactics therefore supported each other instead of subtracting from each other.

In a strange twist, there are times when violent forces actually need to be protected by nonviolent action. When the Black Panther Party wanted to have a national convention in Philadelphia, they had difficulty getting a venue. Quakers gave them the use of their largest Meetinghouse. Police chief Frank Rizzo saw this as an opportunity to swagger and threaten, and no one could be sure what the provocation might lead to.

So Quakers circled the Meetinghouse and stood shoulder to shoulder to create a protective shield between the police and the Panthers. But eventually the Panthers, who primarily advocated armed self-defense, were brutally eliminated by the state.

On a larger scale this was repeated in the Philippines during the overthrow of dictator Ferdinand Marcos. Catholic radio stations working with the people power movement sounded the alarm. Many thousands of Filipinos rushed to the site, intervened between the Marcos loyalists and the rebels, and nonviolently immobilized the loyalist troops, thereby saving the outgunned rebel soldiers.

The real question is: Do we have the courage to risk our lives, or merely the ruthlessness to take the lives of others? When we tame and disarm those demons, then our true power emerges and there is nothing we cannot do. The article made only one point I disagree with, which is the idea that the powerful people who profit from the industrial economy might try to kill us if we take action.

The only way to stop the destruction of the planet is to stop the industrial economy. Moreover, the industrial economy is everywhere. How many people have died for opposing the diamond trade in Africa? How many people have died over the oil trade in the Middle East? How are you going to change things in places like Honduras, Colombia, China, or Iran? Thank you for taking the time to post your thoughts. One thing I hear you saying is that the state does not have a monopoly on violence.

And all your really asking is that we support those who realize this and choose to fight back. It seems simple to me. Yet some people will spend a tremendous amount of energy arguing with you and others who share a similar perspective. This has always baffled me. And if push ever comes to shove what side will they choose to be on: Those in power or those fighting like hell for the diversity of life. I believe personal action is where it is all at. Starting a garden and buying some chickens is a revolutionary act.

There is so much going on under the radar and away from the glare of the media that resists, subverts, and I hope eventually replaces the industrial food paradigm, the world of Monsanto, corn derivatives, ADM, irradiated food, and terminator genes, and, generally, the system of industrial-consumer capitalism. Taken individually perhaps personal action does not amount to much, but when these small acts are repeated a hundred thousand times, or more, every day soon they begin to have a big impact.

The paradigm is shifting right beneath our feet and we barely notice it, but it is happening. There is a long way to go but a lot of things are happening, a great barely noticed underground movement. Personally, I love it. Another thought: why not limit your income. That level of income fairly well eliminates you from participation in the consumer culture. You have no choice but to raise some of your own food, purchase second hand items when you really need them.

Finally, I have little time for doom-and-gloom environmentalism. That said, I actually believe things are really bad, worse than environmentalists say they are, worse than even Derrick Jensen says they are. But Mr. Jensen is so deadly humorless, lighten up a little, crack a joke or two. If you allow yourself to get all worked up like Mr.

Jensen does, you just pollute your body with excess cortisol and all sorts of other toxins added to all the mercury. PCBs, plutonium particles et al that are already out there. Above all, resistance should be fun. In response 62 Carl D. How many Derrick Jensen talks or interviews have you listened to?

I pictured an angry teenager leaning against a building, wearing black slacks, turtleneck, and beret, scowling and chain-smoking. Nor is it true that I do not believe in truth, beauty, or love. And how I rarely scowl. I laughed and laughed. Yes, I thought, a revolution of romantic nihilists. I would be down for that. Count me in. I have asked you a number of simple questions, the most recent of which was the Harriet Tubman question, which could be answered with a simple yes or no. You have written long responses but have not even acknowledged any of my questions.

The Danes, again, used considerable militancy. The Czechs were not so lucky. And as for the Jews, Jensen has pointed out, rightly, time and again, that the Jews who rose up and fought in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and the Sobibor Uprising had a better chance of surviving than those who went quietly to the camps. Let me be clear. Are you really proposing that either a women being raped or a Jew in the Warsaw Ghetto should have used hugs and kind words against her assailant?

Nothing is better for abusers, exploiters, and destroyers than for their victims to dogmatically refuse to fight back. Before you lump Dr. I honor King to the utmost. Also crucial was the militancy of the Sikhs. All that said about Gandhi, his boycott of British salt and his famed march to the sea with hordes of Indians who made their own sea salt is an inspiring and classic act of disobedience.

That was possible because he had a mass movement. He had the backing of a culture of resistance. We do not have that, so our tiny, and largely unnoticed civil disobedience ploys remain isolated and ineffectual. Rosa Parks needed the support of the black community of Montgomery.

So another point I made which you conveniently ignored was the point about how civil disobedience requires, in order to be effective, a mass movement, and that having nothing close to a mass movement in the midst of such extreme horrors and such late-stage planetary death, we must use other strategies. History shows time and again, when civil disobedience works, it is based on mass numbers. Militancy often works without mass numbers.

The Philippines remains a poor and abused colony, full of the sweatshops and plantations that the US started setting up shortly after invading in Eastern Europe was hardly liberated. Sure, Prague and Budapest are now flooded with tourists many of the locals priced out. But has life gotten better in Bratislava? Many Germans who lived in East Germany are not convinced that their new system is better than the old, which at least seemed better at keeping them employed.

The Iranian Revolution had major militant elements. Regardless, it succeeded at overthrowing a brutal US puppet but utterly failed at creating a better state. If anything, the theocracy is even worse, especially for women.

Non-violence in Central America did nothing to stop the death squads. The Zapatistas remain armed. Being militant does not mean being bloodthirsty. Not at all. But the Zapatistas say and show that they are ready and able to use force if necessary. Anyhow, I am not trying to argue that civil disobedience is never effective… clearly it can be. You are trying to argue that militancy is never effective, which is demonstrably untrue. That the Quakers showed solidarity with not only the Black Panthers but, much earlier, with the Underground Railroad, only underscores my central point: that those who choose the path of non-violent resistance should support their fellow resisters who choose militancy.

The Quakers get it. Do you? Industrial civilization is not a projection of my own inner demons. It is a real culture, with real institutions, real propaganda, real fuel, real leaders. It has very real sweatshops, very real nukes, very real mine tailings, very real dams, very real fertilizer and pesticide runoff, very real dead zones in the oceans, very real CEOs, very real henchmen, very real victims, and very real choke points.

The death culture is real, and to see it as a projection is out of touch with reality. I am not an indigenous person, but I have also long since liberated my heart and mind from identification with the death culture. I live in opposition to it. It is a physically real and phenomenally destructive infrastructure of death, undergirded by a pathological worldview inculcated into its human parts.

I am not one of those parts. I feel pity for those who still are, and I try to help them liberate themselves, but my primary focus is on protecting, defending, and showing solidarity with the victims. Liberating hearts and minds is crucial, but it is not enough. It is a necessary prelude to action. If the apparatus of destruction were a mere projection, then education and group therapy would do the trick might be tougher to organize those sessions in the slums of Jakarta or Lagos.

But it is not a projection. It runs on very real oil. It relies on a very real infrastructure of telecommunications. It uses very real natural gas for fertilizer. It imprisons very real and very abused animals in very real feedlots. The windmill was not harming Quixote until he charged it. The windmill was not harming anyone unlike a modern turbine, it was too slow to kill birds. Your metaphor implies that the death culture is not essentially harmful, that it will only harm us if we attack it.

If, on reflection, you no longer like the metaphor, I suggest that you take greater care in your choice of words. OK, some questions remain: 1. Would you have supported the Underground Railroad, given that it was run by militants?

Will you show solidarity with indigenous and non-indigenous militant resistance movements against the death culture? If not, will you betray them to the agents of the death culture? Do you agree with Gandhi that the few Jews who saved their lives by fighting back at the Warsaw Ghetto and Sobibor were wrong to have done so?

Do you agree that it is actively harmful to hold off on acting until we have sufficient numbers for a meaningful non-violent resistance? Besides negating the efficacy of token day-to-day gestures, this column also points to a pet peeve of mine: the belief that one needs to change oneself, improve oneself, before taking on the world.

Carl D. It takes far more courage to resist without arms, and non-violence differentiates between the actor and the action. But, more fundamentally, you miss the entire lesson of movement history: that neither violence nor non-violence can make foundational changes in a culture unless they challenge and alter the paradigm which supports it rather than its mere material manifestations or power relationships.

Your exclusive focus on the physical manifestations of our global dysfunction is a good place to start but a dangerous place to get stuck. Reagan and Bush were projections of the American psyche, just as Hitler was a projection of the German psyche. Every one of us Americans, no matter how radical we think we are, is part of the problem. I admire your sharp though self-limited perception, your conviction, your spunk.

But you need to look more deeply into the well of grief to see the true source of our dysfunction. It assumes that quantity is more important than quality — which is the calculus of our social dysfunction. All material manifestation is nothing more than dense energy. Adding to the density does not make the world a lighter place.

Whatever we fight, we feed. Transcending the quicksand does not mean leaving the battle — it means confronting it with more powerful weapons — weapons that those who know only swords cannot begin to understand. Jensen is so right when he says that personal actions must be coupled with other action— citizen action. Go ahead and be inspired through personal action, sure, and let it lead to action that creates movements like the civil rights movement.

The debate so far is best summarized as such: those who cut down the unwanted species, and those who try to plant seeds. While we might not see those seeds sprout right away, their presence is just as important as the absence of the unwanted plant. To those who focus only on cutting down the kudzu, keep up the good work. To those who focus on planting an alternative to kudzu, keep up the good work.

Take heart that the paradigm that emerges over the next couple hundred years will likely thank you for its existence. Its taken us about 10, years to get to this point. But then again, such has been our existence on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years. Poor, nasty, brutish and short. Why do you expect that not to be the case? Do you expect a painless and protected existence for yourself?

Some days we cut, some days we dance, some days we plant. If, alternatively, they are genuinely doing so out of a wellspring of concern for fellow man and its future on this planet, they might just have an effect that outlasts them. If the seed planters think that their plant will grow without light and being starved of nutrients, well, I think Jensen hits the nail on the head on this point.

However you spend it, spend it fully and with the passion of a person who knows their days are numbered. You can tell when a debate is going to end in stalemate when the average word length gets longer and longer, the references get more obscure and subjects start flying off at a tangent. And make no mistake that it is indeed the human condition that drives all of the ills which Jensen decries.

But the whole subject of if and how we might blunt or avoid that seems to be just too much for anyone to address. And take whatever actions, no matter how draconian, to enforce it? It is indeed a conundrum. Part of the human condition. The only way to hold the cumulative impact of all that in check to the point where it does not crush the world ecosystem is to hold in check the number of potential perpetrators of those actions — the human population.

The delusion is that modern humanity represents the highest evolution of our innate nature. Homo Sapiens, like all natural creatures, evolved as a social, cooperative being. In fact, biological evolution on earth is far more characterized by self-less cooperation than by the modern selfish competitive impulse. But authentic human nature and the spiral of evolution are as misunderstood as is Gandhian non-violence. He understood, as some here do not, that non-violence is only for the courageous and selfless.

For the rest, fighting back is preferable to cowardice. Keith, debates almost always end in stalemates, with both sides thoroughly calcified in their positions, which is why I almost always avoid them in my relationships and only chose to engage with one here for the sake of whomever is reading and may be swayed by the better case. Bjorn, I think it should be clear from each of my posts that I fully endorse metaphorical and literal seed planting as well as cutting down the noxious invasive.

It should also be clear that Robert is denying a major, very possibly crucial, mode of resistance. I am not discounting your preferred tactics. You are refusing to express solidarity with those who use force against the oppressive system or, if you prefer, against the extremely destructive physical manifestations of the oppressive system which is, in origin, a projection of cultural consciousness.

You assume far too much to think that because I am arguing that abusive and destructive individuals and institutions must be confronted and stopped that I therefore fail to acknowledge the spiritual or psychic underpinnings of the abusive culture. That is an illogical conclusion, and an inaccurate one. Should she go out of her way to kill him? Once the rape is over, the process of healing can begin. If the rapist was stopped and not killed, perhaps he can be reformed.

I hope he can. I see no need for vengeance. Personally, I deplore violence. That is the point. The wetikos, the abusers, those who hate life and value nothing but control over others are committing horrific violence, such that they are actually, unfathomable though this is, killing the world. I do not see how anything you are suggesting poses any threat to the wetikos, at least not unless there were a hundred million or more Robert Riversongs out there and the world would be a far better place if there were, no doubt, even if I might find the conversations frustrating.

Nowhere close. Those who have decolonized their hearts and minds are few indeed, and you continue to dodge the question about how we can strategize and support each other given A the extreme direness of the situation which is undeniable and physically real, no? One of the core pathologies of civilization is that the physical world is not primary. You are manifesting this pathology.

About my supposed negativity, aside from my frustration with your avoidance of clear and fair questions, your apparent lack of solidarity with those fighting for the community life, I am experiencing a fantastic day. I was loathe to return to this draining discourse, but am doing so because I feel I have committed myself.

Right now, it is 68 degrees in coastal Maine, sunny and beautiful for the first time this week, I just took a long barefoot walk through the sopping wet woods with my two dogs, and we romped on the granite boulders by the sea for a while, splashing in the water. Whenever students face academic hardships, they tend to run to online essay help companies.

If this is also happening to you, you can message us at course help online. We will ensure we give you a high quality content that will give you a good grade. We can handle your term paper, dissertation, a research proposal, or an essay on any topic. We are aware of all the challenges faced by students when tackling class assignments. You can have an assignment that is too complicated or an assignment that needs to be completed sooner than you can manage.

You also need to have time for a social life and this might not be possible due to school work. The good news is that course help online is here to take care of all this needs to ensure all your assignments are completed on time and you have time for other important activities.

We also understand you have a number of subjects to learn and this might make it hard for you to take care of all the assignments. You are expected to do a thorough research for each assignment to earn yourself a good grade even with the limited time you have. This calls upon the need to employ a professional writer. When you employ one of our expert writers, you can be sure to have all your assignments completed on time. All your assignment deadlines will be met plus you will have an original, non-plagiarized and error free paper.

With our course help online services, you are assured of a completely original and error free paper written exclusively for your specified needs, instructions and requirements. All our papers are original as they are all written from scratch.

We also do not re-use any of the papers we write for our customers. With this guarantee feel comfortable to message us or chat with our online agents who are available 24hours a day and 7 days a week be it on a weekend or on a holiday. As a busy student, you might end up forgetting some of the assignments assigned to you until a night or a day before they are due.

This might be very stressing due to inadequate time to do a thorough research to come up with a quality paper. Course help online is here to save you from all this stress. Let our professional writers handle your assignments and submit them to you no matter how close the deadline seems to be. This will protect you from all the pressure that comes along with assignments. You are assured of a high quality assignment that is error free and delivery will be done on time. We have a reliable team that is always available and determined to help all our clients by improving their grades.

We are reliable and trusted among all our clients and thus you can entrust your academic work on us. For any academic help you need, feel free to talk to our team for assistance and you will never regret your decision to work with us. You can entrust all your academic work to course help online for original and high quality papers submitted on time. We have worked with thousands of students from all over the world.

Most of our clients are satisfied with the quality of services offered to them and we have received positive feedback from our clients. We have an essay service that includes plagiarism check and proofreading which is done within your assignment deadline with us. This ensures all instructions have been followed and the work submitted is original and non-plagiarized.

We offer assignment help in more than 80 courses. We are also able to handle any complex paper in any course as we have employed professional writers who are specialized in different fields of study. From their experience, they are able to work on the most difficult assignments.

The following are some of the course we offer assignment help in;. In case you cannot find your course of study on the list above you can search it on the order form or chat with one of our online agents for assistance. We will take care of all your assignment needs We are a leading online assignment help service provider.

Place an Order. Calculate your essay price. Type of paper. Academic level. Pages words. Read more. Plagiarism-free papers To ensure that all the papers we send to our clients are plagiarism free, they are all passed through a plagiarism detecting software. Calculate the price of your order Type of paper needed:. Pages: words. You will get a personal manager and a discount. Academic level:. We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, at AM. Total price:. What advantages do you get from our course help online services?

All our academic papers are written from scratch All our clients are privileged to have all their academic papers written from scratch. We do not offer pre-written essays All our essays and assignments are written from scratch and are not connected to any essay database. Urgent orders are delivered on time Do you have an urgent order that you need delivered but have no idea on how to do it? We provide quality assignment help in any format We have writers who are well trained and experienced in different writing and referencing formats.

Order a custom-written paper of high quality. Order Now or Free Inquiry. How do we ensure our clients are satisfied with our essay writing services? You can have the privilege of paying part by part for long orders thus you can enjoy flexible pricing. We also give discounts for returned customers are we have returned customer discounts. We also give our clients the privilege of keeping track of the progress of their assignments.

You can keep track of all your in-progress assignments. Having many years of experience, we are aware of many things as we have practiced a lot over the time and thus we are able to satisfy our customer needs. We offer charts and PowerPoint slides for visual papers to our clients. We have professional editors who pass through completed assignments to ensure all instructions were followed. They also ensure all assignments are error free. We also offer free revisions to our clients for assignments delivered.

The free revision is offered within 7 days after the assignment has been delivered. We offer free revision until our client is satisfied with the work delivered. You are guaranteed of confidentiality and authenticity By using our website, you can be sure to have your personal information secured.

Our sample essays Expository Essay. Paper title: Healthy Living. Academic level: College. Discipline: English Paper Format: MLA format. Sources: 2. View this sample. Analysis Essay. Discipline: Political sciences. Paper Format: APA. Sources: 1. Argumentative Essay. Discipline: Ethics. Sources: 5. Academic level: High School.

Sources: 3. Discipline: Education. Paper Format: Harvard. Critical Essay. Paper Format: MLA. Definition Essay. Paper title: What is Fashion for Modern Teenagers? Discipline: Urban studies. Descriptive Essay. Paper title: Hollywood to Bollywood: What makes a movie good? Evaluation Essay. Academic level: University.

Discipline: Psychology. Paper Format: Chicago. Narrative Essay. Discipline: Composition. Sources: -.