Why Passionate Resistance is a Losing Strategy

Main
#1

As I write this, one of the images that scrolls by on the home page has this Headline:

Wild Existence
Passionate Resistance

I completely agree with Wild Existence, but Passionate Resistance is a losing strategy.

Does “passionate resistance” mean resistance through force and violence? If so the state will out gun you 1,000 times to 1. Does it mean political resistance? If so, the state will outspend you 1,000 time to 1.

In his book, “Weapons of the Weak” James C. Scott talks about effective methods of peasant resistance.

Passionate resistance is not a weapon that works for the weak. The leaders of peasant uprisings get rounded up and shot. Every time!

But there are many ways that peasants (and the weak in general) can resist. Think of poaching, squatting, pilfering deserting, and being a laggard as weapons that work quite well for the weak.

Being invisible is perhaps the best weapon available to the weak.

I don’t know what should go up on the front page to replace this, but “passionate resistance” is a historically losing strategy, and this headline should come down as soon as possible.

1 Like
#2

That image is simply the logo of the publication that printed the linked article featuring our project. Those images are automatically pulled from the posts they link to. Lack of content, and lack of quality new content from which to pull is an issue that would seem to be a higher leverage concern to address.

tmp_2504-IMG_20150426_2116121367517603.jpg1536×2048 2.24 MB

1 Like
#3

Thank you for your explanation.

My suggestion is to either edit out “passionate resistance” or change the image to something that you will gain more value from promoting.

The way it is now, it looked to me (and perhaps still looks to others) that you are saying that “passionate resistance” is what Feralculture is all about.

Thank you for the explanation, but having this so prominently visible on the home page will do you no good.

1 Like
#4

I think we have a disagreement on what’s being promoted and the benefit, and I think you’re sincerely trying to help and I value that. To my mind, there is value to showing that the ideas underpinning this project are interesting and compelling enough for a 3rd party to promote us in print and at their expense. While I recognize your argument and its merit, I don’t share the analysis that the phrase in the logo of that publication is a major issue.

The real issue that I believe you are hitting on is this: the feralculture website currently lacks what is commonly referred to as “keystone” or “pillar” content. If such content did exist, the two words in the logo of someone promoting us would be marginalized. In the absence of such content, what little content exists is open to undue scrutiny and the perception that that content is the keystone/pillar content. That nearly inevitable conflation is, in my estimation, the actual problem afoot.

We’re absolutely open to submissions of original content relevant to the project, and actively seek it. I would much rather author such content than mess with server junk, but am continually mired in the technical aspects of the site, which is not my strength and the project suffers for it.

1 Like
#5

As the person behind the lines in question, I find your statement pretty abhorrent. And as someone who has personally brought out anarcho-primitivists like John Zerzan, I imagine James Scott wouldn’t be far off in that assessment.
“Passionate resistance” does not imply Revolution. If you’re interested, you can read more on my critique of that here: The Failure of Revolution
However, to assume that the presence of colonizers implies the weakness of resistance, there’s not a more defeatist position you could possibly take. The failures of Revolution should not be used to shuffle off the resistance to civilization that goes back to the origins of domestication. Civilization spreads by force, not by will. It’s successes are temporary arrangements, but it is the continued struggle of both human communities and wildness at large that will ensure that the weeds will grow through the concrete in the end.
I can understand and offer a critique of Revolution, I can hear a critique of praxis and methodology, but a wanton refusal to even accept that resistance, in and of itself, is a “losing strategy” is worth fuck all in my book.
What is the point of liberating land, bodies and minds if we don’t intend to fight for our own lives? What wild being would simply lie down on the misconstrued premise of one book and refuse to continue trying, against all odds, at being wild?
Or maybe you’d like to share your message of bleak complacency with the Unist’ot’en or Mi’kmaq?

2 Likes