- People often say that 
there's a war against nature

and that this is 
the third world war.

- It's getting more stark; 
it's getting worse and

the rate of change is accelerating, 
whether we're talking about the

extinction of species or 
the thoroughness of the techno-culture.

- The world right now is, 
frankly, very frightening.

For what we consider 
to be industrial civilization,

I would say is extraordinarily uncivilized,

actually quite savage.

- It's not an exaggeration 
to say that we're

living in an ecological apocalypse.

- Between years 1980 and 2045

we will lose more species 
of plants and animals than

we have lost in the 
last 65 million years.

We have two big-picture 
time pressures that really mean

we should be acting a lot 
more urgently than most of us have.

And one of them is peak oil, 
or energy collapse,

and one of them is climate change, 
or runaway global warming.

- I think that most people, 
even most scientists,

continue to underestimate how far

down the path to climate catastrophe

we've already travelled.

- For the most part, 
we're oblivious to it, we don't

want to know about it, 
we don't want to hear about it.

- The one thing I'm most afraid of 
is that we're going to

mount a tremendous campaign 
to sustain the unsustainable.

- At this point, scientists 
are saying that the Earth's

temperature may increase 
by as much as 10 degrees.

At that point, there may not 
even be bacteria left.

- When the oil starts 
to really run dry,

and when those in power 
have to assert their power

in a time of dwindling resources,

I think they're going 
to turn to much more

blunt and cruel methods 
of enforcing their power.

- The whole climate is 
changing: the winds,

the ocean currents, 
the storm patterns,

snow pack, snow melt,

flooding, droughts.

GAME OVER

Somewhere in northern California

- It's stunning how fast 
the destruction is proceeding.

Every day that passes, 
the world is in worse shape.

'The sad-looking man you see 
on the screen is Derrick Jensen.

Jensen is the best-selling author 
of several non-fiction books

including "A Language Older than Words" 
and "The Culture of Make Believe".

His books deal with topics such as 
surveillance, child abuse, the environment,

and something he calls "civilization".

But it's statements like these 
that make him so controversial:'

They're thinking of raising 
the Shasta Dam in California,

and the reason that 
Senator Feinstein gave was...

"It is Californians' God-given 
right to water their lawns."

You know, there is no way 
to argue with that...

...except with explosives.

'That was Mr. Jensen in 2006, the same year 
he published a two-volume set called 'Endgame.'

In 'Endgame' , he argues that there is an 
urgent need to bring down civilization.'

- If people would have brought down 
civilization a hundred years ago

people in the Pacific Northwest 
could still eat salmon.

There's going to be people sitting 
along the Columbia fifty years from now --

they'll be glowing for one thing -- 
but they'll be starving to death,

and they'll be saying,

"I'm starving to death, because 
you didn't take out the dams...

...that killed salmon, and 
those dams were used for barging,

and for electricity, for alumninum 
smelters for beer cans, so

God damn you."

He lays out his case against 
civilization by enumerating 20 premises.

Due to time limitations and 
the fact that most people

would not tolerate a twenty-hour 
movie, we will explore

four of these premises, 
and accompany them

with real-life examples.

Premise I

Industrial civilization, civilization itself, 
but especially industrial civilization

is not, and can 
never be, sustainable.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure 
out that any way of life that's based

on the use of nonrenewable 
resources won't last.

But what is civilization?

Civilization is a way of life 
characterized by the growth of cities.

- So you've got groups of people living 
in a dense enough population that

the local landbase cannot support them.

What that means is you have to get

your basic resources from somewhere else

because you've used them up where you live.

So you're going to go out into 
the countryside and gather up

whatever it is you want, 
bring it back in.

If you require the importation of resources,

it means you've denuded the landscape 
of that particular resource.

- There's no way that in the 
long term you can continue

to destroy the land that you need for your survival,

or the waters that you need to drink,

and expect to continue to live.

- Industrial civilization requires 
ever-increasing amounts

of energy and ever-increasing 
amounts of land,

ever-increasing amounts 
of resources of all kinds

in order to perpetuate itself,

in order to continue to grow,

in order to just maintain itself.

And we live on a finite planet,

and those aren't available. Of course,

unfortunately for us and most living creatures,

that culture won't stop until 
it's consumed as much as it can,

or, of course, until we stop it ourselves.

- If you have a finite amount of anything,

if you start using it, 
eventually you use it up.

And so it would seem that if 
your entire culture is based on,

I don't know, 
let's take a random resource...

...oil...

...that you would think about 
what's going to happen

happen when the oil runs out

- We've found energy resources

that have allowed us to escape

some of the kinds of

limits that previous cultures

have had to face much more quickly.

They used to collapse because 
they ran out of resources,

easily accessible resources.

The limit being the distance that people

could travel with things like horses,

or other pack animals. 
That ended with the beginning

of the fossil fuel age; now 
they can go all over the planet

and take what they want. 
So globalization has only

accelerated this tremendously 
destructive process.

- We've poured our wealth into

building an infrastructure for daily life

that has no future. I do think that

oil problem is going to accelerate

within the next three to 
five years, maybe even sooner.

The numbers indicate that we've 
probably peaked in global production.

- Where do you find the break from that?

I mean, all of it is a giant machine or

ensemble that just moves forward.

Technology, for example, never takes a step back.

This whole thing just 
keeps going like a cancer.

- I don't know of any civilization 
that's been sustainable,

I don't believe there ever has been one.

Technology, at its essence, 
is really our culture's...

...determination,

that comes from certain

philosophical and historical sources,

that we will be nothing else 
but more relentlessly technological.

- There is no clean green path to

living in a lifestyle that 
we're all used to in

industrialized nations. 
This way of life is OVER.

- Civilizations are often 
cutting their own throats,

very visibly, very obviously, 
but they just keep on doing it.

- Every civilization is defined by hubris,

it's defined by its denial

to recognize that it 
lives in a natural world.

As a matter of fact, every 
civilization, in its founding lies,

elevates itself above nature,

and claims that it is the 
controller of the whole world.

Figure 1

- The first written myth of this culture 
is Gilgamesh deforesting the plains

and hillsides of Iraq. 
When people think of Iraq,

what's the first thing they normally 
think of? Cedar forests so thick

that sunlight never 
touches the ground?

That's how it was, prior to the 
arrival of this culture.

Clearcuts

So, as a longtime, grassroots, 
environmental activist,

and as a creature living in 
the thrashing endgame of civilization,

I am intimately acquainted 
with the landscape of loss,

and have grown accustomed to 
carrying the daily weight of despair.

I've walked clearcuts that 
wrap around mountains and

drop into valleys and 
climb ridges to fragment

watershed after watershed, 
and I've sat, silent,

near empty streams that 
two generations ago

were lashed into whiteness 
by uncountable salmon

coming home to spawn and die.

- Here in BC, and across North America,

when they do industrial 
logging they actually take

and just remove all the trees. 
They level everything,

they leave nothing but 
stumps and slash piles,

and they burn the slash piles 
and they take out all the timber

and what's left is a wasteland,

and it's like they take a rainforest 
and turn it into a desert.

That's what a clearcut is.

They use them for pulp; 
they export them whole

to the United States and to Japan.

There's not very much milling 
that happens anymore in BC,

it's just getting exported for pulp and paper

and fibreboard, and plywood, and whatever else.

Not a lot of value added.

This tree has been 
selected to be cut and

usually the company will only clearcut

but this tree is in what they call

a stream-side selection zone.

they've got it marked blue, 
because it's a selection zone.

In a clearcut they don't paint the trees

that they're going to cut down.

They only paint the ones 
that they're going to leave.

- There's still a strong push to harvest

as much of the western 
red cedar as they can.

They're bringing in huge 
helicopters to do that.

And they're high-grading...

...selecting only the really 
good, high-quality timber

and leaving the rest laying there...

...in a junk heap.

So, that's why we keep on,

you know, fighting back.

I think the last straw was when

they wanted to log the Valley of Ista

because of its historical and

spiritual significance to our people.

But they log it in spite, you know,

just to make a point

against our resistance, against our

our overall position,

you know, with regard to treaties

or encroachment of industry development

in our territories.

- In a lot of these areas, 
like this clearing behind me

up on the hill, 
you can see the soil is exposed,

the ultraviolet kills 
off all the mosses,

the funguses that hold 
the soil together.

When the stumps rot 
and the roots die,

then the slopes slide,

and often there's not much regrowth, 
there's no regeneration of the forest.

They do some replanting --

it doesn't always work 
because there's no soil left:

it washes down into the streams, 
it kills the salmon,

it fills up the reservoirs,

all kinds of flood damage downstream.

- That's terrorism. 
Stripping down all the trees,

ripping out all the 
trees in the forest...

...and now they're going 
to rip out the

guts of the land

looking for copper and gold.

And...

... this has to have some 
kind of focus to it...

...to address the 
injustice to our people,

the injustice to the land, 
to the water,

to the wildlife; 
the injustice to the

marine life and the salmon life.

And the injustice to the people 
that want to stand up for it.

- When we blocked the road --

these trees are very valuable

and the laws are all profit-driven, 
they're all driven by

the corporations, 
the police are there

to enforce the 
corporations' right to log,

not to enforce our 
right to stop them

and protect the ecosystem. 
There's so little

that's left of the 
old-growth forest like

this that we see on the sides here

that people are putting 
their bodies on the line,

they are willing 
to make huge sacrifices

to stop the forest from being sacrificed,

and the water, 
and the air quality,

and the global climate.

Premise II

Traditional communities do not often

voluntarily give up 
or sell the resources

on which their 
communities are based

until their communities 
have been destroyed.

They also do not 
willingly allow their

land-bases to be damaged 
so that other resources --

gold, oil, and so on -- 
can be extracted.

It follows that those who want 
the resources will do what they can

to destroy traditional communities.

- Our people, we say, have been 
there since time immemorial.

- Prior to invasion

and conquest, colonization,

lands in North America were occupied by

populations of people 
that had a profoundly

different relationship with the land.

- They live with the land, 
all the ceremonies that have

come up have to do with

celebrating the renewal of seasons and

life and affirming all of that.

- One thing about indigenous peoples is that

there's always the idea 
that you have to live

in balance, you know, emotionally,

physically, spiritually,

you have to have balance, 
and so this same

philosophy was applied to the 
natural world that they lived in.

- The Tolowa, on whose land I now live,

weren't civilized, 
they didn't live in cities,

they didn't require the 
importation of resources,

they lived in villages, camps...

...and lived there for 12,500 years if 
you believe the myths of science.

If you believe the myths of the Tolowa, 
they lived there since the beginning of time.

- I think that what we have had in

indigenous societies all along is a very,

kind of, common sense, a very practical

approach to why it's important to

treat the world around you,

the natural world, in a good way.

- Our people never exploited 
more than what we needed.

We respect the land, we respect the animals,

we respect the water, we respect the air,

the wind, the fire, all the sacred elements.

And we believe that they all are living,

living things, so...

...I suspect that's the way 
it was before contact.

- The stories that we have

about our relationship to each other

and to the land and 
to any spiritual aspect,

any deities, arise from our relationship

with the land.

The salmon were considered to be our...

...mentors, caregivers -- lifegivers.

They were equal to us, in fact,

all things that have 
form were equal to us.

We weren't about dominating.

- The spiritual relationship 
that our peoples had

prior to invasion

with all of creation, 
and recognizing that

all beings have a spiritual essence,

a spiritual entity, 
and that if we want

to live in this 
universe in a good way,

that it was absolutely essential 
that we learned how to

maintain respectful relations

with all of creation.

They made us many promises,

more than I can remember, 
but they never kept but one;

they promised to take our land, 
and they took it. 
-Red Cloud

When Europeans came to this land

it was with...

such a rapacious appetite

it still has not been sated.

- They brought Christianity,

they brought colonization,

and, certainly, 
they did bring civilization.

- They came in, and they 
were sent with this,

commission, they felt, 
apparently, to dominate the land

and it was just there for the taking -- 
these people would accept

beads, or just kind 
of get out of the way,

and of course they had superior 
firepower at that time, too.

- Right off the bat, 
with Christopher Columbus

landing in the Caribbean 
region on what is

today Haiti and 
the Dominican Republic,

they initiated almost 
immediately a genocide

down there that 
depopulated most of the

nation, the Taino, 
and the Arawaks.

One of the main things that 
happened was the introduction

of diseases, which was 
basically biological warfare.

- The smallpox was spread through

tobacco and blankets

and given to the Indian people.

So it didn't take them long to be

decimated because they were pure.

And the smallpox was vicious, 
very vicious.

- When Europeans came, 
much of what they

were interested in was 
rapid resource exploitation.

They wanted to get 
wealthy in the new world.

And as they were seeking that wealth,

they worked with indigenous 
nations to undermine

traditional economies 
and undermine the

relationship that indigenous 
populations have with

the lands so that indigenous 
peoples could then do

do the work of resource 
exploitation and extraction

for the Europeans so that 
they could get wealthy.

- In imposing those things 
on indigenous peoples, of course,

they just destroyed indigenous 
peoples and their nations and

their way of life. 
Generally, indigenous peoples suffered

90% or more depopulation rate

upon having contact with Europeans.

It was a genocide, war for territory,

because the Europeans 
wanted to take the resources.

- Settler society has worked to destroy

what it needs to live,

and that's suicidal. 
It's a suicidal mission.

There's no way that it can be 
sustainable in the long term.

Premise III

- I gave a talk in Oregon a couple years ago,

and this guy afterwards said, 
"You know, you talk a lot about

this culture being based 
on violence, but I don't see it,

you know, I'm not violent".

I said, "Okay, first off, where is your shirt made?" 
He looked and it was made in Bangladesh.

I was like, 
"Look, do we even need to talk about that?"

- He's fucking faking he's dead!

- Yeah, he's breathing.

- He's faking he's fucking dead!

GUNSHOT

- He's dead NOW.

- Our way of living, 
industrial civilization, is based on,

requires, and would 
collapse very quickly

without persistent 
and widespread violence.

- A large explosion! A large explosion!

- Wow.

- I'll just take a couple eggs. How many you want?

- Two, two is good. 
Okay. Now what next?

- Some ham, tomato.

- Tomato, okay, 
how about that?

- Okay, some onion. 
Ooh, and cheese!

- Everything, then, right, you want everything. 
Okay. I understand, okay.

We'll just pop this on. Now watch!

I'm chopping the ham and veggies, 
grating the cheese,

and whipping the eggs all...

...in three seconds. 
The machine that just made

those smoothies for Verna and Fred, 
can make an omelette.

There's not much time left to get 
this beautiful hope diamond necklace,

less than 50 seconds. Gillian?

- Absolutely, John, you're going 
to want to give us a call to get

this beautiful hope diamond necklace.

This is a 45.52 carat 
diamond surrounded by

16 white diamonds.

It has a platinum chain 
bearing 46 MORE diamonds.

- These are twelve four-ounce southern

barbecue chicken breasts.

These Stuffin GourmetÂŹĂ, 
farm-fresh chicken breast;

they come from the 
barnyard to your backyard.

They're wonderfully marinated 
and guaranteed to be tender,

juicy, and downright delicious.

- Fine-tune those measurements, 
we keep them on file.

They're saved, 
they're on our computer.

Go back into the section 
where you reorder,

and fine-tune those 
measurements for us.

And then we'll have 
a chance to send you

another pair of customized jeans

that we really believe are 
going to fit perfectly.

- We're going to do a countdown,

starting from 5.

Everybody got to help me out here,

5,

4,

3,

2,

1

(explosion)

Ho!

It worked!

Second, I said, 
"Okay, do you pay rent?"

He's like, "Yeah..."

I said, "Why?"

He said, "Because, I don't own."

I said, "No, no, no, what would 
happen if you didn't pay rent?"

He said, 
"Well, the sheriff would come and evict me."

I said, "I don't know what that means. 
What would happen?

He said, "Well, the sheriff would come 
and he would knock on the door..."

I said, "Okay, great, what happens 
if you open the door...

...and you say, 
'Hey! I'm just finishing up making dinner.

You want some?'

And the sheriff sits down, you feed him
you don't poison him

And then, after dinner you say,

you've been somewhat pleasant 
company, but not all that pleasant,

so I would like for you to leave 
my home now.' What would happen?

He said, "Well, the sheriff would 
pull out his gun and say,

'I'm here to evict you, 
because you didn't pay rent.'"

I said, "Ahh. So, the reason you pay 
rent is because if you don't,

some guy with a gun is going 
to come take you away."

He said, "I think I get it."

I said, "Well, let's try again.

What happens if you're hungry, 
so you go to the grocery store

and you just start eating. 
What's going to happen?"

"someone will call the sheriff."

I said, "Yeah, it's the same guy who's going 
to come with a gun and take you away,

he's a real asshole, isn't he?" 
So, one of the reasons

we don't see a lot of the violence, 
is because it's exported.

Another reason we don't see a 
lot of the violence is because

we've been so metabolized 
into the system

that we've bought into this 
strange notion that it's okay

to have to pay to exist on the planet.

That's really, really weird.

And, if you don't pay, 
then some guy with a gun is going to come

and bad things are going to happen to you.

Figure II

A few years a go, 
I got a call from a friend of mine.

She's an environmental activist.

She was crying, and she said,

"This works just killing me, 
it's breaking my heart."

I said, "Yeah, I know. It'll do that."

Then she said,

"The dominant culture 
hates everything doesn't it?"

I said, "Yeah, it does. Even itself."

She said, "It has a death urge, doesn't it?" 
I said, "Yeah, it does."

She said, "Unless it's stopped, it's going 
to kill everything on the planet, isn't it?"

I said, "Yeah it is, unless it's stopped."

Then she said, 
"We're not going to make it

to some great, new, 
glorious tomorrow, are we?"

Green is the color of money

- 98% of the old-growth forests are gone.

99% of the prairies are gone.

80% of the rivers on this 
planet do not support life anymore.

We are out of species, we're out of soil,

and we are out of time.

And what we are being told

by most of the environmental movement

is that the way to stop all of this

is through personal, consumer choices.

- By simply purchasing our product,

the consumer can make a small, 
easy step to a greener Earth.

So, by taking that 
one roll, and buying

that one roll, you can 
help save millions of trees.

- I think we can really look at the history

of the environmental movement to tell

us a lot about why it hasn't been working.

There was a lot of pretty 
radical and militant environmentalism

happening, especially 
in the 70's and 80's.

In a lot of ways, that was kind of 
a heyday for environmentalism.

You know, Greenpeace was founded.

It started to become very mainstream in 
some quarters to be an environmentalist.

And then there was also 
a shift around that time when...

...corporations realized that they could sell

a lot of things by calling them "green".

- Green-washing is an 
attempt by corporations to

put labels on their 
activity that are popular

and that appeal to 
people's sensibility about,

and concern for, the 
environment and for ecology.

- For the mast majority of 
people within society today,

there's a total sense 
of denial and disconnect

between what they 
think is good and right

and then their actions as a 
society or as a civilization,

especially as it relates 
to the natural world.

- I have a real problem with a lot of the 
"solutions" that are put forward by people

because they confuse what is 
real with what is not real.

What they do is take the 
industrial economy as a given.

"How can we save the industrial economy, and oh, it would be nice if we still have a planet."

- It doesn't matter if I buy,

hemp soap if there's a 
runaway greenhouse effect

and the planet becomes uninhabitable.

- The modern mainstream 
environmental movement of the

big environmental organizations --

Greenpeace, and Sierra Club, 
and the others --

is rooted in that very same cultural lie

that nature is resources.

Nature is things to be used and managed.

Nature is, as the philosopher

Martin Heidegger put it, 
just a vast gasoline station

that we can endlessly extract from.

They may say we need to 
manage it more wisely,

but as long as they maintain the mindset that

we are the lords of creation and

creation exists for us as resources 
to be transformed into commodities

for us to buy and sell, 
as long as they maintain

that perspective on what it 
means to be an environmentalist,

then they're working 
within the same framework of

an ultimately self-destructive 
path that the culture is on.

In May 2010, 21 logging companies signed a deal with several major environmental

organizations, including Greenpeace 
and the David Suzuki Foundation.

The deal, known as "The Canadian Boreal 
Forest Agreement" aimed to silence all

criticism of logging practices 
in the boreal forest.

The Marketplace is also 
going to be very important

Many cusomers have been pushing for 
change in the boreal forest.

The Forest Product Association

and its 21 member companies are

responding to the demand for greener products,

and that marketplace is 
going to pay close attention.

If the change isn't happening, 
then they're going to put

pressure on the parties who 
were part of the agreement --

the environmental organizations, 
the forest products companies --

to do the things that 
they've set out to do.

And the will reward the companies

when things begin to be implemented and

the change happens on the ground. 
I'm fully confident of that.

- One interesting piece of the agreement is

with Greenpeace, 
David Suzuki, Forest Ethics,

Canadian Parks and 
Wilderness on our side,

when someone else comes and 
tries to bully us,

the agreement actually requires 
that they come and

work with us in repelling the attack and we'll be

able to say, "Fight me, fight my gang."

- I personally have no use for large,

institutionalized environmental organizations;

I think they're more of a problem than a help.

They're just eco-bureaucracies.

And, you know, I won't name any 
because I don't like to badmouth

organizations, except for one, which I

feel that I can, and that's 
Greenpeace. And the reason I

can criticize Greenpeace is 
I am a co-creator of Greenpeace,

and therefore I feel like Dr. Frankenstein 
sometimes, and I feel that since I helped

create the thing I can certainly criticize it.

And I think that Greenpeace has become

the world's biggest feel-good 
organization now. People join it

to feel good, to feel, "I'm part of 
the solution, I'm not part of the problem."

Greenpeace brings in close 
to $300 million a year,

and what do they do with that money?

Generate more money. And the people who

are at the top of the totem pole 
now are not environmentalists --

they're fundraisers, 
they're accountants,

they're lawyers, 
they're businesspeople.

People are voting with their dollars at 
the checkout stands. It's because

they know the polling shows that the public cares,

and ultimately they're going to care about their

profit margin and whether they can sell products.

What's happened in British Columbia with the

environmental movement, it's been stalemated.

The big leaders there compromised;

they went in bed

and it snuffed out that movement.

- So what happened was there was direct action, 
there were blockades

there was an international market campaign

that put a lot of pressure on the companies

that were logging in the Great Bear Rainforest.

But the end result was that it all fed into

a closed-door negotiation with

Tzeporah Berman as chief negotiator

on the conservationists' side, 
where a lot of the groups

that actually did the work, 
the direct actions,

and did the market campaigns 
were shut out of the process.

Public oversight was removed 
and the protocol agreements

that were signed with First Nations 
and with conservation groups

were basically shunted aside.

So the protocol agreements gave

the negotiators a mandate to

negotiate for 40 to 60 
percent conservation

but what happened was 
they agreed to 20 percent.

- It's not strange to me 
when people tell me that

the former president of Greenpeace

now works for the logging industry of Canada.

The former president of Greenpeace Australia

now works for the mining industry. The former

president of Greenpeace Norway works for the

whaling industry. See, because it's 
just one corporate job to the next.

In 1975 Greenpeace launched 
its anti-whaling campaign,

confronting whaling fleets on the high seas.

In June 2010, Greenpeace agreed 
to a deal that would allow

nations like Japan to continue hunting 
whales for commercial purposes.

The only measure in which 
we'll be judged by those

come after is the health 
of the land and

the health of the water, 
the health of the Earth.

They're not going to give a 
shit as to whether we recycled;

they're not going to give a shit 
as to whether we wrote our legislators;

they're not going to give a 
shit as to how hard we tried.

What they're going to care about is whether they 
can breathe the air and drink the water,

whether the land will support them.

And they're not going to 
care how hard we tried,

they're not going to care about any of that -- 
what they're going to care about is...

...do we live on a living planet?

Figure III

OK, so...

... 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.

For one thing, it wasn't 
actually called "Star WARS".

It was called "Star 
Non-Violent Civil Disobedience".

But the plot of Star Wars, for those 
of you who don't remember, is that

the Empire has created this 
giant machine called the Death Star.

And it's a machine that's 
capable of destroying entire planets.

In the movie the rebels find a 
way to destroy the Death Star,

and then at the very 
end, Luke Skywalker

uses the force to get past all the

tie fighters and to drop a torpedo 
down a thermal exhaust port,

and to blow up the Death Star.

Once again, the first draft 
of the movie written by

environmentalists was a bit 
different: the rebels

didn't actually blow up the 
Death Star. Instead they used

other methods to slow the 
intergalactic march of empire.

For example, they set up programs for 
people on planets about to be destroyed,

to produce luxury items like hemp 
hacky sacks and gourmet coffee

for sale to inhabitants of the Death Star.

Audience members will also 
discover that there are plans afoot

to encourage loads of troopers 
and other citizens of the empire

to take eco-tours of doomed planets.

The purpose will be to show to one and all 
that these planets are economically important

to the Empire and so should not be destroyed.

In a surprise move that will get 
viewers to the edges of their seats,

other groups of rebels will file 
lawsuits against the Empire,

attempting to show that the Environmental 
Impact Statement that Darth Vader

was required to file, failed 
to adequately support its decision

that blowing up this planet would 
cause "no significant impact".

Viewers will thrill to learn 
of plans to boycott items produced

by corporations that have Darth 
Vader on the board of directors,

and they'll leap to their 
feet in theaters worldwide

when they see bags full of letters 
written directly to Mr. Vader himself

asking that he please not 
blow up anymore planets.

Now, we all know that all 
would be enough not only to

bring the Empire to its knees, 
but to make a damn fine and exciting movie.

The thing is: there's more.

Thousands of renegade rebels, 
unhappy with what

they perceive as toadying on 
the part of the mainstream rebels

decide, in a scene guaranteed 
to bring tears to even the eyes

of the most cold-hearted 
theatergoers, to stand on

the planets to be destroyed, link 
arms, and sing "Give Peace a Chance."

They send DVDs of that 
to Darth Vader and his

boss the Grand Moff Tarkin, to whom they

also send wave after wave of loving kindness.

A the few rebels sneak aboard 
the Death Star and lock themselves

down to various pieces of 
equipment. And stirring debates

are held onscreen as to 
whether the rebels should

voluntarily surrender on approach 
of the troopers, or whether

they should remain locked down to the end.

And in a brilliant and 
brave touch of authenticity,

the rebels are never 
able to come to consensus.

But there's more. Once inside the Death 
Star, a splinter group breaks off,

they burn a couple of transporters, 
and they etch "Galaxy Liberation Front".

And then another group breaks 
off from that group and they

finally make it to Darth 
Vader's private room. And when

they get there, they sneak up behind him

and then they hit 
him with a vegan cream pie.

And the directors decided 
to cut that because

it was way too close to

a scene in another movie they 
were developing at the same time

called "The Plot to Pie Hitler".

As the Death Star looms directly 
overhead, a few of the rebels

advocate picking up weapons to fight back.

And those rebels are 
generally shouted down by

pacifist rebels who argue that attacking

those who run the Death 
Star is "just another

example of the Empire's harmful philosophy

coming in by the back door.'

"If we want to change 
Darth Vader," they say,

"we must all first become 
that change ourselves.

To change Darth Vader's heart, 
we must first change our own.

We must, above all else, 
have compassion for

Darth Vader, and remember that 
he, too, was once a child."

So finally Leia, Luke, Han, Chewbacca, 
and a couple of robots show up

and tell these others they've found a 
way to blow up the whole Death Star.

And the rest of the rebels, 
of course, are just horrified.

A scuffle breaks out between Leia, 
Luke, Han, and Chewbacca and the two

robots on one side and the 
pacifists on the other.

And the pacifists chase those four 
from the room and from the film

which is not a big deal because 
they are minor characters anyway.

But anyway, the way the 
movie ends is that

the Death Star looms closer 
and closer and then you see

the Death Star, and then 
you see the planet,

and then you see the Death Star, 
and then you see the planet,

and then you see the Death Star 
and you see the laser start to glow

this hellish red, and 
then you see the planet again,

and you see this little light --

and what that is: that's the environmentalists 
getting away before the planet gets blown up.

And then you see the Death 
Star again and then it

blows up the planet, 
and then, the final

shot of the movie, which reveals 
what complete triumph this was for the

rebels, is a still showing an

article on the lower left of 
page 43 of the New Empire Times

that devotes a full 3 sentences 
to the destruction of the planet.

So it's like, "Yeah we got some press!"

Premise IV

The culture as a whole and

most of its members 
are insane.

The culture is driven by a death urge,

an urge to destroy life.

- The public really needs 
to understand that no combination

of alternative miracle fuels, 
or biodiesel, or ethanol,

or nuclear, or sun, or solar, 
or used french fry potato oil,

no combination of these things is going to 
allow us to keep a happy, motoring society going.

- We are using up all the very 
easily accessed energy sources:

and we've really built this huge way 
of life based on cheap oil, essentially.

- The world as we know it, which 
relies entirely on oil to function,

is nearing its end.

- We are headed for the crash. 
That oil is not going to come again.

Fort McMurray
Alberta, Canada

- The tar sands are probably one 
of the biggest industrial

projects in the history of mankind.

- The tar sands are the largest,

most destructive environmental 
project on the planet right now.

- It's oil extraction,

it's some of the dirtiest oil on the planet,

which means that it takes 
the most energy to extract,

and the reason that we're extracting this

this particular brand of dirty, dirty, oil

is because there's no other oil left to extract.

- Tar sands really aren't oil.

Effectively, the process by which you

mine and refine tar sands

is adding about a hundred 
million years of development

through a synthetic process.

The tar sands deposit 
is an area that covers

the size of the state of 
New York, or larger than England

is already considered the largest industrial project

in human history, and it's barely begun.

- They extract it from the sand by

steaming and heating water, 
basically boiling it...

...so the oil sits on top of the water like a froth,

then they scrape it off, and that's the bitumen.

- There's mining processes 
and in situ processes,

and both of them are pretty 
much trying to extract

bitumen out of the sand.

- To produce one barrel of oil

you have to first, after 
you've cleared off the ground

and broken all the trees down 
and so forth, then dig a pit,

which can be up to two hundred feet deep.

For each barrel of oil, there's 
four barrels of water used,

in a process called a slurry

where you spin it at a high speed,

high velocity, with high 
temperatures of water,

to separate the bitumen, 
which is the pre-synthetic oil,

from the sands itself, 
and all the clays and silts.

But that's after you've already 
dug out what has to be

to be hundreds of tons of Earth.

- The energy that's required to 
actually do that is approximately,

people say for almost every barrel of oil you need

about a half a barrel of energy just
to produce this,

so for every barrel of energy input,

two barrels of oil are produced,

whereas with conventional 
crude it was very,

very minor in terms of the energy

that's inputted to actually 
get the crude oil out.

So the ratio that's most important to 
talk about is a ratio you could use

in a country like Iraq, where for 
each barrel of oil you use to try to

get more oil you'll get about 
a hundred barrels back.

Fort Chipewyan
Alberta, Canada

- The Athabasca River, which runs 
through northern Alberta,

where you have many different native 
communities living along the river,

is being sucked of its water to 
fuel the tar sands operations.

- Because of the contamination of the river

from oil sands discharges

of things like oil and grease and

untreated sewage into the Athabasca River,

and sometimes there's accidents,

spills of these toxic chemicals

directly into the Athabasca Rivers.

- The community of Fort Chipewyan, 
both the Mikisew Cree

and the Dene Chipewyan First Nation,

who have been fighting 
and really at the front

of raising the alarm about what's happening,

and their community has been seeing all of this

rise in rare cancers, autoimmune diseases,

arsenic in the land, 
the moose meat, the fish

are at high levels of 
heavy metals, mercuries,

basically the whole environment 
up there is contaminated.

- How this is effecting my community is that

it's killing off the people of Fort Chipewyan.

It's what I've called before 
"a slow, industrial genocide."

I buried my auntie,

I buried my uncle, I got 
an auntie living with it.

And this is a war for our lives,

because the government is allowing

the people of Fort Chip to die.

- The tar sands are not only fueling

the second fastest rate of deforestation

in the world outside of 
the Amazon River basin,

they're already the second fastest

contributor to climate 
change in North America.

And with the goals of production that 
they're talking about, the CO2 emissions

will make it so the only way

you could outstrip a 
climate change contributor

for North America would 
be to combine all

the coal-fired power plants from

Alberta to Arizona and in between, 
across all of North America.

- I think that the tar 
sands is the absurdity

of still desiring oil

when we know so well

that, for example, fresh water is just

an elemental part of human existence

and they're running full force towards

extracting these last little bits of oil

to sustain this plastic culture,

this plastic civilization,

to the destruction of the environment 
in which we can live.

- People say it's like the 
world's addicted to crack,

and this is like the dirtiest 
and most disgusting form of crack

that'll keep it addicted 
for a lot longer, right.

This is actually what it is.

It is the most insane 
thing that people are doing.

- We probably agree that civilization's

going to crash, whether or 
not we help bring this about.

If you don't agree with this, we 
probably have nothing to say to each other.

We probably also agree that 
this crash will be messy.

We agree further that since industrial 
civilization is systematically dismantling

the ecological infrastructure of the planet...

...the sooner civilization comes down, 
whether or not we help it crash,

the more life will remain afterwards 
to support both humans and nonhumans.

Figure IV

- The genesis of Endgame, the book,

was really because I did some talks

around the possibility of fighting back.

And the response by the 
audience was really predictable.

If it was an audience made up of 
sort of mainstream environmentalists

and peace and social justice activists,

often, they would put up what 
I've taken to calling a "Gandhi shield".

Which is, they would say the names "Martin 
Luther King", "Dalai Lama", and "Gandhi"

again and again, as fast as they can, 
to keep all evil thoughts at bay.

And if it was grassroots environmentalists,

they would do the same thing 
but then they would come

up to me afterwards and they would say,

WHISPERING "Thank you so much 
for bringing this up."

Pacifying Resistance

- Especially in North America, 
the pacifists and non-violent

advocates have had a very defining role,

and even a censoring role, in determining

what other people's participation can be

in a whole range of social struggles, and

that the way that they've 
affected social struggles

has made it very much easier for the state

to control those social struggles,

that non-violence plays a function

of recuperating social struggles,

of taking out their teeth 
and making them harmless,

so that they can just exist in 
this cesspool of democratic plurality.

- I wonder, what happens to
that kind of energy or

idealism or faith that something
is about to change

when it's certainly not going to change at all?

- What are the false hopes that 
keep us tied to the system?

What are the false 
hopes that bind us to

unlivable situations and 
blind us to real possibilities?

Does anybody really think that 
Weyerhauser's going to stop,

deforesting because we asked nicely

that Monsanto will stop Monsantoing 
because we ask nicely?

I was talking to this person in the 
States several years ago and they said,

"If we can just get a Democrat in the 
White House, things are going to be OK."

- We've got a couple of myths 
on the left that I would

REALLY encourage us to get over.

The first is that social change 
happens by moral suasion.

It doesn't. It happens by force.

- The problem with persuasion 
as a strategy is that

it only works on people who can actually

be convinced, and who can be

relied upon to act from their position

after their minds have been changed.

And the problem is that we're not dealing with

individuals who can be convinced or persuaded,

we're dealing mostly with large,

abstract, social organizations, 
and corporations which are

basically sociopaths made out 
of huge numbers of people.

- You can't argue with psychopaths, 
you can't argue with fascists,

and you can't argue with those

who are benefiting from an economic system.

You have to stop them through 
some form of force,

and that force can be violent or nonviolent.

Could you have stopped Ted 
Bundy by peaceful means?

- The Left, to a large extent subconsciously,

has as its primary role

to make resistance harmless.

States have recognized that

resistance will never disappear, 
that struggles will never disappear

and in the past they 
tried suppressing struggles

the first time that they 
showed their heads, that there was

any sign of them, and 
that proved ineffective.

So nowadays that way 
that states rule is by

accepting the inevitability 
of conflict and resistance,

and just trying to manage it permanently.

"Keep the march going, 
there's nothing happening here!

There's nothing happening, 
just one more line of police,

so please keep the march going!"

- Social movements in North America are locked

into this pacifist doctrine that is imposed by

the middle class reformists

who want to control 
the movement and dictate

how it conducts itself.

- Advocates of nonviolence 
frequently say that nonviolence

works, and the principal 
examples that they use of that

are Gandhi in India and Martin 
Luther King in the U.S.

The problem with that is, 
this constitutes a really great

historical whitewashing, 
that in fact the resistance in

India was incredibly 
diverse, and Gandhi was

a very important figure 
within that resistance,

but the resistance was by no 
means pacifist in its entirety.

- Gandhi gets used as a way 
to shut down conversation.

- Especially in the West, 
Gandhi is used as a way

to quell any ideas of

either direct action or what's 
perceived as violence or,

sort of, you know, resistance that

goes beyond what is seen as a sort of a

pacifist or a peaceful means of resistance.

- For years, I really bought into the whole

Gandhian myth that is really sort of

forced down the throats of 
activists in the United States,

and the people who disabused 
me of that myth were

when I first actually 
met some people from India.

The people I talked to 
certainly didn't deify him,

and many of them despised him.

And they felt he was a 
collaborator and he was somebody

whom the British could work with.

- Gandhi's very well known in the West,

but when you go to India, there's 
a freedom fighter and revolutionary

leader called Bhagat Singh,

who's in India probably 
almost as well known as Gandhi

as a part of

the independence movement and a 
leader in the independence movement.

But in the West, most people 
probably have never heard his name.

And the reason why that is, is that he used

direct action tactics.

There were generals of the 
British army that were killed;

there was a bomb thrown 
in a British assembly to

basically attract the 
attention of the public;

there were weapons that people 
were getting off of railway cars.

- With Gandhi and the 
Indian National Congress,

where you had the moderates 
and the extremists,

the moderates were legal; 
constitutional reform

was their only method,

and they were criticized for 
being a middle class clique,

for being too slow, 
for being too legalistic,

and for being basically ineffective.

The extremists, on the other 
hand, were accused of being

too aggressive, of being too fast 
and reckless and irresponsible.

- Gandhi basically got negotiating power

from the fact that there were 
other elements in the struggle

which were even more 
threatening to British dominance.

So the British specifically 
chose to dialogue with

Gandhi because he was, 
perhaps for them, the least

threatening of the important 
elements of resistance.

- Gandhi came in as 
being the middleman.

His theory of nonviolent, 
passive resistance

seemed to be a bridge between 
the extremists and the moderates.

- The British were bled white after WWII,

and didn't have the 
morale left anymore for

a big fight, and they 
helped choose somebody

that they could work with.

They knew a revolution was coming and they 
wanted to blunt it as much as they could.

- India went from being 
a colony to a neocolony.

The British were still able to 
maintain their interests, less directly,

with Indians being in 
positions of management.

- My problem isn't with

somebody doing nonviolent 
actions, it never has been.

I mean, I say all the 
time that we need it all.

My problem is that

so many pacifists, especially 
in the United States,

end up not supporting

more radical or militant work.

- The problem when this 
debate comes up is that

you can't just assume 
that people that are

resisting and are using 
a means of resistance

haven't thought about what 
they're doing. And that's what

I think is often the 
problem. When people

decide to take certain actions 
and when people decide

that, "Hey, you know, 
our marches aren't enough,"

or they're doing this or doing that,

there's this assumption 
by a lot of people that

want to toe the Gandhi line that, 
"Oh, they're just not thinking about it."

- What most states will choose 
to do in similar circumstances

is to find the elements 
of the resistance

that are most easy to control 
and most easy to co-opt,

to negotiate with them, and then 
to hand over power to THEM in order

to continue the system 
that had already existed.

- So again, you have the state 
doing the same thing it did

with Gandhi and Martin Luther 
King it does with, for example,

the environmental movement. So 
it invites the responsible leaders

of the environmental 
movement into inquiries,

government commissions, 
debates. It recognizes them --

they're the legitimate leaders -- 
because again,

it doesn't want the movement to begin to 
adopt more militant resistance tactics.

- The powerful do not ever 
give up without a struggle.

Those are the famous 
words of Frederick Douglass

when he said, "Power concedes 
nothing without a demand.

It never has, and it never will."

Figure V

If we use more efficient electricity,

appliances, we can save this much

off of the global warming pollution that

would otherwise be put 
into the atmosphere.

If we use other end-use 
efficiency this much,

if we have higher-mileage 
cars, this much.

And all these begin to add up:

other transport efficiency, 
renewable technology.

We have everything we need,

save, perhaps, political will.

But you know what, in 
America, political will

is a renewable resource.

- When we see solutions, 
all the so-called solutions

put forward to global 
warming, the thing

they all have in common 
is that they take

industrial civilization 
as a given, and they take

the natural world as 
the dependent variable.

It's all about saving civilization.

And that's entirely backwards.

What it should be is: 
we need to do whatever

it takes to save 
life on the planet.

- In the next 40 to 50 years, 
we're going to see the

extinction of more species 
than we've seen in the past

65 million years.

That, to me, is a red light,

and a siren going off 
as a call to people

who will cut through the crap and

do what is necessary 
to protect the Earth

for here and now, and 
for future generations.

It is you that are going 
to have to answer to your

children, 50-75 years from now

when they ask what you 
did during the eco-wars.

And in that sense,

each one of us has to live the life

today, at this very moment, doing the things

that we would be proud to tell our ancestors about.

If we are serious about saving life on Earth

we've got to start fighting back

in the ways that people do 
when they realize they need

to form a serious resistance movement.

- Most indigenous populations 
who maintain any

sense of a traditional worldview

know that the way of life that

settlers society has imposed on this

land is unsustainable.

Yet, there has been a sense

that we really need to kind of

wait until it collapses,

or wait until they're done doing,

or they've reached their 
limit and they can't

continue the way that 
they've been going on,

and be patient.

Fuck patience

I think really the big problem is power,

and that's something liberals 
have a lot of trouble kind of

thinking about or wrapping 
their heads around.

And the problem is that 
this culture has

clearly defined hierarchy. 
There are people

who are clearly in power, 
and who benefit

from power, and benefit 
from destroying the planet,

and who benefit from 
exploiting other people,

and they've been doing 
that for a long time.

And their power is more important 
to them than anything else.

- There is no personal 
consumer choice that is

going to dismantle the systems of

power that are behind the 
destruction of our planet.

What we need is organized 
political resistance.

- You cannot just simply ask 
the state for these reforms,

or for any kind of gains or concessions,

you have to force them to do it.

And that's the power of disruption.

It was a bloody day at the Mohawk Indian

community in Oka, Quebec, near Montreal.

"Provincial police in riot gear stormed

the barricades the Mohawks had set up.

There were clouds of tear 
gas, a hail of bullets,

and in the midst of the battle, a policeman

was killed. All this because of

a dispute over a piece of 
forest the Indians claim is theirs,

a forest town council wants to bulldoze

to expand the local golf course."

"Police retreated as 
abruptly as they'd attacked,

leaving behind their cruisers. 
They also left a heavy

front-end loader which the Mohawks

immediately put to their own use.

The police cruisers, crushed and useless,

became barricades themselves."

We treat these trees and 
the land like our mother.

These people are raping our mother.

What would you do if 
they raped your mother?

- These politicians are servants of the

system; it's their job to keep 
it going, it's their job

to keep profit rolling 
in for the ruling class.

And they will never, ever, act in the

people's interests or the interests of the planet.

It doesn't matter what we say,

the only thing that they 
will respond to is

force, and the threat 
of social disruption.

And if we allow them to stay in power,

they will always take back any gain

that we manage to get from them.

- It's really important 
to recognize that

no struggle is done,

that there's not any possibility

of any lasting victory 
as long as the state

still exists, but we can 
definitely see in the histories

of struggle, small gains have been won,

and ways in which we've 
empowered ourselves

by the use of all tactics, and I think

it's not even important to

really say if a particular tactic is

violent or not because this is just

kind of a moral category 
meant to restrict action.

I think it's more important to look

at which tactics can be empowering,

and liberating, and useful.

- Purely above-ground 
means are designed to

facilitate the expansion 
of global capitalism.

- These are serious power structures

that are making vast sums of money.

They are backed up by

the power of the armed 
state in every way imaginable.

They've got armies on 
their side, they own

the mass media, the banks, 
all the money is on their side.

- If there's any doubt 
about the leadership that

our military is showing, 
you just need to look at

this F-18 fighter

and the light-armored vehicle behind it.

The army and marine 
corps have been testing

this vehicle on a mixture of biofuels,

and this navy fighter jet

appropriately called the "Green Hornet"

will be flown for the first time in just

a few days, on Earth Day.

- Crazy Horse one-eight, 
request permission to engage.

- Picking up the wounded?

- Yeah, we're trying to 
get permission to engage.

- Come on, let us shoot!

- Bushmaster, Crazy Horse one-eight.

- They're taking him.

- Bushmaster, Crazy Horse one-eight.

- This is Bushmaster seven, go ahead.

- Roger. We have a black SUV, 
or Bongo truck picking

up the bodies. Request 
permission to engage.

- Bushmaster seven, roger. This is 
Bushmaster seven, roger. Engage.

- One-eight, engage. Clear.

- Come on!

- Clear.

So if the law will 
not do the right thing,

other people will have 
to do the right thing,

and they'll have to do the right thing by

breaking the law. And that

precedent has been set many times

throughout our history: the people

who saved the Jews 
from the German Nazis

broke the law for 
higher ethical purpose.

The people who liberated slaves in our

country through the 
underground railroad system

to protect them from slave masters and a

very barbaric law in 
the United States at that time.

They did the right thing. 
They broke the law

for higher ethical purpose.

- We need to start and get out there

and go beyond hitting "Like" on 
Facebook and signing online petitions.

We need to be out there 
in the real world fighting back.

- I think one of the things 
that we really have to accept

and internalize is that 
the majority of institutions,

and the majority of people,

are never going to be on our side.

And so we have to sit down --

as individual activists

and as communities of resistance,

as a culture of resistance -- 
and we have to say

"Okay, well, what will it take to stop 
this culture from destroying the planet?"

You know, part of the 
answer is obviously that

persuasion hasn't worked and persuasion

is not going to work. 
If we want to be...

...successful, then we have to 
look at what resistance

movements in the past have done, 
and what they've learned

and kind of the different phases

that they've gone through 
as they've tried to

assert themselves and 
try to be successful.

- When I say "organize 
political resistance,"

I mean we need to 
face power head-on.

Once you name power,

you will find that 
power is sociopathic,

that the people in 
charge will do whatever

it takes to shut you up.

- The thing about when 
you enter into a greater

period of social conflict,

what you don't want 
is people promoting

non-violence because 
that's going to disarm

the people -- it's going to 
disarm the people in the face

of an aggressive enemy, 
and in the face

of hard social conditions.

You want them to have 
a stronger fighting spirit

because without a fighting spirit,

you lack the will to resist.

- The smartest thing the Nazis did was

they made it so that at every 
step of the way, it was in the Jews'

rational best interest to not resist.

Would you rather get an ID card,

or do you want to resist 
and possibly get killed?

Do you want to move to a ghetto,

or do you want to resist 
and possibly get killed?

Do you want to get on a cattle car,

or do you want to resist 
and possibly get killed?

You want to take a shower,

or do you want to resist 
and possibly get killed?

At every step of the way, 
it was in their

rational self-interest 
to not resist.

But I'll tell you 
something very important,

which is: the Jews who participated 
in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising

had a higher rate of survival 
than those who went along.

- I think that if any of us were 
alive in Nazi Germany right now,

we would know what a resistance 
movement should be doing.

And we need to think about

the culture of industrial civilization

as if it's a culture of occupation,

because it is.

Figure VI

- If Nazis or other fascists 
took over North America,

what would we all do?

What would we do if they implemented 
Mussolini's definition of fascism:

"Fascism should more appropriately 
be called corporatism

because it is a merger of 
state and corporate power."

What if this occupied country 
called itself a democracy,

but most everyone understood 
elections to be shams,

with citizens allowed to choose between 
different wings of the same fascists,

(or, following Mussolini, Corporate) party.

What if anti-government activity was 
opposed by storm troopers and secret police?

Would you fight back?

If there already existed a resistance 
movement, would you join it?

Would you resist if the fascists irradiated 
the countryside, poisoned food supplies,

made rivers unfit for 
swimming and so filthy

you wouldn't even dream 
of drinking from anymore?

If fascists systematically 
deforested the continent, would you join

an underground army of resistance, 
head to the forests, and from there

to boardrooms and the halls of the 
Reichstag to pick off the occupying deforesters

and, most especially, those that 
give them their marching orders?

Give me a threshold. 
Give me a specific point

at which you'll finally take a stand.

If you can't or won't 
give that threshold, why not?

Directed, filmed, produced, and edited 
by Franklin Lopez

Inspired by Endgame
Volumes I and II by Derrick Jensen

LYRICS: When I face the page, 
I place the rage,

place it into stasis 
rather than erase it.

That's the basis 
cover all the bases,

watch what you say on the cell, 
they gonna trace it.

Stacked deck
don't expect any aces,

camera eyes watch you 
in public places,

and I hate this, 
so I take this

mic and I write 
like these words,

and my legs and they walk me through my paces,

people chase it, glittery lights but I've seen the heights.

My time is not wasted, I'm tracing the sky,

I read all the smoke 
that I toke to meet

all the spaces of mind in time.

Look, just face it, 
this life is mine,

that's why I'm not 
racing the finish line.

Will come the time, the moment designed

to shine i won't replace it

So I take my time, grind it up and break it,

roll it up so fine, light it up and blaze it.

Smoking blunts, smoke 'em up, 
end times

on the grind training for the signs

Take your fist and raise it up to the sky.

See the fire in her eye.

Do or do not do there is no try.

Hard to find what's true, that is no life.

They clipped your wings, how you gonna fly?

You gonna lie? 
You gonna die,

so until that day, 
are you gonna try?

One by one 
we multiply.

Eyes to the sun, 
just let it shine now.

Now get into it

Now choose 
your side

We got 
to do it,

The time 
is right

Now get into it

Now change
your life

Only you 
can do it

The time 
is right

Anymore pollution 
and you're 
going to fry,

so get into it, 
it's do or die.

Without action, 
factions of crews 
divide,

but you can't 
be stupid 
if you 
choose to ride.

And you can't 
ride the fence, 
better choose 
your side.

Keep doing 
what you're told, 
or do 
what's right.

You going 
to roll over 
or you going 
to fight?

No justice 
no peace, 
the war's 
tonight,

and I'm a 
poltergeist, 
you know, 
a violent spirit,

the product 
of a world 
with too much 
violence in it.

So many 
people, trees, 
animals are 
dying a minute.

Can't ask 
them to stop, 
they ain't trying 
to hear it.

Until we get 
physical, 
they ain't 
gonna fear it.

To go to war 
with the machines, 
start tryin' to kill it.

Until it dies, 
everyday's 
a violent day.

And they 
expect you 
to protest in 
silence and stay

pacifist and 
uneffective 
while we die 
and decay.

We need 
to rise up, 
fuck kneeling 
to pray.

Preachers 
and teachers 
lead us astray,

politicians 
and cops 
all they say is:

"Obey your 
corporate masters, 
buy what 
they've got on 
display."

Stop buying 
their shit 
and start 
making 
them pay.

To hell 
with their 
games -- 
we ain't
gonna play.

Let's fight 
them 'till 
they kill us or 
they take us away.

Start throwing 
molotovs, 
stop throwing 
bouquets.

Take it to 
those bastards 
like Ted Kaczynski.

Monkeywrench machines 
and write communiques

on walls with spraypaint 
just big circle A's!

Now get into it

Now choose your side

We got to do it

The time is right

Now get into it

Now change your life

Only you can do it

The time is right