one big savage family

I think it’s time to stop being stupid.  The drive from Vancouver, Kanada to Sandpoint, North Idaho was long.  Traveling through such a beautiful landscape makes me wonder how some can be so disconnected from reality, but between the Grand Coulee Dam and this ad (above) that just went up on some Portland buses, it makes me wonder what planet some people are really living on.

Let’s start with the ad.  Really, it’s so offensive, it’s funny.    But I think it betrays the key mindset behind settler-colonialism in all it’s forms, that being, it just won’t work unless one group of people is dehumanized and another seen as Supreme.  Israel has succeeded where Hitler failed in creating a purely racist State.  Now, I do think Jewish people have an Ancestral connection to the land in the Levant, and should live there if they want to.  Most don’t.  Jewish people were living there the whole time between 70 CE and 1948 CE, but never once has that land been inhabited by only one Nation.  Even King David bought the land to build the temple, he didn’t steal it, and he didn’t drive out the “heathen”, nor did the Old Testament tribes, even when the were told to commit genocide when the land was taken the first time.  The concept of a Jewish state is just over one hundred years old, invented by the atheist Zionists in the late 19th century.  “Israel” the State never existed prior to 1948, and the Nation of Israel is a completely different story.  The land has always been a shared land, and it always should be.

The best book I’ve read on Israel/Palestine is Whose Land? Whose Promise? by Christian author Gary M Burge.  He clearly shows  how unfounded the ideologies of Zionism and Christian Zionism are, from a spiritual perspective, not just political.  And I’m not a supporter of a Palestinian state or patriarchal monotheism in any form, but I think it’s important to see the connections between all land-stealing and genocide so we can all avoid being reactionary, heartless, and stupid.

So when proponents of Zionism start making distinctions between “civilized” and “savage”, we can all enjoy an some lucidity.  Here in Cascadia, the “civilized” settlers  created an Occupied Territories of “savage” land.  In the Levant, the “civilized” settlers have created an Occupied Territories of “savage” land.  Racism is just the fabricated ideology to justify theft of peoples homes and genocide.  So when we decolonize, we are not driving any “race” from the land or inventing a State as a “nation”.  Many Nations can share one place and still remain distinct Nations, this was true in the Levant for millennia until a racist State was imposed on the Land, and Cascadia will be a land of many Nations once the totalitarian State stops hiding behind the guise of “multiculturalism” and we all bring it down.

I saw the Grand Coulee Dam for the first time.  You really can’t understand it until you see it in real life.  A monument to thieves, once the biggest structure in the world, now outdone by the Wall imprisoning Occupied Palestine.  And don’t get me started on check points and “unlawful” searches and seizures, because they’re perfectly legal here too, as is assassination of citizens through the NDAA.

So lets stop being in denial.  There is no “jewish” media, just the civilized media and the savage media.  And there is no war on terror, drugs, or poverty.  Just the war of the civilized against the savage.  And the”civilized” is just the first lie of them all, the original racism.  We’re all really one big savage family.

So in any war between the civilized and savage humanity, support savage humanity

Free Cascadia.  Free Palestine.  Free Tibet.  Free Israel.  Defeat Civilization


5 thoughts on “one big savage family

  1. I wonder, what do you think of demographic cultural takeover. What I mean with that on the example of Israel is, that Non-Jewish people in the region tend to have more kids than Jewish people. The same is true in regions of Europe that have a significant population with a cultural background in Islam. What does a culture do, that shares a physical space with another, if the other culture is growing in population and influence while the own culture is declining? In respect to Israel – if they would dissolve the Israel state and tear down “the wall” and live as two nations on the same ground – what would happen with demographics? Is it then ok for one of the cultures to have more kids than the other or to allow immigration of more people of their culture into the region, eventually making one of the cultures into a minority? This is what I think would happen in many places that have a large portion of people of certain cultures, among them the one that is following the religion of Islam. It is what has happened in places that had a large portion of people following Christianity as well. For example the Christian settlers in North America. They managed to grow and grow and increase in numbers by having kids and allowing immigration until they vastly outnumbered the members of the cultures that lived there. So I would question how should two cultures – or “nations” – share one place in a balanced way and do you think this is possible at all when monothesistic religions are playing a role?

    • This is where we oppose ‘Nationalism’ with Bioregionalism. And this means each place will have a different answer, but it all comes down to the fact that a living culture will always be transformed by any new place that those people may move to. This cultural transformation will become a commonality with the people who are already there, UNLESS this new people group has a victim mentality that encourages cultural fundamentalism, which creates a dead culture, not a living one. This victim mentality will be reinforced through repression, not alleviated.

      I could write a book on this, so I’ll try to be succinct.
      Bioregionalism means that if we have a living relationship with a particular place, our culture will come from that place. In Cascadia, the Indigenous cultures embrace an identity inextricable from place. Indigenous cultures lose meaning outside of the place they come from. But in the Old World, there was so much disruption with the spread of agriculture beginning around 8,000 years ago, that culture became an Ideology rather that a way of being and living in a particular place. Culture, as an export commodity, became the culture of Empire. So when people from the Old World came to the shores of Turtle Island, they came not to become a part of this place, but to conquer the “wilderness” with their ideological culture of Empire. Of course, they saw themselves as God’s gift to the universe, but in fact committed genocide, blinded by their Ideology. Fredrick Turner’s book “Beyond Geography” is very lucid and helpful in understanding this process.

      So, as long as culture comes from Ideology rather than Place, one demographic will always be swallowing up another. But if culture comes from place, then those demographics will be transformed by the places they move to and then become a part of. This only works when everyone abandons Ideology in favor of relationship with the material and spiritual reality of each peculiar place.

      Cascadia, and the ‘New World’ in general, has a great advantage in the fact that the Indigenous cultures and languages are still alive and intact. This means the settler populations can still learn the ‘Natural Laws’ of living here. The Indigenous cultures in Europe were decimated by wave after wave of colonization, starting with Rome, then Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire. The Levant has been conquered and colonized more than any place in the world. By no means are “Jewish” or “Arab” cultures Indigenous to that place. Sorry. They are both deeply ideological. Ideology re-placed the “pagan” ways of living by placing “God” up in the sky, disconnected and separate from the Earth. This place, the Earth, became “The World”, an evil wilderness to escape and be saved from.

      So in Europe and the Levant, it must be acknowledged that much Indigenous knowledge has been lost, but Indigenous knowledge can be rediscovered if people remember how to listen to the land itself to learn how to live there. If monotheistic religions demonize living relationships with the land, then yes, they are the problem. I would highly recommend reading “Against His-story, Against Leviathan!” by Fredy Perlman for a global perspective on the trajectory of Empire Culture. Then read “The Final Empire” by Wm. H Kotke.

      The demographic shifts in Europe and Israel/Palestine must be understood in context. My only practical answer is that children are rebellious, and will forsake the ideological culture of their immigrant parents in a generation or two, but only if that culture can’t pass on a victim mentality. So understanding fundamentalism as a product of repression is key. If a home-grown culture is less repressive, and welcoming on a human level of immigrant people, those children will lose that fundamentalism faster than some would think.

      I recognize that there are more levels of complexity, but if any culture is not a “shared experience of place”, then those ideological cultures, naturalized or imported, will never be sustainable in the long run anyway. I think all the Abrahamic traditions are doomed if they don’t learn to love this Earth again, and this love grows through relationships with particular places, not by enforcing Ideology.

      • Whatever I said a year ago, I think “indigenous” is actually a fair term for Palestinians. I also think it’s a fair term for the native Irish. Even though the history books say that the Celts and the Arabs “exploded” out of Continental Europe and the Arabian Peninsula, respectively, the meaning of the word “indigenous” fit both peoples prior to industrialization. Language is a silly thing. What a can of worms!

  2. Hi.
    I do have some comments and questiosn on your last reply. I will use examples from Germany to illustrate the problematic.

    The main argument you are making is, that immigrants to a culture that is open and welcoming will drop their own culture and fundamentalism and become part of the culture in that place they moved to. The reason for this not happening is to be found by the culture of that place which then is claimed to be not welcoming enough, thereby creating a victim mentality which keeps the immigrants locked into a fundamentalist position. This is a nice theory, but I am not sure it really applies. I will make two points about this. The first is an example. Germany has commited numerous racist (or rather culturalist) atrocities in 1933-1945. As a result, post-war Germany has as one of its major statutes the concept of being open to strangers, discourage any racist or culturalist activity. As a result, the vast majority of people at least act in the public according to this and politics is focussed on this. Some radicaly are openly racist/culturalist and many people if asked in private would rather not have people bringing other cultures into their own, but in the context of society the official position is one of “never again” and thus of tolerance and acceptance of people from other cultures. They are given a part int he society, jobs, social security, free education and welfare, places to practice their religion and so on. Major initiatives promote friendship and tolerance, many thousands of people walk on the streets with candles if there was an incident in which a German acted violently racist. I would say that there are few large cultures in the world that can say this. Yet the result of this politics some 30 years later is, that 50% of all children below 6 in some cities are having an immigration background, mayn of which still adhere to their original culture (muslim), there are whole parts of the city in which only muslims live and where local butchers get harrassed for selling pork. People talk a foreign language, adhere to their own laws if possible and bully people of the culture that is the “host” in this case. They show signs of fundamentalism, pride of the culture they originate in and a “victim mentality” at the same time, the latter is founded in part on not all of them having large houses and expensive cars (duh – neither do allt he others), on the occasional acts of violence they receive (while at the same time they show the same violence to others) and on the fact that people locally are getting defensive about their culture. This leads many people to think that the “multicultural approach” of welcoming people from other cultures openly has failed and there is the demand that people from other cultures should only be completely accepted if they are willing to incorporate the base values of the regional culture into their own lives (e.g. the laws, democratic principles and paradoxically the openness and tolerance towards people that are different). So there are some now that say, that the wide openness, tolerance and acceptance of people from other cultures that were allowed to bring their culture to this place and keep it alive has actually led to that foreign culture to start and replace the local culture, actually replacing the openness and tolerance with fundamentalism. What do you think of that?

    Now I will try to pull out a remembrance of german nationalism. What I will write now may sound as if I am a NAZI, but I assure you I am far from that as a person embracing communalism and antifascism, but I will try to put a light on how this looks like from a different perspective with the aim of seeing what makes your ideology (and you clearly do have one as well) different or even similar in some points to something that did not work out well:
    You write, that a culture should shed the monotheistic tradition and try to remake itself based on the land or maybe on old indigenous traditions (as you said for cascadia where you have still working indigenous cultures). Germany tried to do this in the 1920ies and 1930ies. A big part of the national socialism was the idea, that the abrahamitic cultures are not belonging into the region since they did not evolve here. What was looked into instead was to find a connection to the land, to past indigenous cultures and to develop a spirituality that is more in line with that – and to basically fight those cultures that were not home in the region. So the main philosophers of that time went out into the wilderness, displayed a strong affection to it, talked about the great mountains and wild rivers and amazing forests. The tree became a huge symbol – “Brother Tree” was a “meme” that was common. Young people were brought out into nature as scouts and learned to make fire, camp out in nature, hunt, fish, build tents. They tried to rediscover ancient traditions, symbolism and spirituality, erected pagan temples centered around large rock formations or sacred forests. They shut down churches and started to try and convert jews. And then it all went really really bad as you all know. The Jews and their religion were seen as a threat, the newly found pagan spirituality was unstable with many people believing different and often nonsensical things that they claimed to have gotten from listening to trees or rivers, stuff like that Germans are the master race and black people are basically apes. People believed that and started to act on it. There were claims made to a land based culture based on honor and good leadership, leading to the whole mess with the Fuhrerkult. The whole culture went haywire and eventually they even forgot about their claims to be land-based and tried to conquer more land that they claimed to liberate from the cultures in that places which they regarded as false and not belonging to that place. They collected countries that were part of their imagined bioregion and ancient culture as part of the “Reich” (Austria, some countries in the east). You know the story. Now maybe you can explain to me, how you envision to manage what you describe in the idea of cascadia without falling into these traps. Have you read about this part of German history and thought about the dangers and pitfalls of re-developing a land based culture that is bound to a place and that is supposed to be strong enough to not allow other cultures to take it over physically or culturally or by immigration? If you did, I would love to hear about it.

    Why am I so intereted in that? Because I think Europe is having a strong urge to redevelop more land-based, bioregional cultures. Secession movements in Scotland, Bavaria, Catalonia, Corsica, Bretagne, Northern Italy, Poland and elsewhere try to get out of the dominant European culture that tries to undo local cultural specialities that are often protective of the land and local people against corporate exploitation and environmental destruction because people there want to live in a healthy environment. At the same time, I see a tendency of these movements to take paths that are not leading towards a good future because they show signs of what I described above, because they are regarded often as the “extreme right”, because they sometimes even self-identify as “extreme right” and because some members are openly attached to NAZI Germany, openly opposed to Islam and Muslims and so on. They regard themselves as defenders of the local culture that they regard as more land-based than a muslim desert-monotheism trying to build mosks, halal butchers, install a scharia and at times openly admit that they will “breed you from the face of the earth”. In a sense, they have developed a victim mentality themselves. So I am interested in how to develop a way to promote a way this can go that is not about to turn violent, fascist and messy. And since I somewhat assume that you or people in the cascadia movement (feel free to forward my questions to them) may have thought on that, I was hoping for some comments and answers on that.

    Thank you

  3. Actually, I am quite familiar with the German experience, as far back as the late 1800’s with the emergence of the wandervogel movements. Interesting how these Youth Movements fed into both Nazism and Zionism. I think what you are bringing up is very important, and I thought this is how you would reply. Thank You.

    I share your concern with ‘multiculturalism’. That ethic is very strong here in Cascadia as well, but in a variation where it is politically-correct to be verbally abusive of white-skinned males. I’m Irish, with an ancestral history nearly identical to the Indigenous experience here in Cascadia (clan-based tribal salmon people who were colonized by the British empire and violently forced to speak English. Alcoholism and abuse have wrecked my family. My name comes from a specific river. We’ve hidden our spiritual practice under the guise of Christianity in both places.) But with my light colored skin and male gender, I have an institutional “privilege”, so open sexism and racism are encouraged against me, de facto. If I protest I am call “far-right” or “crypto-facist.” It is politically correct to tolerate abuse. I would call this Leftism, or “totalitarian humanism”, I think it is reactionary, and will cause counter-reactionary violence from the real far-right. Do you know we have Nazi’s in Cascadia, called the Northwest Front? We also have eco-facists that want a neoliberal “megaregion” as part of a globalist world order. We have huge immigration issues that polarize Left and Right, and there has been much bloodshed already. We have concentration camps made by Federal Immigration and Emergency agencies. You are correct in comparing the German experience with our context here, and our currency is bound to collapse. I’ve even heard the “blood and soil” rhetoric here in the ecological movement.

    Yes, environmentalism and totalitarianism are dubiously compatible. That is why we are trying to articulate a ‘Bioregionalism’ that pits ecology against environmentalism. Environmentalism is based on separation, a human/nature divide. Ecology has been fully misanthropic in the past, but our bioregional movement is trying to say that there is no separation anywhere, and there is no people group that can be fundamentally labeled as “Other”, there are only people who are displaced for a reason (i.e. agriculture, drawdown, collapse). Everything is interconnected and happens for a reason. For instance, our “immigration problem” is the direct result of the economic policies of the U.S. Empire. And guess what. Look at the history of the Muslim world since WWI. You’ll see very progressive regimes open to all things ‘Western’ being replaced by European controlled pupped regimes that basically invented Islamic fundamentalism in the process of a colonial takeover of the Middle East. So the European scenario started before the Nazi’s. This is a chapter of the same story.

    But we actually study the German experience here, because we recognize that history is already repeating itself. But if you are Indigenous here, the phenomenon that you are describing in Germany right now with, intolerant immigrants set to “take over; that has already happened. So we recognize a need for balance. Everyone here has a victim mentality, but none more prominently than the dominant Christians. They rule the world, but their world-view is that everyone is out to get them, and their eschatology says that the world will turn against them, but then God will destroy the world, and save them. This influences our Federal policy to an extreme degree. This is why I am interested in how to reverse a victim mentality, but what if both repression and tolerance are failing?

    I don’t know for sure. You are right, I have many ideologies, but they are always changing and evolving. I could imagine a proactive appreciation or validation of immigrant cultures, but a stiff intolerance of fundamentalism. I would even advocate a proactive subversion of immigrant cultures. For instance, invite them to participate in place based traditions locally, perhaps with spiritual connotations, then treat them like rude invaders if they refuse to participate. But also validate and accept the positive aspects if the new culture. I think “tolerance” is condescending, and it may be more effective to challenge foreign ideologies by embracing those peoples humanity in a way that makes them look rude for refusing hospitality. Then shame them for being assholes if they are separatist. Their children will hate it. But also abandon the requirement of full assimilation, then appropriate an aspect of their culture, as if they’ve brought a gift, and make it a part of the place. And if the foreign culture becomes dominant, then defend the local traditions by any means necessary. Kill them with kindness, actively, then refuse to be dominated. But this is all hard to do if you’re a fundamentalist yourself.

    Funny, this is what the Indigenous people of North America did with the first settlers. It worked so well that the colonies has to pass laws against “fraternizing with Indians”, because the colonies kept falling apart. (J. Axtell- ‘The Invasion Within) But eventually, the Puritans started demonizing and killing the Indigenous people, because colonialism was prohibited by the continuance of Indigenous life ways. In this instance, the Indigenous forgot tolerance and fought back. If it wasn’t for smallpox, they would have won. So let’s hope Muslim’s from the south aren’t immune to a disease that kills Europeans in droves, eh!? Talk about poetic justice!

    So can you see why our attack is on fundamentalism and Ideology? If the truth about reality transcends symbolic culture, then fundamentalism will always be a mistaken half-truth. But the physical reality of a place does not stem from Ideology. So if the ways of living in a place are considered “Law”, the people ideas are secondary, and as always, subject to change. But this doesn’t translate well to a place like Europe where domestication has colonized the land almost completely. So for Europe, the game is different, and who am I to say what that will be?

    Reject dominant culture, and fight Islamic culture as soon as you see signs of domination. You will, just read the Book. But proactive subversion of some kind may be your best ally, not tolerance. And realistically, immigration is a symptom of economic globalization, religious world conquest is just a convenient excuse for colonialism or it’s reactionary forces.

    So in Cascadia, we are saying that “Indigeneity” is not a racist, religious, nationalist, or even humanistic construct. We want an economy rooted in ecology, and following those rules will be the requirement to live here as a human being. These rules are symbiotic with the full expression of human biology and psychology. This means great intellectual freedom and freedom of movement, but the integrity of the land and the integrity of human biology, being interconnected, will be defended. Yes, we’ll use force. Destroying our ecology will not be tolerated. But we can demonize no one, because it is the inhuman, humanistic Ideologies forced upon this land that are the problem, not the humans themselves.

    And I must add that the Nazi’s “paganism” was a hijacking of rehashed hippy fairy tales from an agricultural civilization. Like American yuppies trying to be authentic cowboys, and calling it a cultural revival. The Indigenous stories here are kept alive in the Indigenous languages that don’t translate literally into English, but they are specific instructions on how to live here that don’t take domestication for granted.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s