derrick jensen letters
Ted Kaczynski, Derrick Jensen – Derrick Jensen Letters – 1998ish – 44 pgs – via kindle version from anarchist library [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-derrick-jensen-derrick-jensen-letters]
jensen one question law.. jensen import law.. jensen civilization law.. jensen fittingness law.. jensen living beings law.. derrick on imagine a turtle..
oh my.. perhaps this is why i didn’t add/read this collection before?.. convo w Ted Kaczynski [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski]:
Theodore John Kaczynski (/kəˈzɪnski/ kə-ZIN-skee; May 22, 1942 – June 10, 2023), also known as the Unabomber (/ˈjuːnəbɒmər/), was an American mathematician and domestic terrorist. He was a mathematics prodigy, but abandoned his academic career in 1969 to pursue a primitive lifestyle. Between 1978 and 1995, Kaczynski murdered three individuals and injured 23 others in a nationwide mail bombing campaign against people he believed to be advancing modern technology and the destruction of the natural environment. He authored Industrial Society and Its Future, a 35,000-word manifesto and social critique opposing industrialization, rejecting leftism, and advocating for a nature-centered form of anarchism.
In 1971, Kaczynski moved to a remote cabin without electricity or running water near Lincoln, Montana, where he lived as a recluse while learning survival skills to become self-sufficient. After witnessing the destruction of the wilderness surrounding his cabin, he concluded that living in nature was becoming impossible and resolved to fight industrialization and its destruction of nature through terrorism. In 1979, Kaczynski became the subject of what was, by the time of his arrest in 1996, the longest and most expensive investigation in the history of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The FBI used the case identifier UNABOM (University and Airline Bomber) before his identity was known, resulting in the media naming him the “Unabomber”.
In 1995, Kaczynski sent a letter to The New York Times promising to “desist from terrorism” if the Times or The Washington Post published his manifesto, in which he argued that his bombings were extreme but necessary in attracting attention to the erosion of human freedom and dignity by modern technologies that require mass organization The FBI and U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno pushed for the publication of the essay, which appeared in The Washington Post in September 1995. Upon reading it, Kaczynski’s brother, David, recognized the prose style and reported his suspicions to the FBI. After his arrest in 1996, Kaczynski—maintaining that he was sane—tried and failed to dismiss his court-appointed lawyers because they wished him to plead insanity to avoid the death penalty. He pleaded guilty to all charges in 1998 and was sentenced to eight consecutive life terms in prison without the possibility of parole. Kaczynski died in prison of a reported suicide on June 10, 2023.
oh my.. 4 days before adding this page.. 5 days before i googled his name..
notes/quotes:
7
One more thing on the topic of interviews, before I drop it: if we were to do an interview, it would be about issues. It would be substantive. If you have read my book, you know that I spend every moment of every day trying to understand and describe the pervasive destructiveness of our culture, and to try also to describe *another way to be, and finally to bring about that revolution in values that is necessary for us to survive..t I’m not a journalist, and am in no way associated with the corporate press (although I am one of the very few anarchists I know who has been able to get an article in the NY Times Magazine. I’ve included here a copy). The reason I’ve gone on about this at length is that I just want to be explicit.
jensen one question law.. jensen civilization law.. et al
from derrick:
Back to the idea of dialogue. I just finished writing a book I’m very proud of. It is about how our culture systematically silences all dissenting voices, and silences as well the voices of those to be exploited, and our internal voices as well. Here is what I say on page 7: “*This silencing is central to the workings of our culture. The staunch refusal to hear the voices of those to be exploited is crucial to their smooth domination.. t Religion, science, philosophy, politics, education, psychology, medicine, literature, linguistics, and art have all been pressed into service as tools to rationalize the silencing and degradation of women, children, other races, other cultures, the natural world and its members, our emotions, our consciences, our experiences, and our cultural and personal histories.” I’m very excited about it. So much nature writing (and more broadly so much so-called social criticism) frustrates me tremendously, because it is filled with beautiful descriptions of nature and occasional outburst of righteous indignation, but it so often is careful to not offend too much, to not step too near the truth about our culture. I hope I have pierced at least that level of denial.
*to me.. deeper problem.. ie: not about seat at the table ness.. about the need for all of us to be detoxed first.. otherwise.. all is whalespeak
so to me.. need 1st/most: means to undo our hierarchical listening to self/others/nature so we can org around legit needs
ie: imagine if we listened to the itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & used that data to connect us (tech as it could be.. ai as augmenting interconnectedness as nonjudgmental expo labeling)
I’m not really sure what else to say in this first letter. How are you doing? How are you feeling? How is the adjustment to living caged? […]
10
ted:
A lot of the other people you interviewed worry me very much, and I’ll explain why.
Let me first posit a couple of propositions on which I believe we agree, just to make sure we do in fact agree on them.
First, all modern technology must be eliminated — at any cost.
yeah.. what we have now.. but to me.. do need ai as nonjudgmental expo labeling.. for a global detox/re\set
Second, a managed wilderness is not a wilderness. The “wild” in the word wilderness is fundamental; i.e., human control over wilderness must be avoided at all cost.
wilderness.. black wildness law.. et al
need a nother way for all of us to live sans any form of m\a\p
Third, human control over other human beings must be reduced to a minimum.
yeah.. min isn’t enough.. need sans any form of m\a\p for the dance to dance
11
ted:
Assuming that we agree on these three points, I argue as follows against many of the people you’ve interviewed. (So far I’ve read the interviews through David Ehrenfeld, and I’m part way through John Keeble’s interview.)
Most of these people say little or nothing about eliminating the industrial system. They seem much more concerned about imposing politically correct behavior on people. For example, they keep saying that people must be compliant and cooperative; they stress what amounts to self-abnegation and they hate all individualistic, aggressive, competitive, or self-assertive behavior.
But individualistic, self-assertive, noncompliant behavior is exactly what we need. The industrial system is founded on cooperation and compliance — on the willingness of people to spend their lives going to work every day, following orders, complying with innumerable rules and regulations.. t We need people who will not comply, who will stand up for their personal dignity and not let themselves be pushed around.
voluntary compliance ness et al
Prior to the Russian Revolution the Communists believed that once capitalism and Tsarism had been eliminated, people would voluntarily and spontaneously behave like good little socialists (i.e., be compliant and cooperative), hence the state could be allowed eventually to wither away. After the Revolution they discovered that people did not spontaneously behave like good little socialists. So the Communists had to force them to behave like good little socialists (they called this “creating the New Soviet Man”), and we know what that led to.
Today’s leftists will do much the same thing. They oppose the way technology is being used today, but they only want to see that technology is used in a politically correct way. They don’t want to eliminate modern tech., because they know that without it they can never realize their dream of a collectivized world.
They not only will not eliminate industrial society, they will want to manage wilderness according to their standards of political correctness. E.g., some animal-rights activists want to solve the problem of deer over-population by shooting the deer with tranquilizer darts and administering contraceptive medication — a profoundly intrusive measure of human control over nature. (But more politically-correct than hunting.)
To me it seems that many of the people you interviewed are engaged in a form of co-optation. They talk about nature and wilderness, but underneath they are much less interested in the wild in wilderness, or in human nature, than they are in their collectivistic political agenda. Hence, in the end, they will betray both wilderness and human freedom.
I suggest that you should ask all your interviewees the following key question, which will help to reveal where they really stand:
Do you believe that all modern technology should be eliminated, even if that should result in the release of certain unfortunate human impulses such as aggression, competitiveness, or male dominance?
need tech to detox us enough for the dance .. so sans any form of m\a\p.. ie: ai as nonjudgmental expo labeling
14
Now to the propositions you posited to see if we do agree:
1. “All modern technology must be eliminated — at any cost.” I agree. Please define modern. How far back do you want to go? Certainly I go farther back than the industrial revolution. I would go farther back than clocks. Here’s how I would say it. “Civilization must be eliminated — at any cost.” I would also say that, and I know that you and I may disagree on this, that civilization will go down in the reasonably near future, and that it is our primary task to see that it does so, and that it does so at a minimum cost to human and nonhuman life, so that those (human and nonhuman) who come after will be able to carry on. I believe I’ve said this to you before, but if I can help salmon to survive till after the completion of the crash, then they may be able to carry on. If they do not survive, they do not survive. Back to your question: not only technology but the mindset that created it must be eliminated: both are antithetical to life on the planet, and to human and nonhuman freedom.
again.. need 1st/most: means to undo our hierarchical listening to self/others/nature so we can org around legit needs
tech as it could be.. ai as augmenting interconnectedness as nonjudgmental expo labeling
2. “A managed wilderness is not a wilderness… Human control over wilderness must be avoided at all cost.” I would agree with this. I do not believe in management, nor do I believe in control. This does not mean that humans cannot exist within that wilderness. It DOES mean that civilized humans cannot exist within that wilderness.. t
jensen civilization law: civilization..can never be an ethical or sustainable model for human society’ – Derrick Jensen et al
3. “Human control over other human beings must be reduced to *a minimum.” I would say that coercive control must be eradicated entirely (which brings up the question we MUST answer if we are to survive, which is “How do you stop the coercers?”). I would say that **this does not do away with all forms of authority, because I believe that parents, for example, have some form of authority over children. But it must not be coercive authority. It can be experiential authority. When I lived in Spokane I would go hunting and fishing with this one guy. When we went out, he way always in charge because he was a much better fisher and hunter than I. But he never TOLD me what to do. He merely made suggestions.
*yeah
**to me.. need to let go of thinking that as well (ie: that got us to safety addiction ness et al).. we need to go sans any form of m\a\p
You gave me a question to ask: “Do you believe that all modern technology should be eliminated, even if that should result in the release of certain unfortunate human impulses as aggression, competitiveness, or male dominance?” I have to tell you that on a global scale, aggression, competitiveness (only on terms such that those in power can win), and male dominance are already being facilitated and in fact exacerbated by modern technology. You know this. My point is that I’m not even sure how the elimination of modern technology would make this worse. Crap, right now 25 percent of all women in this culture are raped within their lifetimes, and another 19 percent have to fend off rape attempts. A single factory trawler in the North Pacific kills 80 TONS of fish per day, most of which is shredded and tossed back into the ocean
15
derrick:
One last topic, and then that should be enough for one day: I’ve though about putting together a sequel to LTTL, which would be called Shutting Down the Machine, and would be a collection of interviews about how we can shut it down. What would you think of that project? If I did it, whom do you think I should talk to?
neil gershenfeld.. about ie: gershenfeld something else law
16
You wrote, “How many social critics… really want to stop the horrors… and how many have merely found a way to make a comfortable living while they comfort their consciences with beautiful descriptions of nature and occasional outbursts of righteous indignation?”
17
ted:
’m enclosing a newspaper clipping (L.A. Times, Sept. 25, 1998) about the “Greens” Party in Germany, which now shows its true colors (no pun intended). It’s just what you would expect of leftists; they talk about their concern for the environment, but they are really much more interested in getting power so taht they can impose their socialistic political agenda on everyone. I think some of the people you interviewed in LTTL are of the same type. Such people are the last in the world who would really want to shut down the technoindustrial system. They are extremely dangerous to us because they coopt rebellious impulses and turn them to the advantage of the system.
I agree with you that civilization is a curse and should be eliminated — if possible. But unlike you I am not confident that civilization will go down in the reasonably near future. Even just the elimination of the technoindustrial system is very problematic, and we must exert ourselves to the utmost in an effort to assure that it will happen. That is why I strongly disagree with your statement that “it is our primary task” to see that civilization goes down “at a minimum cost to human…life.” I think we have a desperate struggle ahead of us, and if we pull our punches we are sure to lose. Here’s what will happen if we worry about conserving human life: Suppose the system is on the brink of collapse. Do we give it a push, or do we scramble to keep things together so that the system will survive? You presumably realize what will happen if the system collapses: There won’t be any fuel or spare parts for farm machinery, there won’t be any of the pesticides or artificial fertilizers on which modern agriculture has become dependent, and the trucks and trains won’t be running to transport any food that is produced to the places where it’s needed. Consequently, people won’t have enough to eat. Not to mention other necessities such as clothing, fuel for heating and cooking, or potable water. There probably will be fighting over food and other scarce resources. That’s why the collapse of the technoindustrial system will probably unleash aggressive and competitive impulses. Also male dominance, since men for obvious reasons tend to assume leadership in a fighting situation.
but not if we have a nother way for them to live first..
hari rat park law et al
To get an idea of what is likely to happen if the system collapses, read the history of the Russian Revolution with all its bloodshed, violence, and death. Or look at what is happening today in countries where social order has broken down: Bosnia, Albania, Afghanistan, Rwanda, etc.
oi.. history ness as whalespeak perpetuating myth of tragedy and lord et al
So, if we worry about conserving human life, what choice do we make when the system is on the brink of collapse? We can’t give it a push because then many people will die. Instead we have to scramble to keep the system crippling along somehow; and we might just save it. And then we’ll never get rid of it, because a gradualist approach just isn’t going to work.
If we are ever to get rid of the system, we will have to accept the consequences. The human race will have to pass through fire. When a species becomes too numerous, typically it reaches a point where it suffers a sudden population collapse, through starvation, epidemic, or whatever. The human race should be subject to the same law.
oi.. not true today..
19
I’ve thought a lot about your last letter, and one of the things I really like about our correspondence is that normally I am always the one who pushes people to think more deeply and to push more radically and/or militantly, and you do that for me. I appreciate that deeply. Thank you.
militantly..? oi
20
derrick:
And I TOTALLY agree that if we are to get rid of civ, humans (and everyone else) will have to pass through fire..t I just wish someone would have done this 1000 years ago, or 4000, when it might have been easier.
to me.. not (no longer) true.. huge
email?
dear derrick
there are so many things i would like to have a convo with you about.. but this one in particular.. in derrick jensen letters you say ‘if we are to get rid of civ, humans (and everyone else) will have to pass thru fire.’ i think that is not (no longer) true.. which is huge.
i believe we’re missing the capability/opp of tech (ai) as nonjudgmental expo labeling (augmenting interconnectedness) to facil a global detox.. to re\set us all back/to (your) fittingness
ie: imagine if we listened to the itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & used that data to connect us (tech as it could be.. ai as augmenting interconnectedness as nonjudgmental expo labeling)
need 1st/most: means to undo our hierarchical listening to self/others/nature so we can org around legit needs
perhaps in short to explain need for tech et al here: derrick on imagine a turtle
22
ted:
Getting back to your letter, now, I notice that you asked, “what do we do to get this revolution to go in the right direction?” *I wish there were a simple answer to that question, but there isn’t, so all I can do is give you a few ideas. If and when the system collapses, whether it does so spontaneously or through revolution, I think it’s a pretty **safe bet that there will be violence, and that physical force will play an important role in determining what group, what ideology comes out on top. I am by no means an admirer of Mao Zedong, but I think he was quite right when he said that “power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” If the extreme right — or any other groups, for that matter — arm themselves, then I have to hope that the people who support our ideas will be better armed and better prepared to fight than their rivals are.
*actually there is.. but have to let go of any form of m\a\p
**huge red flag doing it wrong.. has to be problem deep enough that everyone already craves/resonates w/it
we need a problem deep enough to resonate w/8bn today.. a mechanism simple enough to be accessible/usable to 8bn today.. and an ecosystem open enough to set/keep 8bn legit free
ie: org around a problem deep enough (aka: org around legit needs) to resonate w/8bn today.. via a mechanism simple enough (aka: tech as it could be) to be accessible/usable to 8bn today.. and an ecosystem open enough (aka: sans any form of m\a\p) to set/keep 8bn legit free
1\ undisturbed ecosystem (common\ing) can happen
2\ if we create a way to ground the chaos of 8b legit free people
But quality is more important than quantity. If we want to win out against the nazis, leftists, and other dangerous rivals, we have to get better-quality people on *our side than they have on theirs. One thing that will be helpful in this regard will be truthfulness: Cheap propaganda may attract larger numbers of people, but strict truthfulness will attract people of better quality
*has to be a way sans us & them ness..
The movement won’t hold their interest if it’s just a *debating society, so you have to get them involved in practical activities. Some such activists would be: Selection and recruitment of further members for the movement; publishing a newsletter or a journal, liaison with other groups in the U.S. or other countries; research into such questions as how movements are formed and grow and how revolutions come about; learning wilderness skills and skills of self-sufficient living. Probably you can think of other activities as well.
all/still cancerous distractions.. oi
23
still ted:
Another question you raised, near the end of your letter, could be rephrased this way: How do we prevent revolutionary leaders from being seduced by the attractions of power and making themselves into dictators?..t
gershenfeld something else law
toward focus on missing pieces rather than on cancerous distractions.. leading to ie: khan filling the gaps law et al
That’s probably the hardest question of all. I don’t think there’s any way of guaranteeing that it won’t happen. All one can do is be mistrustful of the leaders and try to depose them as soon as they show any sign of being too fond of power — before they get so powerful that they can’t be deposed. Keeping leaders from getting powerful will require a constant, hard struggle, and there’s no certainty that we will win it. But we have to try.
oi oi oi
Exactly right. One of our big problems is that the system allows wide latitude for rebellion as long as it doesn’t go so far as to threaten the essential needs of the system. This allows people to “blow off steam” — to release rebellious impulses without taking any real risks for themselves and without doing any significant damage to the system. In fact, the pseudo-rebels often actually help the system by bringing about reforms that are necessary for the system’s survival.
everything we’ve done/tried to date has perpetuated myth of tragedy and lord.. oi
24
I bring this up because then he and I talked about resistance to the Vietnam War. He said that US protests got the US out of the war, and it was important “to the moral capital of the movement” that the movement be nonviolent. He used that as an example of a nonviolent movement that worked. That’s fine. BUT, and this is a huge but, it occurred to me last night, as I was working on the interview, that what he failed to mention, and what EVERYONE fails to mention, is that the only reason there was an anti-war movement here at all is because the Vietnamese had taken up arms against colonialism. Had the Vietnamese attempted the same nonviolent means as the US protesters, it would have gotten nowhere. Hell, the Vietnamese tried for years to peacefully remove the yoke of colonialism. They got nowhere.
doesn’t mean it’s not possible.. gershenfeld something else law et al..
What’s my point? I don’t know that I have one. Just more of this discussion of violence and nonviolence. There’s a great line by Camus, about how violence is both “*necessary and inexcusable.” I love that. He continues: “Mediocre minds, confronted with this terrible problem, can take refuge by ignoring one of the terms of the dilemma. They are content, in the name of formal principles, to find all direct violence inexcusable and then to sanction that diffuse form of violence which takes place on the scale of world history.” There’s also a great line by John Dewey, who wrote that people “who decry the use of any violence are themselves willing to resort to violence…**Their fundamental objection is to change in the economic institution that now exists, and for its maintenance they resort to the use of force that is placed in their hands by this very institution. They do not need to advocate the use of force; their only need is to employ it.” I love this last line. I’ve already put it into the novel I’m working on.
*only if we don’t let go enough to try something for everyone.. something sans any form of m\a\p
**yeah.. not new.. not for everyone.. not sans any form of m\a\p
29
ted:
well — enough of speculation about Chase. I’ve never seen Ward Churchill’s essay on “Pacifism as Pathology.” (Could you send me a copy of it?) Believe it or not, I’ve been reading some theology (of all things) lately, in Spanish yet, Liberation theology. There’s a passage that connects with what you say about pacifism. Translating it into English: “The history of Christian thought shows that *passivity, quietism, not only is not an acknowledgement of the gratuitous love of God, but denies it, or at least mutilates it.” (Gustavo Gutierrez, La verdad los hará libres, Instituto Bartolomé de las Casa, Lima, Peru, 1986; page 52.) Of course, I doubt that any Catholic theologians really have much in common with this; but still the passage is interesting.
*to me.. not legit non violence.. meaning.. not legit sans any form of m\a\p
30
derrick:
Since you quit math, do you still think about it much? You know my first degree was in physics. I actually dislike physics quite a lot ever since. Sometimes I think about basic stuff, stuff that’s obvious like torque, but, and here’s an example of what I’m talking about, if I look at waves in the ocean, if it occurs to me that there are incredibly complicated functions that could describe at least a small small portion of the activity (with a whole host of simplifying assumptions), *then I get a bad feeling in my stomach. I don’t like thinking about fairly complex physics. I think my response my be unusual. I don’t know why it is. […]
*for me.. same unsettling ness when red flags/cancerous distractions/any form of m\a\p
I’ve not been pushing the new book forward much, since I moved (please note the new address), and then also The Sun has asked me to do a lot more interviews for them. I interviewed Satish Kumar earlier this month and then next month I’ll talk to Frances Moore Lappe […].
satish kumar.. frances moore lappé..
Satish had some good things to say. As you probably know, I’ve had a lot of problems with Gandhian philosophy.
32
derrick
The second is that I need to be clear about where I stand: I want nothing more than to bring down the entire technological culture of death. I’ve stated this often in print. It is what my newest book is about. I think I’ve also mentioned the book I’ve got half-written that explores our economic system. It’s call End Game: The Collapse of Civilization and the Rebirth of Community. That book approaches the same subject, through a study of the evolution of our wretched economic system.
so.. would be finding/reading it.. but for this:
“When I read Endgame (2006), I believed I had found the clearest description of patriarchal civilization and how it is killing every aspect of the living planet. I was mistaken. Derrick Jensen has outdone himself. In heartfelt, compelling prose, he asks the reader to question the obvious lies embedded within the dominant paradigm.” —Guy McPherson, professor emeritus of conservation biology at the University of Arizona
so we’ll see after myth of human supremacy
You expressed concern that many of the people I’ve interviewed have been, in your estimation, leftists. Frankly one of the reasons I want to interview you is that you explore areas many other people are afraid to. And I need to emphasize that these are areas I explore in my own writing.
Also, if you don’t like the people I interview, please do suggest some better ones. I’m always looking for the strongest cultural critics I can find to interview. Remember that in order for me to be able to place the interview, the people you suggest will have to be fairly famous. Also, it’s almost impossible for me to place interviews of activists. Generally, for me to be able to convince editors to publish a piece the interview subjects have to have a track record, which almost invariably means they have to have a couple of books out. That is simply the reality of publishing.
to me.. this is contradictory .. ie: can’t hear the voices we need to hear (hard to be detoxed/quiet enough if popular et al)
The next point you need to realize is that my published interviews (including those in Listening to the Land) are based on whom I can get published.
33
derrick:
SD (stephen dunifer): *We are all in prison. Many are in physical prisons, but many more of us are imprisoned just as surely by the commodification of our desires. And then so many social workers and even social activists essentially act as prison consultants, and say they’re acting in our best interests as they **try to make our prison cells slightly more comfortable. I’m not interested in that. I’m interested in dismantling the whole carcerial system we call civilization. And microradio is one tool to help us break it down. It’s part of this whole road of liberation, both at the individual and community levels, that’s so antithetical to the thinking of corporate people, and the whole neoliberal establishment.
*none of us are free ness
**huge.. but again.. to me.. not going to get there if ie: spending days talking to popular people
But even if thousands don’t go on the air, even if it’s only hundreds, or even if it’s only one, that would be good enough reason to go on. I don’t now who first said that it’s better to struggle for something and not win than to not struggle at all. As I’ve said before, it’s far better to fight to the grave than to live on your knees as a slave. Are we going to be a free people or are we not? That’s the central question.
humanity needs a leap.. to get back/to simultaneous spontaneity .. simultaneous fittingness.. everyone in sync..
All this brings me to a place where you and I might disagree. The fact that I want to overturn the whole system, and I want to overturn it now, doesn’t mean I don’t interview people who work on discrete parts, many of whom cannot see the whole pictures (and many of whom refuse to see the whole picture). But they still see a PART of the whole picture, and in interviews with them I aim to make those parts of the picture as clear as I can. A good example is my interview last year with John Stauber, the world’s foremost anti-PR expert. Unfortunately, he didn’t want to talk about the problems inherent in industrial civilization. I tried. And that’s okay, because that’s not the area he has thought most about anyway, which means that most of what he would have had to say about it would probably have been next to useless. But his inability or unwillingness to speak to the roots of the problem in no way denigrates the fact that he holds one piece of the puzzle, that piece being how the public relations industry manipulates individual desire and social decision-making processes. You hold another (larger and far more basic) piece of the puzzle. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t talk about his piece of the puzzle. If we’re going to dismantle a huge machine, which is what we’re talking about, we need people like you and like me who look at the whole part of the machine, and we need people like John Stauber who tug at individual parts, and who frankly do an infinitely better job of tugging at that particular part than I ever could. I’ll put this another way: just because I want the whole system to be brought down (and now) doesn’t mean I don’t file timber sale appeals […], it doesn’t mean that I don’t do what I can to promote dam removal, and it doesn’t mean I don’t physically do stream restoration, the whole time keeping in mind (and being vocal about), the fact that these are all itty bitty pieces of the larger puzzle, and the whole time keeping in mind that **my ultimate (and insofar as possible, immediate) goal is to bring down this culture of death before it destroys all life on earth. […]
*i wish this were true.. ie: i realize what you’re saying about ‘that’s just how publishing is’ et al.. and i realize you probably get lots of people wanting to talk to you.. hard to tell who to give time to et al.. but .. (to be so bold) as i’m spending tons of time swimming in your words/work.. to me.. you’re missing out on a piece that might be the piece.. (ie: a nother way)
**need 1st/most: means to undo our hierarchical listening to self/others/nature ie: tech as it could be.. because ie: you can’t hear me.. et al
left off top 36
_________
_________
________
________
_________
_________
_________
be you. 