Star Wars – The Environmentalists Version

Download (MP4 80MB)
Translate this video
Download Torrent

“I don’t know if you know this, but the original draft of the movie star wars was not written by Lucas, the original draft was written by environmentalists. And it’s a little bit different”

Those were the first words I ever heard Derrick Jensen speak, and my world view has never been the same since. The year was 2006 and I had just moved to New York City to work for Democracy Now!. I was taping the Community Solutions conference, a peak oil convention held at Cooper Union. Unlike the other speakers, Derrick did not talk about about solar panels or wind turbines. He spoke of our culture’s systematic destruction of the planet and of the failure of the environmental movement. After hearing his talk, I immediately sought out his books and the first seeds of END:CIV were planted.

The “Star Wars” piece is one of Derrick’s best analogies, one that delivers a precise critique of mainstream environmental groups.

Directed by Franklin López, Motion Graphic support by pussykrew. Production assistance by Paul Clarke, Annette Fick, Rosalee Yagihara and Chris Bevacqua.

Advertisement

Rethinking Revolution: Animal Liberation, Human Liberation, and the Future of the Left

“Animal liberation may sound more like a parody of other liberation movements than a serious objective.” Peter Singer

“Animal liberation is the ultimate freedom movement, the `final frontier.’” Robin Webb, British ALF Press Officer

Introduction: Framing the Unframed Issue

It seems lost on most of the global anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist Left that there is a new liberation movement on the planet ―animal liberation― that is of immense ethical and political significance. But because animal liberation challenges the anthropocentric, speciesist, and humanist dogmas that are so deeply entrenched in socialist and anarchist thinking and traditions, Leftists are more likely to mock than engage it.

Postmodern Politics: Fragmentation or Alliance?

Dawns, Twilights, and Transitions: Postmodern Theories, Politics, and Challenges

By Steve Best & Douglas Kellner

The postmodern turn which has so marked social and cultural theory also involves conflicts between modern and postmodern politics. In this essay, we articulate the differences between modern and postmodern politics and argue against one-sided positions which dogmatically reject one tradition or the other in favor of partisanship for either the modern or the postmodern. Arguing for a politics of alliance and solidarity, we claim that this project is best served by drawing on the most progressive elements of both the modern and postmodern traditions. Developing a new politics involves overcoming the limitations of certain versions of modern politics and postmodern identity politics in order to develop a politics of alliance and solidarity equal to the challenges of the coming millennium.

“What’s going on just now? What’s happening to us? What is this world, this period, this precise moment in which we are living?” Michel Foucault

In the past two decades, the foundational claims of modern politics have been challenged by postmodern perspectives. The grand visions of emancipation in liberalism, Marxism, and other political perspectives of the modern era have been deemed excessively grandiose and totalizing, occluding differences and neglecting more specific oppressions of individuals and disparate groups. The liberal project of providing universal rights and freedoms for all has been challenged by specific groups struggling for their own rights, advancing their own specific interests, and championing the construction of their unique cultures and identities. The Marxian project of revolution, worldwide and global in scope, has been replaced in some quarters by more localized struggles and more modest and reformist goals. The result is a variety of new forms of postmodern politics whose discourses, practices, and effects are beginning to register and come under critical scrutiny.

Read the full article at Democracy & Nature…

Urgent Communique from Athens Anarchists

“State and Capital assassinate every day and not with bullets alone. We live the causes, we don’t wait for any occasions. Everyone to the streets: For dignity, for freedom, for Anarchy.” —Open anarchist assembly for multiform action

These moments are more than historical. We are witnessing for the first time since 1967 an attempt to impose a fascist police coup. If a parliamentary democracy are able to commit those crimes, the junta is something different and we have all have begun to understand that. The anarchist slogans in the streets are beginning to say bluntly: “DOWN THE JUNTA”.

A collusion of prosecutors, rectors, the upper classes, TV media and police, and still we do not know what other local and foreign forces have been mustered. You hear of missing people. The climate is heavy like under the junta.

Revolution in Theory & Praxis (Part II)

MLK Jr. & Fred Hampton

Bart Black (aka “HackMKUltra”) and Nathan Coe (aka “ShiftShapers”) answer questions from the GNN community

^{Part I, in which Bart & Nathan debate directly, can be found here.}

Number5Toad: You’ve said in the past that things like cars and businesses are “inherently violent” because of the destruction to ecosystems and loss of natural life that are required to create them. By these standards, isn’t all of organic life then inherently violent?

Nathan: This is, if anything, a baited and loaded question, but it itself begs another very important question: at what point do human creations cross the line from “natural” and “organic” to “unnatural” and “inorganic”? This, as I see it, is a matter of semantic interpretation and definition regarding these dichotomous terms. It is certainly possible to pursue a line of logic that leads to the conclusion that nothing that humanity could do or create is “unnatural.” Again, this is a matter of semantics, but I would argue that the real issue is systemic environmental destruction and exploitation, not to mention the human costs, not whether or not we chose to label it as “unnatural” or not. Words are, after all, simply auditory symbols used to communicate ideas. They are mutable and subjective. The real issue is that the system we have created exceeds the carrying capacity of the planet, and is thus fundamentally and terminally unsustainable. Animals exceed the carrying capacity of their land base “naturally” all the time, but it is still not a state of existence you want to be in, particularly if you are a self-aware and self-reflective being who is also aware of your environment and the potential future consequences of your actions in the present. The result of any living being exceeding the carrying capacity of its land base is always a crash and return to sustainable levels of population. All biotic beings are subject to the limited parameters of the natural world, including human beings.

Revolution in Theory & Praxis (Part I)

Crazy Horse and Mahatma Gandhi

A dialogue between Bart Black (aka “HackMKUltra”) and Nathan Coe (aka “ShiftShapers”) on the theory & praxis of resistance and revolution

The following is a dialogue between Nathan Coe and Bart Black, both of GNN, on the merits and flaws of “non-violent” vs. “violent” (semantic terms that will be discussed further) resistance to the State as a means for political change. (The dialogue originally occurred in early 2009 and was intended for publication as an article on GNN, but was stymied in the editorial yard. Now that GNN has shut down, we are releasing them.) Nathan has taken the position of supporting armed resistance and insurrection coupled with information warfare, while Bart supports the path of pacifism and non-violence, advocating the “infowar” as the sole vehicle of true revolution, without a component of armed struggle.

The debate is broken into two parts. Part I will include opening statements, questions, critiques, responses, and closing statements by Bart and Nathan. Part II will focus on a Q&A between Bart, Nathan, and the GNN community.