Humanity has a long history of environmental activism, likely extending far beyond the reaches of recorded history. It’s easy to imagine warring tribes of indigenous peoples struggling against exploitative and excessively greedy neighbours. Competing tribes probably used violence to prevent each other from overconsuming fisheries, harvestable plants, and driving game to extinction. These actions maintained equilibrium within the broader ecosystem and allowed the indigenous humans to survive indefinitely. Fulfilling these obligations to nature would not have been easy; people would have experienced more frequent hunger, higher rates of mortality, and for frequent incidents of violence. Most of these cultures had warrior classes whose obligations often included ritualised violence against competing groups, though rarely did conflict escalate into total war.
Ecological exploitation became problematic when one group became excessively powerful, often through some form of conquest. Once they grew large enough to establish cities they invariably began to strip the surrounding regions of natural resources, always reaching farther and farther afield until the reach of the city turned into an empire, and until the empire grew too large to be managed and collapsed under its own weight. The development of increasingly efficient forms of communication, and eventually the discovery of fossil fuel, allowed empires to grow in scale until they spanned across large sections of the world. It seemed inevitable that one of these empires would eventually encompass the entire planet.
Humanity will never reach the point of developing a unified, global empire because the ecological cost of such a system strips a planet of its living systems at astonishing speed. The empire of industrialisation has infested most of Earth’s ecosystems, even poisoning the deepest regions of the oceans with plastic excrement. We are witnessing a metastatic culture rushing toward annihilation, as all cancers do, by devouring the few functioning organs of nature on this crippled planet. Each human is a cell in this system and most of us have been infected by the toxic culture of industrialism. Some humans resist these urges, our instincts and intellect tell us that our actions are wrong and will lead to annihilation, but our minds have been conditioned by industrial culture to inhibit effective resistance. After centuries of trial and error, structures have developed to prevent effective opposition to dominant cultures: people are divided by social fictions, communities are fractured into suburbs, children are indoctrinated in schools, workers are oppressed by debt and subsistence wages, and political systems have been designed to preoccupy people with the illusion of control.
Having been brought up outside the borders of civilisation, I sometimes find it perplexing that people restrict themselves to the theatre of resistance, despite failing consistently to achieve any meaningful victory. Protesters continue to wave signs, perform street theatre, and organise public forums, while patting themselves on the back for a job well done. Meanwhile, their quality of life consistently diminishes, their ecosystems continue to collapse, and their social bonds fracture. Occassionally, the masses are fed a small victory on a minor issue and they revel in their glorious victory, ignoring the fact that they’ve simultaneously accrued a long list of devastating losses. When they become frustrated they blame the professional scapegoats in government, who rotate frequently, while largely ignoring the real forces of power which dominate their world (corporations and industry).
One of the greatest fallacies that imprisons these people is the perception that the only way to effect change is to mobilise large masses of people, either for the purposes of voting or rebellion. In this way, the individual gives up most of their personal obligation to the larger crowd; they say “why should I do more than wave a sign or stage an act of symbolic resistance when the masses won’t even go that far?” Each individual waits to take meaningful action until everyone else takes meaningful action, and so they are all paralysed. Paradoxically, when someone does take meaningful action they are often scorned by the mainstream protesters. Why? Because by taking legitimate action they have highlighted the inadequacy of their comrades, and forced them to confront their own cowardice; the psychological pain of facing such a personal failing is generally too great and instead those people resort to mental gymnastics to condemn the action as extreme or counterproductive. Frequently, the less courageous members of rebellions hide behind a wall of pseudo moralism, claiming that anything outside of pacifism is profoundly wrong — meanwhile they often continue to participate in, and benefit from, the dominant culture’s economy, which itself perpetuates extreme violence.
In reality, effective acts of revolution against a dominant culture begin with individuals who refuse to wait for the crowd. One courageous person decides to take action regardless of the odds, they find a few others who have made a similar decision, and they begin. Invariably, they are initially condemned by mainstream protesters, but they persist anyway. Their commitment is to live and succeed, or fail and die. In order to reach this stage, conditions must become dire enough for survival in the dominant culture to be equal to or worse than death for the potential revolutionaries. Additionally, there must be a viable path toward a future which is so worthwhile that revolutionaries will endure significant suffering in the interim.
Once an adequate cadre of life-or-death revolutionaries has formed, support networks of less committed people form around them to provide material and social support. So long as the revolutionaries are strategically effective, their support base grows over time and eventually collapses or subsumes the dominant culture. This critical tipping point cannot be achieved until the general public loses faith in the dominant culture’s capacity to provide for their needs. So long as the average person believes that the status quo is preferable to the uncertainty of change, they will vehemently oppose any efforts to collapse the structures of the dominant culture. It is worth noting that humans are intensely afraid of unknown and they will generally endure great suffering before preferring an uncertain outcome; this is why most large revolutions have involved spiral theory, a strategic approach adopted by some revolutionary movements in which violent acts are undertaken against state targets with the intention of provoking an indiscriminate repressive response against an associated social group that is relatively uninvolved with the action itself. This repressive response is sought for its ability to radicalise a population that is currently apolitical or unsupportive of violent revolution. Spiral theory played a significant role in revolutions in Ireland, Cuba, Russia, China, North America, and many other countries throughout various periods of history.
After a cadre has formed, the next most essential step is to form support networks between less committed individuals. Their most essential role is to build wider public support, because the cadre generally operates underground and cannot defend their own actions in public settings. These support networks are they key mechanism behind expanding broader acceptance of revolutionary actions and increasing the size of the cadre.
Contemporary climate movements have been crippled because the dominant culture, which perpetuates climate collapse and ecological destruction, has been able to provide for the basic needs of the majority of the public. This allows them to frame effective direct action as extremist and as a threat to the basic needs of the public, which elicits strong opposition to effective activism. Moreover, climate activism has been ineffective because any truly successful outcomes would involve diminishing the quality of life of the majority of people (at least of those residing in the dominant culture). Peoples’ short-term awareness and their aversion to temporary suffering is greater than their reaction to long-term risk, and so they will continue to oppose meaningful action against climate collapse until their basic needs can no longer be met by industrialism.
The only way to escape this cycle is to convince the public that their political systems cannot meet their basic needs, and that those governmental structures pose an existential and near-term threat. So long as the public has faith in the processes of government to save them, they will continue to perpetuate industrial scale ecological destruction, either through their active participation or through their opposition to revolutionary actions. Therefore, it is essential that revolutionaries and their supporters prioritise the erosion of public faith in government while simultaneously inciting legitimate dread about existential and near-term threats.
Beginning tomorrow, Friday September 20, and going through September 27, there are a whole host of climate-related actions happening nationally (USA) and globally, including climate strikes and marches. These climate strikes are being heavily promoted by big green organizations on down to local communities, and the media plays along by making sure to note in coverage about the upcoming strikes that they are “youth-led”. Unfortunately nothing could be further from the truth. The youth themselves, of course, believe they are doing the right thing, and certainly their message that we need to do something about the climate catastrophe is true. But these youth are being supported and, one might even say, manipulated by a tangle of pro-business, pro-capitalism, pro-growth, anti-natureorganizations, corporations, and governments.
Bill McKibben writes about the climate strikes in The Guardian (“Why you should join the global climate strike” Wednesday, September 18, 2019). As in other recent articles he’s written, McKibben gives himself away as a front-man for big green organizations, including the one he started himself, 350.org, which have been co-opted by the solar, wind, and carbon capture industry.
He asks us to strike because…
“… sun and wind are now the cheapest way to generate power around the world”—if you ignore the impacts of land-grabbing, mining, manufacturing, transportation, maintenance, and disposal…
“… this could be the great opportunity…Green New Deals have been proposed around the world; they are a way forward”—the “great opportunity” he is speaking of is a way to keep our capital-demanding growth economy going so that the rich can continue to get richer at the expense of the natural world and the poor… Green New Deals are all growth plans, they all involve extracting more, building more, destroying more of the natural world…
“… batteries are ever cheaper – we can now store sunshine at night, and wind for a calm day”—again he is acting as front man for the solar and wind industries which are, as I write this, destroying forests, rivers, deserts, wildlife, habitat, and poor communities around the world, while the materials required for batteries and battery storage (lithium, iridium, copper, zinc, etc) are incredibly destructive to mine and manufacture…
“… indigenous people around the world are trying to protect their rightful land from the coal and oil companies”—and they are also trying to protect their rightful land from mines and dams and solar and wind factories and installations, because all those are harmful to land and communities just like oil is…
“… young people have asked us to. In a well-ordered society, when kids make a reasonable request their elders should say yes”—in fact it is the “elders” who are running the show, the elders who are running organizations like We Mean Business and GCCA who are working feverishly behind the scenes of the so-called youth-led movements to make sure that governments and corporations will make plenty of money on the fourth industrial revolution “demanded” by the people.
McKibben mixes his pro-business, pro-growth reasons for striking with just enough nice nature-sounding reasons to mask, for most people, that what he’s really doing is helping the corporations behind the fourth industrial revolution, by tricking “the people” into “demanding” action, believing they are part of a grass roots movement, when in fact those demands are being manufactured by the very organizations who will “respond” to those demands with more growth, more capitalism, and more extraction.
Don’t fall for it. True grass roots movements don’t have billionaires backing them. True grass roots movements don’t make vague demands of the very governments and organizations that have failed for 40 years to do anything at all. True grassroots activists take concrete actions that actually help: they sue the government and corporations when they break the law; they stand in front of bulldozers building pipelines and cutting down trees; they help inner city people learn how to build gardens in once empty parking lots to supply fresh vegetables; they change the zoning and planning laws in their own communities. Difficult and sometimes dangerous work that actually makes a difference.
Don’t waste your time on fake movements with vague asks that don’t actually take on the systems of power. The people behind these fake movements don’t give a damn about the planet, and they don’t give a damn about any of us. They care about money and power. That is it.
Do something real instead.
Image by Lunae Parracho for Reuters: Ka’apor Indian warriors tie up illegal loggers in the Amazon rainforest. Tired of the lack of government assistance in keeping loggers off their lands, they and four other tribes monitor their territory themselves.
“Before releasing them, one of the warriors told the loggers on the ground: “We’re doing this because you are stubborn. We told you not to come back, but you didn’t listen.”
They then set fire to five trucks and three tractors equipped to pull down trees and transport them from the jungle. They confiscated chainsaws and shotguns that they carried back to the village saying: “Jande pairata” or “We are strong.””
By Max Wilbert / Featured image: an oil processing facility in Saudi Arabia, Planet Labs, CC BA-SA 4.0
On Saturday, September 14th, a “suicide drone” attack struck the Abqaiq oil processing facility in Buqayq, Saudi Arabia. The drones were destroyed in the attack, but at this time it is not believed that the operators were exposed or harmed in any way.
Abqaiq is the largest oil facility in the world, with the capacity to process 7% of global oil supplies. Before the attack it was refining around 6.8 million barrels of oil per day. The attack is believed to have reduced Saudi Oil production by 50 percent, or 6 million barrels per day. That’s equivalent to the national usage of India and Australia combined, or more than 1/3rd of the United States oil consumption.
Saudi Arabia produces 10% of the global supply of crude oil. Therefore, this single attack, believed to have been carried out with roughly 10 drones with a range of less than 100 miles, cut world oil production by 5 percent.
The use of drones in warfare has risen over the past five years. Initially, large UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) designed by U.S. weapons manufacturers dominated drone warfare. Increasingly, however, small and even off-the-shelf drones are being used in asymmetrical conflict to great effect. For example, in Syria, Daesh (Isis) and Hezbollah have both been recorded using inexpensive off-the-shelf drones to scout and direct fire for ground troops, to drop small bombs, and as “suicide bombers.”
Environmentalists should take heed. This one attack—albeit an attack unlikely to be motivated by concern for the planet and ecology—has been more effective than the entire environmental movement, which has failed to stop the growth in fossil fuel production and consumption. These new tactics change how strategies such as Decisive Ecological Warfare could be implemented.
Some people may worry about the environmental damage caused by such a massive fire. But we should remember that all the petroleum processed at this refinery would have been burned anyway. The only difference is that it would have been burned while powering cargo ships, mining platforms, tanks, and other destructive industrial infrastructure. It is always preferable to see petroleum burn all at once, with no application, than to have it all burned over time while aiding in the destruction of the planet. The destruction of the equipment also means that more fossil fuels will stay in the ground for longer, since if there is no nearby processing capacity for them, extraction must stop. With very few exceptions, the living world would benefit from any fossil fuel infrastructure being destroyed, no matter how “messy” that destruction is.
This episode of The Green Flame podcast looks at Decisive Ecological Warfare, the only revolutionary environmental strategy designed to dismantle the global industrial economy by any means necessary.
Our show features a conversation with movement lawyer and poet Will Falk, and Deep Green Resistance co-author and philosopher Derrick Jensen. The conversation covers ecological collapse, resistance, morality, immigration, permaculture, and more.
We also share poetry by the exiled black revolutionary Assata Shakur, and 9 Principles of War from the U.S. Military that can be adapted for use by activists. Our music track for this episode is “Crying Over You” by Christoper Morrow, used under CC BY 3.0.
The Green Flame is a Deep Green Resistance podcast offering revolutionary analysis, skill sharing, and inspiration for the movement to save the planet by any means necessary. Our hosts are Max Wilbert and Jennifer Murnan.
Decisive Ecological Warfare
Decisive Ecological Warfare (DEW) is the strategy of a movement that has too long been on the defensive. It is the war cry of a people who refuse to lose any more battles, the last resort of a movement isolated, co-opted, and weary from never-ending legal battles and blockades.
The information in the DEW strategy is derived from military strategy and tactics manuals, analysis of historic resistances, insurgencies, and national liberation movements. The principles laid out within these pages are accepted around the world as sound principles of asymmetric warfare, where one party is more powerful than the other. If any fight was ever asymmetric, this one is.
The strategies and tactics explained in DEW are taught to military officers at places like the Military Academy at West Point for a simple reason: they are extremely effective.
When he was on trial in South Africa in 1964 for his crimes against the apartheid regime, Nelson Mandela said: “I do not deny that I planned sabotage. I did not do this in a spirit of recklessness. I planned it as a result of a long and sober assessment of the political situation after many years of oppression of my people by the whites.”
We invite you to read this strategy, and to undertake that same long and sober assessment of the situation we face. Time is short.
GDPR is a European legal framework intended to protect personal data, provide greater data transparency, and give people greater control over their data. It requires any group that stores or processes data to follow strict policies to ensure security. It also entitles individuals to request personal data reports and deletion, both of which must be completed within 30 days by any group holding the data.
Who does GDPR apply to?
At minimum, GDPR applies to any group or company which stores the data of EU citizens or residents, in practice it applies primarily to data processing entities based in the EU. This can include corporations, political parties, activist groups, and even individuals.
What are the consequences of negligence?
Violation reports are investigated, a warning is usually issued, data may be deleted, data processing may be restricted, and continued violations can result in fines up to €20,000,000 or 4% of revenue, whichever is greater. The consequences are significant enough to even warrant serious concern among large corporations.
What is a personal data request?
Anyone can submit a request for a comprehensive report on any data which relates to them, and these reports must include all data and a list of systems which store or process that data. Requests must be fulfilled in under 30 days. This is relatively easy for big businesses who have invested in compliance software, but intermediate businesses have much more difficulty, and small groups or individuals struggle the most. Processing a data request manually can take 30+ minutes per request because all systems must be checked.
What is a deletion request?
Anyone in the EU can request that their data be deleted from some or all systems. The data must be permanently deleted and all systems must be checked for data. This can also take 30+ minutes to complete per request, depending on the systems.
How do you weaponise GDPR?
Opposition groups and companies which perpetuate ecocide can be easily flooded with GDPR requests. Each individual email address warrants a separate request. If someone has 3 email addresses and a request template, they can consume 1-3 hours of a company, group, or individual’s time and resources by investing a few minutes. If the request is not completed in 30 days, or if the report is incomplete, they can report the offense for investigation. Additionally, any company, group, or individual that does not have GDPR compliant opt-in features and privacy statements can also be reported, even without a 30 day waiting period.
Strategic mass reporting can consume significant resources among medium sized targets, and can be devastating for smaller targets. This is a tactic which requires minimal training, is highly asymmetric, and can be very disruptive when targets are selected intelligently. I recommend identifying candidates like: climate science denial groups, fossil fuel lobbyists, regional oil and gas distributors, politicians, logging companies, and opposition movements.
This summer, all too many rivers have turned into vast graveyards for the corpses of an unfathomable number of salmon; these critical life givers cannot survive the searing heat. In turn, they will not feed the bears, who will not feed the trees nitrogen with their leftovers, and this will accelerate the death and burning of forests in a vicious cycle of destruction. The fires have already started and we all watch with horror as the Amazon, Central Africa, and the Arctic ignite into tower plumes of greenhouse gases, which again perpetuates a vicious cycle of destruction. At some point, these feedback systems will reach a critical tipping point and they will become unstoppable. When we exceed the “point of no return” it will seem like any other day, no alarm bells will ring, no governments will declare the passing of hope, and no magical saviour will ride down from the sky to protect the world against this endless appetite for carnage.
You are our only hope. You and me. You and me, and other indivuduals who are intelligent enough to see what’s in front of us, compassionate enough to care, and courageous enough to take action. What needs to be done is relatively straightforward: we must stop industrial civilization from destroying life on Earth. In the spirit of cutesy, clickbaity articles here are 4 ways you can help stop global extinction.
1. Stop Electricity Consumption
Most articles will tell you to buy solar panels, which are manufactured using fossil fuels. Or they’ll tell you to install a gimmicky technology in your house to reduce electrical use. Pardon my language, but f-ck that consumer bullsh!t. Changing individual consumer decisions will not save us from annihilation, we need to abolish consumerism as a culture and turn it off at its sources. There are dozens of strategies for reducing electrical use; some groups call for shooting high-capacity power lines with rifles, which causes them to overload and results in widespread blackouts. Other groups call for using electromagnetic pulse (EMP) devices to shut down transformer stations and other critial utility nodes. Another approach is to shut down the raw energy sources: coal, gas, oil, etc. Some people choose to block coal trains, other people blockade essential fracking equipment, and others choose open military action (nod to the Niger Delta Avengers).
If those most effective tactics aren’t possible given your situation, you might consider blockading or sabotaging local oil and gas vehicles to disrupt their regional supply chains. Some people choose to do this by dropping caltrops to puncture their tires, others add sugar to their fuel tanks to cripple their engines, or others choose to burn them when they’re empty. The smallest scale efforts involve locking their gates at night to delay their departure.
2. Send Funds to Resistance Movements
If you’re too busy working a job, or too averse to personal risk due to personal constraints, you should donate a certain number of hours of work per month toward funding those courageous people who are willing to put their lives on the line. Donate one full day of work per month, or half a day if you’re in dire financial straits. That amount of effort and commitment per month is enough to support much, if not all, of the essential needs of a resistance member. It covers their food, water, shelter, equipment, medicine, and legal aid. It’s always disappointing when someone professes to care deeply about preventing global extinction while continuing to prioritise their own consumer activities over either taking action or meaningfully supporting action.
There are many worthwhile groups to donate to, and Deep Green Resistance is among them [donate here]. Some of these groups can be more difficult to donate to due to local government oppression and restrictions to banking, so you may need to use an intermediary to get funds to them safely and privately. If you have any questions about these processes please contact Deep Green Resistance and we’ll help you figure it out.
3. Cripple the Economy
Economic recessions result in reduced rates of consumption, and consumption is at the heart of this global crisis. The simplest possible way to anonymously and effectively make a difference is by inhibiting local, regional, and national commerce. You should obviously target large corporations and not local businesses. Possible tactics include locking front doors and parking gates, causing disruption to shopping activities, blockading stores, disabling shipping vehicles while they’re in docks, spraying fox urine, damaging goods, and a million other small and large tactics. When you start looking for opportunities to disrupt the economy you will begin to see endless approaches and you should take advantage of as many of them as possible. Build and foster cultures of economic sabotage, make it part of your daily life.
Another option, discovered in Washington State during a major snow storm, is to intentionally slow or stop major freeways and interstates. This can be especially effective in large cities during rush hour conditions. It may not seem like it, but the cumulative effect of delaying traffic, even relatively briefly, is immense. A small and coordinated group of people could easily have millions of dollars worth of economic impact by simply driving under the speed limit and blocking all lanes for an extended distance. Studies in Japan have demonstrated that these types of alterations in the speed of traffic can result in massive traffic jams.
4. Prepare Communities
Perhaps the biggest obstacle to widespread action is our dependency on ecocidal systems for our survival. People have been colonized, intentionally, by these systems and part of that process involved systematically stripping us of the ancestral skills and knowledge which allowed us to live independently. Our children have been processed by “education” systems which stripped them of the capacity to source their own food, build their own homes, and build independent communities. Young minds were filled with the birth dates of presidents instead of the names and uses of local plants. Young minds were saturated with abstract figures in place of local knowledge of soil and water. We were prepared for work and reliance on factories because industrial civilization knew that self sufficiency empowers people to resist.
One of the greatest acts of resistance is to recover that ancestral knowledge; with it comes the strength and resilience to fight back, to build alternatives, and to actively fight back. Our communities will turn against us if they believe that their survival is dependent on the continuation of industrial civilization; from that perspective the defenders of life are the harbingers of death. Therefore, we must recognize that radical self sufficiency is the first step toward radical acts of resistance. Teaching communities to grow their own food empowers them to shut down fossil fuel infrastructure. Teaching communities to respect and love nature, as the giver of life, empowers them to fight against the destruction of our shared natural world.
