must be experienced ...
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Electric Rollerblades
“WHY CIVILIZATION?“
“WHY CIVILIZATION?“
We are often told that our dreams are unrealistic, our demands impossible, that we are basically out of our fuckin' minds to even propose such a ridiculous concept as the "destruction of civilization". So, we hope this brief statement may shed some light on why we will settle for nothing less than a completely different reality than what is forced upon us today. We believe that the infinite possibilities of the human experience extend both forwards and backwards. We wish to collapse the discord between these realities. We strive for a "future primitive" reality, one which all of our ancestors once knew, and one we may come to know: a pre/post-technological, pre/post-industrial, pre/post-colonial, pre/post-capitalist, pre/post-agricultural, and even pre/post-cultural reality - when we were once, and may again be, WILD!
We feel it is necessary to raise some fundamental questions as to where we are now, how we have gotten to this point, where we are headed, and perhaps most importantly, where we have come from. This should not to be seen as irrefutable evidence, the Answers, or prescriptions for liberation; but instead, as things to consider while we fight against domination or attempt to create another world.
We believe anarchy to be the ultimate liberatory experience and our natural condition. Before, and outside of, civilization (and it's corrupting influences), humans were, and are, for lack of better terms, anarchistic. For most of our history we lived in small-scale groupings which made decisions face-to-face, without the mediation of government, representation, or even the morality of an abstract thing called culture. We communicated, perceived, and lived in an unmediated, instinctual, and direct way. We knew what to eat, what healed us, and how to survive. We were part of the world around us. There was no artificial separation between the individual, the group, and the rest of life.
In the larger scope of human history, not long ago (some say 10,000 to 12,000 years ago), for reasons we can only speculate about (but never really know), a shift began to occur in a few groupings of humans. These humans began to trust less in the earth as a "giver of life", and began to create a distinction between themselves and the earth. This separation is the foundation of civilization. It is not really a physical thing, although civilization has some very real physical manifestations; but it is more of an orientation, a mindset, a paradigm. It is based on the control and domination of the earth and its inhabitants.
Civilization's main mechanism of control is domestication. It is the controlling, taming, breeding, and modification of life for human benefit (usually for those in power or those striving for power). The domesticating process began to shift humans away from a nomadic way of life, towards a more sedentary and settled existence, which created points of power (taking on a much different dynamic than the more temporal and organic territorial ground), later to be called property. Domestication creates a totalitarian relationship with plants and animals, and eventually, other humans. This mindset sees other life, including other humans, as separate from the domesticator, and is the rationalization for the subjugation of women, children, and for slavery. Domestication is a colonizing force on non-domesticated life, which has brought us to the pathological modern experience of ultimate control of all life, including its genetic structures.
A major step in the civilizing process is the move towards an agrarian society. Agriculture creates a domesticated landscape, a shift from the concept that "the Earth will provide" to "what we will produce from the Earth". The domesticator begins to work against nature and her cycles, and to destroy those who are still living with and understanding her. We can see the beginnings of patriarchy here. We see the beginnings of not only the hoarding of land, but also of its fruits. This notion of ownership of land and surplus creates neverbefore experienced power dynamics, including institutionalized hierarchies and organized warfare. We have moved down an unsustainable and disastrous road.
Over the next thousands of years this disease progresses, with its colonizing and imperialist mentality eventually consuming most of the planet with, of course, the help of the religious-propagandists, who try to assure the "masses" and the "savages" that this is good and right. For the benefit of the colonizer, peoples are pitted against other peoples. When the colonizer's words do not suffice, the sword is never far away with its genocidal collision. As the class distinctions become more solidified, there becomes only those who have, and those who do not. The takers and the givers. The rulers and the ruled. The walls get raised. This is how we are told it has always been; but most people somehow know this isn't right, and there have always been those who have fought against it.
The war on women, the war on the poor, the war on indigenous and land-based people, and the war on the wild are all interconnected. In the eyes of civilization, they are all seen as commodities - things to be claimed, extracted, and manipulated for power and control. They are all seen as resources; and when they are of use no longer to the power-structure, they are discarded into the landfills of society. The ideology of patriarchy is one of control over self-determination and sustainability, of reason over instinct and anarchy, and of order over freedom and wildness. Patriarchy is an imposition of death, rather than a celebration of life. These are the motivations of patriarchy and civilization; and for thousands of years they have shaped the human experience on every level, from the institutional to the personal, while they have devoured life.
The civilizing process became more refined and efficient as time went on. Capitalism became its mode of operation, and the gauge of the extent of domination and the measure of what still is needed to be conquered. The entire planet was mapped and lands were enclosed. The nation-state eventually became the proposed societal grouping, and it was to set forth the values and goals of vast numbers of peoples, of course, for the benefit of those in control. Propaganda by the state, and the by now, less powerful church, started to replace some (but certainly not most) of the brute force with on-the-surface benevolence and concepts like citizenry and democracy. As the dawn of modernity approached, things were really getting sick.
Throughout the development of civilization, technology always played an ever-expanding role. In fact, civilization's progress has always been directly connected to, and determined by, the development of ever more complex, efficient, and innovative technologies. It is hard to tell whether civilization pushes technology, or vice-versa. Technology, like civilization, can be seen more as a process or complex system than as a physical form. It inherently involves division of labor, resource extraction, and exploitation by power (those with the technology). The interface with, and result of, technology is always an alienated, mediated, and heavily-loaded reality. No, technology is not neutral. The values and goals of those who produce and control technology are always embedded within it. Different from simple tools, technology is connected to a larger process which is infectious and is propelled forward by its own momentum. This technological system always advances, and always needs to be inventing new ways to support, fuel, maintain, and sell itself. A key part of the modern-techno-capitalist structure is industrialism; the mechanized system of production built on centralized power, and the exploitation of people and nature. Industrialism cannot exist without genocide, ecocide, and imperialism. To maintain it, coercion, land evictions, forced labor, cultural destruction, assimilation, ecological devastation, and global trade are accepted and seen as necessary. Industrialism's standardization of life objectifies and commodifies it, viewing all life as a potential resource. Technology and industrialism have opened the door to the ultimate domestication of life - the final stage of civilization - the age of neo-life.
So now we are in the post-modern, neo-liberal, bio-tech, cyber-reality, with an apocalyptic future and new world order. Can it really get much worse? Or has it always been this bad? We are almost completely domesticated, except for the few brief moments (riots, creeping through the dark to destroy machinery or civilization's infrastructure, connecting with other species, swimming naked in a mountain stream, eating wild foods, love-making, ...add your own favorites) when we catch a glimpse of what it would be like to go feral. Their "global village" is more like a global amusement park or global zoo, and it's not a question of boycotting it 'cause we're all in it, and it's in all of us. And we can't just break out of our own cages (although we're helpless unless we start there), but we gotta bust down the whole fuckin' place, feast on the zoo keepers and those who run and benefit from it, reconnect with our instincts, and become wild again! We cannot reform civilization, green it up, or make it more fair. It is rotten to the core. We don't need more ideology, morality, fundamentalism, or better organization to save us. We must save ourselves. We have to live according to our own desires. We have to connect with ourselves, those we care about, and the rest of life. We have to break out of, and break down, this reality.
COMMUNIQUE #23 FROM DISORDERLY CONDUCT #6
We are often told that our dreams are unrealistic, our demands impossible, that we are basically out of our fuckin' minds to even propose such a ridiculous concept as the "destruction of civilization". So, we hope this brief statement may shed some light on why we will settle for nothing less than a completely different reality than what is forced upon us today. We believe that the infinite possibilities of the human experience extend both forwards and backwards. We wish to collapse the discord between these realities. We strive for a "future primitive" reality, one which all of our ancestors once knew, and one we may come to know: a pre/post-technological, pre/post-industrial, pre/post-colonial, pre/post-capitalist, pre/post-agricultural, and even pre/post-cultural reality - when we were once, and may again be, WILD!
We feel it is necessary to raise some fundamental questions as to where we are now, how we have gotten to this point, where we are headed, and perhaps most importantly, where we have come from. This should not to be seen as irrefutable evidence, the Answers, or prescriptions for liberation; but instead, as things to consider while we fight against domination or attempt to create another world.
We believe anarchy to be the ultimate liberatory experience and our natural condition. Before, and outside of, civilization (and it's corrupting influences), humans were, and are, for lack of better terms, anarchistic. For most of our history we lived in small-scale groupings which made decisions face-to-face, without the mediation of government, representation, or even the morality of an abstract thing called culture. We communicated, perceived, and lived in an unmediated, instinctual, and direct way. We knew what to eat, what healed us, and how to survive. We were part of the world around us. There was no artificial separation between the individual, the group, and the rest of life.
In the larger scope of human history, not long ago (some say 10,000 to 12,000 years ago), for reasons we can only speculate about (but never really know), a shift began to occur in a few groupings of humans. These humans began to trust less in the earth as a "giver of life", and began to create a distinction between themselves and the earth. This separation is the foundation of civilization. It is not really a physical thing, although civilization has some very real physical manifestations; but it is more of an orientation, a mindset, a paradigm. It is based on the control and domination of the earth and its inhabitants.
Civilization's main mechanism of control is domestication. It is the controlling, taming, breeding, and modification of life for human benefit (usually for those in power or those striving for power). The domesticating process began to shift humans away from a nomadic way of life, towards a more sedentary and settled existence, which created points of power (taking on a much different dynamic than the more temporal and organic territorial ground), later to be called property. Domestication creates a totalitarian relationship with plants and animals, and eventually, other humans. This mindset sees other life, including other humans, as separate from the domesticator, and is the rationalization for the subjugation of women, children, and for slavery. Domestication is a colonizing force on non-domesticated life, which has brought us to the pathological modern experience of ultimate control of all life, including its genetic structures.
A major step in the civilizing process is the move towards an agrarian society. Agriculture creates a domesticated landscape, a shift from the concept that "the Earth will provide" to "what we will produce from the Earth". The domesticator begins to work against nature and her cycles, and to destroy those who are still living with and understanding her. We can see the beginnings of patriarchy here. We see the beginnings of not only the hoarding of land, but also of its fruits. This notion of ownership of land and surplus creates neverbefore experienced power dynamics, including institutionalized hierarchies and organized warfare. We have moved down an unsustainable and disastrous road.
Over the next thousands of years this disease progresses, with its colonizing and imperialist mentality eventually consuming most of the planet with, of course, the help of the religious-propagandists, who try to assure the "masses" and the "savages" that this is good and right. For the benefit of the colonizer, peoples are pitted against other peoples. When the colonizer's words do not suffice, the sword is never far away with its genocidal collision. As the class distinctions become more solidified, there becomes only those who have, and those who do not. The takers and the givers. The rulers and the ruled. The walls get raised. This is how we are told it has always been; but most people somehow know this isn't right, and there have always been those who have fought against it.
The war on women, the war on the poor, the war on indigenous and land-based people, and the war on the wild are all interconnected. In the eyes of civilization, they are all seen as commodities - things to be claimed, extracted, and manipulated for power and control. They are all seen as resources; and when they are of use no longer to the power-structure, they are discarded into the landfills of society. The ideology of patriarchy is one of control over self-determination and sustainability, of reason over instinct and anarchy, and of order over freedom and wildness. Patriarchy is an imposition of death, rather than a celebration of life. These are the motivations of patriarchy and civilization; and for thousands of years they have shaped the human experience on every level, from the institutional to the personal, while they have devoured life.
The civilizing process became more refined and efficient as time went on. Capitalism became its mode of operation, and the gauge of the extent of domination and the measure of what still is needed to be conquered. The entire planet was mapped and lands were enclosed. The nation-state eventually became the proposed societal grouping, and it was to set forth the values and goals of vast numbers of peoples, of course, for the benefit of those in control. Propaganda by the state, and the by now, less powerful church, started to replace some (but certainly not most) of the brute force with on-the-surface benevolence and concepts like citizenry and democracy. As the dawn of modernity approached, things were really getting sick.
Throughout the development of civilization, technology always played an ever-expanding role. In fact, civilization's progress has always been directly connected to, and determined by, the development of ever more complex, efficient, and innovative technologies. It is hard to tell whether civilization pushes technology, or vice-versa. Technology, like civilization, can be seen more as a process or complex system than as a physical form. It inherently involves division of labor, resource extraction, and exploitation by power (those with the technology). The interface with, and result of, technology is always an alienated, mediated, and heavily-loaded reality. No, technology is not neutral. The values and goals of those who produce and control technology are always embedded within it. Different from simple tools, technology is connected to a larger process which is infectious and is propelled forward by its own momentum. This technological system always advances, and always needs to be inventing new ways to support, fuel, maintain, and sell itself. A key part of the modern-techno-capitalist structure is industrialism; the mechanized system of production built on centralized power, and the exploitation of people and nature. Industrialism cannot exist without genocide, ecocide, and imperialism. To maintain it, coercion, land evictions, forced labor, cultural destruction, assimilation, ecological devastation, and global trade are accepted and seen as necessary. Industrialism's standardization of life objectifies and commodifies it, viewing all life as a potential resource. Technology and industrialism have opened the door to the ultimate domestication of life - the final stage of civilization - the age of neo-life.
So now we are in the post-modern, neo-liberal, bio-tech, cyber-reality, with an apocalyptic future and new world order. Can it really get much worse? Or has it always been this bad? We are almost completely domesticated, except for the few brief moments (riots, creeping through the dark to destroy machinery or civilization's infrastructure, connecting with other species, swimming naked in a mountain stream, eating wild foods, love-making, ...add your own favorites) when we catch a glimpse of what it would be like to go feral. Their "global village" is more like a global amusement park or global zoo, and it's not a question of boycotting it 'cause we're all in it, and it's in all of us. And we can't just break out of our own cages (although we're helpless unless we start there), but we gotta bust down the whole fuckin' place, feast on the zoo keepers and those who run and benefit from it, reconnect with our instincts, and become wild again! We cannot reform civilization, green it up, or make it more fair. It is rotten to the core. We don't need more ideology, morality, fundamentalism, or better organization to save us. We must save ourselves. We have to live according to our own desires. We have to connect with ourselves, those we care about, and the rest of life. We have to break out of, and break down, this reality.
"Why is civilization?"
Communique # 23 of Disorderly Conduct # 6
Communique # 23 of Disorderly Conduct # 6
often tell us that our dreams are unrealistic, our demands impossible that we are completely out of our vyjebaných thinks only propose such a ridiculous concept such as "e destroyed civilization." So we hope that this brief statement throws some light then why neuspojíme with nothing less than a completely different reality than that which is forced upon us today. We believe that the infinite possibilities of human experience, stretching forward and backward. We want a fall of inconsistency between these realities. We want a reality "future primitivism", such that once knew all of our ancestors, and you get to know: Before / post-technological, prior / post-industrial, prior / post-colonial, prior / post-capitalist, prior / post -agrarian and even pre / post-cultural reality - where we sometimes have, and maybe someday we will, Wild!
We feel it is necessary to ask some fundamental questions such as where we are now, how we got to this point where we are heading, and perhaps most importantly, we came to the Framework Convention. It should not be considered as irrefutable evidence, answers, or recipes for relief, but instead as a matter of discretion, while fighting against the domestication of, or attempt to create another world.
We believe that anarchy is a major liberating experience and our natural condition. Before and beyond, civilization (and its impact zahnívajúcich), people were and are, for lack of better terms, anarchistic. During most of our history, we lived in small groups, which enable decision-making in the face, without the mediation of the government, representation, or even morality of abstract things such as culture. We communicated, perceived and lived, we have an immediate, instinctive and direct way. We knew what we eat, what we managed to survive and heal. We were part of the world around us. Not There is no artificial separation between individuals, groups and the rest of life.
some time before human history, not so long ago (some say 10,000 to 12,000 years ago), for reasons of which we can only speculate (and never know exactly), slip began to appear in several clusters of people. These people no longer believe the country more as a "giver of life", and began to create the difference between them and the ground. This separation is the foundation of civilization. It's not really natural, even though civilization has very few natural terms, but rather it is the orientation, approach, design. It is based on the control and domination over the earth and its inhabitants.
Domestication is the main mechanism of control that is civilization. It's control, repression, education and modification of life for human benefit (usually those in power or those who want to achieve it). Domestikačný process to move people from realizing the nomadicity way of life, and to sedavejšej usadenejšej existence, which creates a place of power (takes a more distinct dynamics as dočasnejšie and territorial organickejšie area), later called the Assets. Domestication creates a totalitarian relationship with plants and animals and possibly others. This view sees a different life, including other people, as distinct from domestikátora. A rationalization is the dominance of women, children, and for slavery. Domestication is a colonizing force on non-domesticated life, which led us to a pathological modern skúsenoti final check of all life, including genetic structures.
important step in the civilizing process is the shift to agrarian society. Agriculture creates a domesticated landscape, gliding from the concept of "Earth provides" to "what we produce from the earth." Domestikátor begins to work against nature and its cycles, and destroy those who are still living with it and understand it. Here we see the beginnings of patriarchy. We see not only the accumulation of land, but also its fruit. The idea of \u200b\u200bholding the country and creates a surplus of inexperienced nikdypredtým dynamics of power, including institutionalized hierarchies and organized military conflict. We started the devastating and unsustainable path. During
nasledujúcich tisícov rokov robí táto choroba pokroky, so svojou kolonizačnou a imperialistickou mentalitou napokon konzumujúc väčšinu planéty s pomocou, samozrejme, náboženských propagandistov, ktorý sa snažia uistiť „masy“ a „divochov“, že to je dobré a správne. K úžitku kolonizátorov sú ľudia postavený proti iným ľuďom. Keď nepostačujú slová kolonizátora, nikdy nie je ďaleko meč s jeho genocídnym účinkom. Kým sa viac upevňujú triedne rozdiely, stávajú sa len tí čo majú, a tí čo nemajú. Tí čo and take what they give. Rulers and control. They build the walls. Here we say that it was always thus, but most people somehow know that this is not correct, and have always been those who fought against it.
war against women, war against the poor, the war against indigenous people and natural, and the war against wilderness and wilderness are all interconnected. In the eyes of civilization are all seen as commodities - things to requiring the acquisition and manipulation for power and control. All are seen as resources, and when no longer are beneficial to the power structure, are discarded in landfills company. Ideology of patriarchy is an ideology of control over self-determination and sustainability ideology causes of instinct and anarchy, and order ideology of freedom and wildness. Patriarchy is the imposition of the death, instead of celebration of life. These are the motivations of patriarchy and civilization, and for thousands of years shaped human experience on every level, from the institutional to the personal, while ate life.
process of civilization over time became more subtle and more efficient. Capitalism was the manner of operation, scale and extent of domination and size of everything is yet to be mastered. The entire planet has been charted and the country were limited. The nation-state actually has proposed social group, and clarify values \u200b\u200band goals for the vast numbers of people, of course, for the benefit of those who controlled it. Propaganda State, and now less a more powerful church, started to replace some (but certainly not most) of brute force for leniency and superficial concepts such as citizenship and democracy. When approaching dawn of modernity, things became really sick.
During the development of civilization, technology has always played an expanding role. In fact, the development of civilization has always been directly linked to and driven by the development of complex, efficient and innovative technologies. It is difficult to say whether the technology supports civilization or vice-versa. Technology, as a civilization, is better seen as a process or a complex system, rather than physical form. In essence, involves the division of labor, resource extraction and exploitation of power (those owned technology). Linking a result of technology is always stolen, and hard-mediated reality. No, technology is neutral. Values \u200b\u200band objectives of those who produce and control technology are always embedded in it. Different from simple tools, technology is connected to a larger process, which is contagious and is driven forward its own cadence. This technological system is always evolving, and must always inventing new ways to promote, fulfill, keep and sell. An important part of modern techno-capitalist structure is industrialism; mechanized production system based on centalizovanej power and exploitation of people and nature. Industrialism can not exist without genocide, and imperialism ekocídy. To sustain it is accepted by coercion, eviction from their own land, forced labor, cultural devastation, assimilation, ecological devastation and global trade and looks at it as a necessity. Standardization of life because of industrialism that portrays life and reshaping, seeing all life as a potential source. Industrialism and technology have opened the door to complete the domestication of life - the final stage of civilization - the age of neo-life.
So now we are in a postmodern, neo-liberal, biotechnology, cyberrealite apocalyptic future with a new world order. Can it be worse? Or was it always so bad? We are almost totally domesticated, except for those few moments (Riot, crawling through the night because of the destruction of machinery or infrastructure of civilization, the connection with other species, swimming naked in a mountain stream, eating wild food, making love to ... add your own favorite activity), which captured a glimpse of what it would be like to be wild again. Their "global village" is a global rather than a theme park or the zoo global, and it is a question of boycott, because we have it all, and she is equally in all of us. And we can not easily escape from our own cages (although we are powerless, whereas in fact we do not), but we have to smash this place vyjebané, feast at the zoo administrators and those who benefit from it, reconnect with our instincts and become wild again! Civilization we can not reform, greener it or make it more fair. It is rotten to the ground. We do not need more ideology, morality, fundamentalism or better organization that saved us. We must save ourselves. We live by our own desires. We need to connect with ourselves, with those for whom we care and the rest of life. We must be free and destroy this reality.
action is needed.
In short, civilization is waging war with life. We are fighting for their lives a preto vyhlasujeme vojnu civilizácii!
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Chlorine Dioxide Mouthwash Singapore
Marathon under 3:30 - claims training?
I got it for him: hardest training interval training - 5 x 2 km at race pace for 10 km. I was afraid of pain, I like the. But I was very afraid of injury that would de facto whistle for full marathon effort. Health ailments are not answered yet, so I hope that in the morning I wake up in the same condition as I save.
I got it for him: hardest training interval training - 5 x 2 km at race pace for 10 km. I was afraid of pain, I like the. But I was very afraid of injury that would de facto whistle for full marathon effort. Health ailments are not answered yet, so I hope that in the morning I wake up in the same condition as I save. first time on the track
runway I have very much in love and thanks to my personal trainer to it or do not. Mr. Trainer is a very sophisticated, connects to satellites in orbit, every moment kadečo beeps and prints to its modest display. He can even count circuits without I touched him. Fact class. But on the other hand, what would it be like for an athlete, if I can track at least once neomakal? And I also feel. Coincidentally it was on the same circuit, during which I násťročenstva I run 12-minútovky. Those 12 to 13 lines were the top endurance. Today I encircles the 64-times and I do not feel that this would be something special. Simply reference variables are changed a bit:)
practically ran itself . I can not explain it. Could it weather? I do not understand. Moreover, yesterday I was running downhill, I was not kept at bay and spent nearly 14 minutes of anaerobic threshold. The first four intervals, I had to restrain - every moment I was under 3:40 / km, the last one has been on blood . I wanted to get under 3:40 / km, I start politely blows and the rest Interalia I had to do, so I was under 3:50 / km remained.
practically ran itself . I can not explain it. Could it weather? I do not understand. Moreover, yesterday I was running downhill, I was not kept at bay and spent nearly 14 minutes of anaerobic threshold. The first four intervals, I had to restrain - every moment I was under 3:40 / km, the last one has been on blood . I wanted to get under 3:40 / km, I start politely blows and the rest Interalia I had to do, so I was under 3:50 / km remained.
| time | TF average | TF max | speed (km / h) | speed (min / km) |
| 0:07:41 | 189 | 196 | 15,6 | 3:50/km |
| 0:07:34 | 189 | 194 | 15,8 | 3:47/km |
| 0:07:35 | 188 | 197 | 15,8 | 3:48/km |
| 0:07:26 | 188 | 195 | 16.1 | 3:43 / km |
| 0:07: 31 | 192 | 200 | 16.0 | 3:45 / km |
I will not play anything: I have of myself really good feeling. Particularly in contrast with themselves a half years ago, when I run under 5:00 / km received in severe oxygen debt and run any distance under four minutes was unrealistic. I do not see the link between intervals and marathon. And if there is one. The answer I would have to wait until Saturday thirty kilometers and can be up to the seventh October .
Monday, September 10, 2007
Pain In Ankles And Alcohol
Marathon under 3:30 - repair
Correction: I previous week due to network elf published incorrect training plan and thus I was able to introduce many, for what is honest I apologize. Filling last week should be up is intense polihovanie body nezriadené prežieranie is a meditation on the meaning and place of sport in human life. plan I have consistently respected and I am therefore on track to humiliation dream three and a half hours of tees:)
What was it, I terazky marathoner and therefore this week through with six trénigov read as follows:
| Monday | 10 km aerobic |
| Tuesday | 12 km aerobic |
| Wednesday | 3 km jog 5x2km in the 10km race pace 3 km výklus |
| Thursday | 10 km aerobic |
| Friday | leave |
| Saturday | 30 km |
| Sunday | 8 km regenerative |
| TOTAL | 86 km |
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Hand Foot And Mouth 11 Days
Derrick Jensen: “Actions Speak Louder Than Words” (1998)
Every morning when I wake up I ask myself whether I should write or blow up a dam. I tell myself I should keep writing, though I’m not sure that’s right. I’ve written books and done activism, but it is neither a lack of words nor a lack of activism that is killing salmon here in the Northwest. It’s the dams.
Anyone who knows anything about salmon knows the dams must go. Anyone who knows anything about politics knows the dams will stay. Scientists study, politicians and business people lie and delay, bureaucrats hold sham public meetings, activists write letters and press releases, and still the salmon die.
Sadly enough, I’m not alone in my inability or unwillingness to take action. Members of the German resistance to Hitler from 1933 to 1945, for example, exhibited a striking blindness all too familiar: Despite knowing that Hitler had to be removed for a “decent” government to be installed, they spent more time creating paper versions of this theoretical government than attempting to remove him from power. It wasn’t a lack of courage that caused this blindness but rather a misguided sense of morals. Karl Goerdeler, for instance, though tireless in attempting to create this new government, staunchly opposed assassinating Hitler, believing that if only the two could sit face to face Hitler might relent.
We, too, suffer from this blindness and must learn to differentiate between real and false hopes. We must eliminate false hopes, which blind us to real possibilities. Does anyone really believe our protests will cause Weyerhaeuser or other timber transnationals to stop destroying forests? Does anyone really believe the same corporate administrators who say they “wish salmon would go extinct so we could just get on with living” (Randy Hardy of Bonneville Power Association) will act other than to fulfill their desires? Does anyone really believe a pattern of exploitation as old as our civilization can be halted legislatively, judicially or through means other than an absolute rejection of the mindset that engineers the exploitation, followed by actions based on that rejection? Does anybody really think those who are destroying the world will stop because we ask nicely or because we lock arms peacefully in front of their offices?
There can be few who still believe the purpose of government is to protect citizens from the activities of those who would destroy. The opposite is true:
Political economist Adam Smith was correct in noting that the primary purpose of government is to protect those who run the economy from the outrage of injured citizens. To expect institutions created by our culture to do other than poison waters, denude hillsides, eliminate alternative ways of living and commit genocide is unforgivably naive.
Many German conspirators hesitated to remove Hitler from office because they’d sworn loyalty to him and his government. Their scruples caused more hesitation than their fear. How many of us have yet to root out misguided remnants of a belief in the legitimacy of this government to which, as children, we pledged allegiance? How many of us fail to cross the line into violent resistance because we still believe that, somehow, the system can be reformed? And if we don’t believe that, what are we waiting for? As Shakespeare so accurately put it, “Conscience doth make cowards of us all.”
It could be argued that by comparing our government to Hitler’s I’m overstating my case. I’m not sure salmon would agree, nor lynx, nor the people of Peru, Irian Jaya, Indonesia, or any other place where people pay with their lives for the activities of our culture.
If we’re to survive, we must recognize that we kill by inaction as surely as by action. We must recognize that, as Hermann Hesse wrote, “We kill when we close our eyes to poverty, affliction or infamy. We kill when, because it is easier, we countenance, or pretend to approve of atrophied social, political, educational, and religious institutions, instead of resolutely combating them.”
The central - and in many ways only - question of our time is this: What are sane, appropriate and effective responses to outrageously destructive behavior? So often, those working to slow the destruction can plainly describe the problems. Who couldn’t? The problems are neither subtle nor cognitively challenging. Yet when faced with the emotionally daunting task of fashioning a response to these clearly insoluble problems, we generally suffer a failure of nerve and imagination. Gandhi wrote a letter to Hitler asking him to stop committing atrocities and was mystified that it didn’t work. I continue writing letters to the editor of the local corporate newspaper pointing out mistruths and am continually surprised at the next absurdity.
I’m not suggesting a well-targeted program of assassinations would solve all of our problems. If it were that simple, I wouldn’t be writing this essay. To assassinate Slade Gorton and Larry Craig, for example, two senators from the Northwest whose work may be charitably described as unremittingly ecocidal, would probably slow the destruction not much more than to write them a letter. Neither unique nor alone, Gorton and Craig are merely tools for enacting ecocide, as surely as are dams, corporations, chainsaws, napalm and nuclear weapons. If someone were to kill them, others would take their places. The ecocidal programs originating specifically from the damaged psyches of Gorton and Craig would die with them, but the shared nature of the impulses within our culture would continue full-force, making the replacement as easy as buying a new hoe.
Hitler, too, was elected as legally and “democratically” as Craig and Gorton. Hitler, too, manifested his culture’s death urge brilliantly enough to capture the hearts of those who voted him into power and to hold the loyalty of the millions who actively carried out his plans. Hitler, like Craig and Gorton, like George Weyerhaeuser and other CEOs, didn’t act alone. Why, then, do I discern a difference between them?
The current system has already begun to collapse under the weight of its ecological excesses, and here’s where we can help. Having transferred our loyalty away from our culture’s illegitimate economic and governmental entities and to the land, our goal must be to protect, through whatever means possible, the human and nonhuman residents of our homelands. Our goal, like that of a demolition crew on a downtown building, must be to help our culture collapse in place, so that in its fall it takes out as little life as possible.
Discussion presupposes distance, and the fact that we’re talking about whether violence is appropriate tells me we don’t yet care enough. There’s a kind of action that doesn’t emerge from discussion, from theory, but instead from our bodies and from the land. This action is the honeybee stinging to defend her hive; it’s the mother grizzly charging a train to defend her cubs; it’s Zapatista spokesperson Cecelia Rodriguez saying, “I have a question of those men who raped me. Why did you not kill me? It was a mistake to spare my life. I will not shut up - this has not traumatized me to the point of paralysis.” It’s Ogoni activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, murdered by the Nigerian government at the urging of Shell, whose last words were, “Lord, take my soul, but the struggle continues!” It’s those who participated in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. It’s Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull and Geronimo. It’s salmon battering themselves against concrete, using the only thing they have, their flesh, to try to break down that which keeps them from their homes.
I don’t believe the question of whether to use violence is the right one. Instead, the question should be: Do you sufficiently feel the loss? So long as we discuss this in the abstract, we still have too much to lose. If we begin to feel in our bodies the immensity and emptiness of what we lose daily, intact natural communities, hours sold for wages, childhoods lost to violence, women’s capacity to walk unafraid, we’ll know precisely what to do.
in Earth First! Journal, May-June 1998, p. 5
Unfortunately I am not alone with my inability or unwillingness to act. For example, members of the German resistance movement against Hitler from 1933 to 1945 showed tremendous blindness all too familiar: Despite the fact that they knew that Hitler should be removed to create a "decent" government spend more time creating paper versions of this theoretical government, instead of that it be removed. It was not lack of courage, which caused the blindness, but rather false sense of morality. Karl Goerdeler, for example, even though he was tireless in creating this new government steadfastly condemned the assassination of Hitler, believing that if it was sitting face to face, Hitler would be allowed.
We also suffer blindness and that we must learn to distinguish between true and false hope. We must eliminate false hopes that are blinding us to real possibilities. I believe someone is actually that our protests will cause that Weyerhaeuser or other transnational timber corporations stop destroying forests? I believe someone is actually that the same corporation administrators, who say that "we hope that salmon may die, so we just continue to live on" (Randy Hardy of the Bonneville Power Association) will act differently, and not so as to fulfill our desires? Someone actually believes it is possible to stop the pattern of exploitation is as old as our civilization legislative, judicial or other means than a complete rejection of thinking that constructs this exploitation, following actions based on that refusal? Someone actually believes that those who destroy world stop just because their so we kindly ask peacefully or because you can lock your hands in front of their offices?
Maybe some of those who still believe that the purpose of government is to protect its citizens against the activities of those who destroy. The opposite is true:
political economist Adam Smith was right when he said that the main purpose of government is to protect those who keep the economy from the wrath of disabled people. Expect institutions to do otherwise than to annoy the water, ridding the slopes of vegetation, eliminate alternative ways of life and committing genocide is unforgivable naive.
Many German conspirators hesitated in removing Hitler from office because they promised loyalty to him and his government. Their considerations have caused more hesitation than their fear. How many of us have yet to eradicate the false bottoms of faith in the legitimacy of this government, which we swear allegiance to children? How many of us fail to cross the border to violent resistance, because they still believe that this system can somehow reformovateľný? And if I do not believe so what are we waiting? As Shakespeare rightly said, "Thus conscience makes cowards of us all."
might say that comparing our government with Hitler, this overstates the case. I'm not sure he would agree on salmon, or features, nor the people of Peru, the Irian Jaya, Indonesia or in any other place where people pay with their lives for our cultural activities.
If we survive, we must realize that kill omissions as well as act. We must realize that, as Hermann Hesse wrote, "We kill when close our eyes to poverty, suffering or shame. We kill because it's easier to agree, or pretend to approve degenerate social, political, educational and religious institutions, instead, that we fought against them vigorously. "
main - and in many ways the only - issue of our time is this: What are reasonable, appropriate and effective response to the horribly destructive behavior? How often, those who are working to slow the destruction they can clearly describe the problems. Who would know? Problems are neither minor nor cognitively challenged. But even if we are faced with daunting task of creating an emotional response to this clearly inexplicable problems, generally suffer failure of nerve and imagination. Gandhi wrote to Hitler, where he was asked to stop committing atrocities and was confused when it did not work. I continue to send letters editor of the local corporate newspaper referring to untruths and I am constantly surprised by another absurdity.
not suggesting that well-directed program asasinácií solve all our problems. If it were that simple, now I would not write this essay. The assassination of Slade Gorton and Larry Craig, for example, two senators from the Northwest whose work could be kindly described as permanently ekocídna would delay the destruction of nothing more than to write them a letter. Neither sporadic nor yourself, Gorton and Craig are the only instruments for the enactment ekocídy, like dams, corporations, chain saws, napalm and nuclear weapons. If someone wanted to kill them, others would come to their place. Ekocídne programs that originate in the disturbed psyche of Gorton and Craig would have died with them, but common nature of the impulses within our culture would continue fully, which would make the exchange as easy as buying new hoes.
Hitler was also elected legally and "democratically" as Craig and Gorton. Hitler also showed a desire the death of his culture sufficiently clear that captivated the hearts of those who elected him to power and to maintain the loyalty of millions who actively implement its plans. Hitler, as Craig and Gorton, as George Weyerhaeuser and other corporations, directors, acted alone. Why then rozpozávam differences between them?
current system has already started crumble under the weight of their environmental sins, and this can help. Transfer our allegiance from illegitimate economic and governmental entities to our culture and country, our goal must be to protect, by any means possible, and mimoľudských human inhabitants of our country. Our goal as a target for demolition crews building downtown, help must be our culture fall in place when the fall took the lease of life.
talk presupposes distance, and the fact that we are talking whether violence is appropriate, suggests to me that is not sufficiently interested. There is kind of actions which are not emerge from the discussion of theory, but instead of our bodies and the earth. This action is bees that bites to protect their hive, the mother grizzly, which will build a train that defended their young, it is the Zapatistas hovorkiňa Cecelia Rodriguez, saying, "I have a question for the men who raped me. Why did you kill me? It was a mistake to save my life. I'm not going quietly - netraumatizovalo me to the extent of paralysis. "It is a strain of Ogoni activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, murdered by the Government of Niger at the urging of Shell, whose last words were, "Lord, take my soul, but the struggle will continue!" They're the ones who participated in the Warsaw ghetto uprising. It's Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull and Geronimo. These are the salmon hádžuci of concrete, using the only thing you have, your body, to try to break what keeps them away from their homes.
I do not believe that asked whether the use of violence is the right one. Instead, the question should be: Do you feel the loss sufficiently? While we shall discuss the abstract, we still have much to lose. If we feel in our bodies vastness and emptiness, what a day lost, intact natural communities, zapredané hours for pay, childhood lost to violence, the ability of women to walk without fear, we know exactly what to do.
The Earth First! Journal, May-June 1998, pg. 5 
Derrick Jensen: “Actions Speak Louder Than Words” (1998)
Every morning when I wake up I ask myself whether I should write or blow up a dam. I tell myself I should keep writing, though I’m not sure that’s right. I’ve written books and done activism, but it is neither a lack of words nor a lack of activism that is killing salmon here in the Northwest. It’s the dams.
Anyone who knows anything about salmon knows the dams must go. Anyone who knows anything about politics knows the dams will stay. Scientists study, politicians and business people lie and delay, bureaucrats hold sham public meetings, activists write letters and press releases, and still the salmon die.
Sadly enough, I’m not alone in my inability or unwillingness to take action. Members of the German resistance to Hitler from 1933 to 1945, for example, exhibited a striking blindness all too familiar: Despite knowing that Hitler had to be removed for a “decent” government to be installed, they spent more time creating paper versions of this theoretical government than attempting to remove him from power. It wasn’t a lack of courage that caused this blindness but rather a misguided sense of morals. Karl Goerdeler, for instance, though tireless in attempting to create this new government, staunchly opposed assassinating Hitler, believing that if only the two could sit face to face Hitler might relent.
We, too, suffer from this blindness and must learn to differentiate between real and false hopes. We must eliminate false hopes, which blind us to real possibilities. Does anyone really believe our protests will cause Weyerhaeuser or other timber transnationals to stop destroying forests? Does anyone really believe the same corporate administrators who say they “wish salmon would go extinct so we could just get on with living” (Randy Hardy of Bonneville Power Association) will act other than to fulfill their desires? Does anyone really believe a pattern of exploitation as old as our civilization can be halted legislatively, judicially or through means other than an absolute rejection of the mindset that engineers the exploitation, followed by actions based on that rejection? Does anybody really think those who are destroying the world will stop because we ask nicely or because we lock arms peacefully in front of their offices?
There can be few who still believe the purpose of government is to protect citizens from the activities of those who would destroy. The opposite is true:
Political economist Adam Smith was correct in noting that the primary purpose of government is to protect those who run the economy from the outrage of injured citizens. To expect institutions created by our culture to do other than poison waters, denude hillsides, eliminate alternative ways of living and commit genocide is unforgivably naive.
Many German conspirators hesitated to remove Hitler from office because they’d sworn loyalty to him and his government. Their scruples caused more hesitation than their fear. How many of us have yet to root out misguided remnants of a belief in the legitimacy of this government to which, as children, we pledged allegiance? How many of us fail to cross the line into violent resistance because we still believe that, somehow, the system can be reformed? And if we don’t believe that, what are we waiting for? As Shakespeare so accurately put it, “Conscience doth make cowards of us all.”
It could be argued that by comparing our government to Hitler’s I’m overstating my case. I’m not sure salmon would agree, nor lynx, nor the people of Peru, Irian Jaya, Indonesia, or any other place where people pay with their lives for the activities of our culture.
If we’re to survive, we must recognize that we kill by inaction as surely as by action. We must recognize that, as Hermann Hesse wrote, “We kill when we close our eyes to poverty, affliction or infamy. We kill when, because it is easier, we countenance, or pretend to approve of atrophied social, political, educational, and religious institutions, instead of resolutely combating them.”
The central - and in many ways only - question of our time is this: What are sane, appropriate and effective responses to outrageously destructive behavior? So often, those working to slow the destruction can plainly describe the problems. Who couldn’t? The problems are neither subtle nor cognitively challenging. Yet when faced with the emotionally daunting task of fashioning a response to these clearly insoluble problems, we generally suffer a failure of nerve and imagination. Gandhi wrote a letter to Hitler asking him to stop committing atrocities and was mystified that it didn’t work. I continue writing letters to the editor of the local corporate newspaper pointing out mistruths and am continually surprised at the next absurdity.
I’m not suggesting a well-targeted program of assassinations would solve all of our problems. If it were that simple, I wouldn’t be writing this essay. To assassinate Slade Gorton and Larry Craig, for example, two senators from the Northwest whose work may be charitably described as unremittingly ecocidal, would probably slow the destruction not much more than to write them a letter. Neither unique nor alone, Gorton and Craig are merely tools for enacting ecocide, as surely as are dams, corporations, chainsaws, napalm and nuclear weapons. If someone were to kill them, others would take their places. The ecocidal programs originating specifically from the damaged psyches of Gorton and Craig would die with them, but the shared nature of the impulses within our culture would continue full-force, making the replacement as easy as buying a new hoe.
Hitler, too, was elected as legally and “democratically” as Craig and Gorton. Hitler, too, manifested his culture’s death urge brilliantly enough to capture the hearts of those who voted him into power and to hold the loyalty of the millions who actively carried out his plans. Hitler, like Craig and Gorton, like George Weyerhaeuser and other CEOs, didn’t act alone. Why, then, do I discern a difference between them?
The current system has already begun to collapse under the weight of its ecological excesses, and here’s where we can help. Having transferred our loyalty away from our culture’s illegitimate economic and governmental entities and to the land, our goal must be to protect, through whatever means possible, the human and nonhuman residents of our homelands. Our goal, like that of a demolition crew on a downtown building, must be to help our culture collapse in place, so that in its fall it takes out as little life as possible.
Discussion presupposes distance, and the fact that we’re talking about whether violence is appropriate tells me we don’t yet care enough. There’s a kind of action that doesn’t emerge from discussion, from theory, but instead from our bodies and from the land. This action is the honeybee stinging to defend her hive; it’s the mother grizzly charging a train to defend her cubs; it’s Zapatista spokesperson Cecelia Rodriguez saying, “I have a question of those men who raped me. Why did you not kill me? It was a mistake to spare my life. I will not shut up - this has not traumatized me to the point of paralysis.” It’s Ogoni activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, murdered by the Nigerian government at the urging of Shell, whose last words were, “Lord, take my soul, but the struggle continues!” It’s those who participated in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. It’s Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull and Geronimo. It’s salmon battering themselves against concrete, using the only thing they have, their flesh, to try to break down that which keeps them from their homes.
I don’t believe the question of whether to use violence is the right one. Instead, the question should be: Do you sufficiently feel the loss? So long as we discuss this in the abstract, we still have too much to lose. If we begin to feel in our bodies the immensity and emptiness of what we lose daily, intact natural communities, hours sold for wages, childhoods lost to violence, women’s capacity to walk unafraid, we’ll know precisely what to do.
in Earth First! Journal, May-June 1998, p. 5
Derrick Jensen: “Činy sú hlasnejšie než slová” (1998)
Každé ráno, keď sa zobudím, pýtam myself whether I should continue writing or go to blow up the dam. I tell myself that I should continue writing, although I'm not sure if this is correct. I wrote the book and stimulating for I, but it's not the lack of words or lack of activism, which kills salmon here in the northwest (pozn.prekl., In the USA). These are dams. Anyone who knows anything about salmon knows that the dams must go. Anyone who knows anything about politics knows that the dam will remain. Scientists study, politicians and businessmen lie and staying bureaucrats do sham public meetings, activists write letters and press releases, and salmon are still dying. Unfortunately I am not alone with my inability or unwillingness to act. For example, members of the German resistance movement against Hitler from 1933 to 1945 showed tremendous blindness all too familiar: Despite the fact that they knew that Hitler should be removed to create a "decent" government spend more time creating paper versions of this theoretical government, instead of that it be removed. It was not lack of courage, which caused the blindness, but rather false sense of morality. Karl Goerdeler, for example, even though he was tireless in creating this new government steadfastly condemned the assassination of Hitler, believing that if it was sitting face to face, Hitler would be allowed.
We also suffer blindness and that we must learn to distinguish between true and false hope. We must eliminate false hopes that are blinding us to real possibilities. I believe someone is actually that our protests will cause that Weyerhaeuser or other transnational timber corporations stop destroying forests? I believe someone is actually that the same corporation administrators, who say that "we hope that salmon may die, so we just continue to live on" (Randy Hardy of the Bonneville Power Association) will act differently, and not so as to fulfill our desires? Someone actually believes it is possible to stop the pattern of exploitation is as old as our civilization legislative, judicial or other means than a complete rejection of thinking that constructs this exploitation, following actions based on that refusal? Someone actually believes that those who destroy world stop just because their so we kindly ask peacefully or because you can lock your hands in front of their offices?
Maybe some of those who still believe that the purpose of government is to protect its citizens against the activities of those who destroy. The opposite is true:
political economist Adam Smith was right when he said that the main purpose of government is to protect those who keep the economy from the wrath of disabled people. Expect institutions to do otherwise than to annoy the water, ridding the slopes of vegetation, eliminate alternative ways of life and committing genocide is unforgivable naive.
Many German conspirators hesitated in removing Hitler from office because they promised loyalty to him and his government. Their considerations have caused more hesitation than their fear. How many of us have yet to eradicate the false bottoms of faith in the legitimacy of this government, which we swear allegiance to children? How many of us fail to cross the border to violent resistance, because they still believe that this system can somehow reformovateľný? And if I do not believe so what are we waiting? As Shakespeare rightly said, "Thus conscience makes cowards of us all."
might say that comparing our government with Hitler, this overstates the case. I'm not sure he would agree on salmon, or features, nor the people of Peru, the Irian Jaya, Indonesia or in any other place where people pay with their lives for our cultural activities.
If we survive, we must realize that kill omissions as well as act. We must realize that, as Hermann Hesse wrote, "We kill when close our eyes to poverty, suffering or shame. We kill because it's easier to agree, or pretend to approve degenerate social, political, educational and religious institutions, instead, that we fought against them vigorously. "
main - and in many ways the only - issue of our time is this: What are reasonable, appropriate and effective response to the horribly destructive behavior? How often, those who are working to slow the destruction they can clearly describe the problems. Who would know? Problems are neither minor nor cognitively challenged. But even if we are faced with daunting task of creating an emotional response to this clearly inexplicable problems, generally suffer failure of nerve and imagination. Gandhi wrote to Hitler, where he was asked to stop committing atrocities and was confused when it did not work. I continue to send letters editor of the local corporate newspaper referring to untruths and I am constantly surprised by another absurdity.
not suggesting that well-directed program asasinácií solve all our problems. If it were that simple, now I would not write this essay. The assassination of Slade Gorton and Larry Craig, for example, two senators from the Northwest whose work could be kindly described as permanently ekocídna would delay the destruction of nothing more than to write them a letter. Neither sporadic nor yourself, Gorton and Craig are the only instruments for the enactment ekocídy, like dams, corporations, chain saws, napalm and nuclear weapons. If someone wanted to kill them, others would come to their place. Ekocídne programs that originate in the disturbed psyche of Gorton and Craig would have died with them, but common nature of the impulses within our culture would continue fully, which would make the exchange as easy as buying new hoes.
Hitler was also elected legally and "democratically" as Craig and Gorton. Hitler also showed a desire the death of his culture sufficiently clear that captivated the hearts of those who elected him to power and to maintain the loyalty of millions who actively implement its plans. Hitler, as Craig and Gorton, as George Weyerhaeuser and other corporations, directors, acted alone. Why then rozpozávam differences between them?
current system has already started crumble under the weight of their environmental sins, and this can help. Transfer our allegiance from illegitimate economic and governmental entities to our culture and country, our goal must be to protect, by any means possible, and mimoľudských human inhabitants of our country. Our goal as a target for demolition crews building downtown, help must be our culture fall in place when the fall took the lease of life.
talk presupposes distance, and the fact that we are talking whether violence is appropriate, suggests to me that is not sufficiently interested. There is kind of actions which are not emerge from the discussion of theory, but instead of our bodies and the earth. This action is bees that bites to protect their hive, the mother grizzly, which will build a train that defended their young, it is the Zapatistas hovorkiňa Cecelia Rodriguez, saying, "I have a question for the men who raped me. Why did you kill me? It was a mistake to save my life. I'm not going quietly - netraumatizovalo me to the extent of paralysis. "It is a strain of Ogoni activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, murdered by the Government of Niger at the urging of Shell, whose last words were, "Lord, take my soul, but the struggle will continue!" They're the ones who participated in the Warsaw ghetto uprising. It's Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull and Geronimo. These are the salmon hádžuci of concrete, using the only thing you have, your body, to try to break what keeps them away from their homes.
I do not believe that asked whether the use of violence is the right one. Instead, the question should be: Do you feel the loss sufficiently? While we shall discuss the abstract, we still have much to lose. If we feel in our bodies vastness and emptiness, what a day lost, intact natural communities, zapredané hours for pay, childhood lost to violence, the ability of women to walk without fear, we know exactly what to do.
The Earth First! Journal, May-June 1998, pg. 5
Monday, September 3, 2007
Painkillers For Bikini Waxing
Marathon under 3:30 - it makes sense?
do not be alarmed! I forfeited depressed, nor am I overtraining. The point is rather that for eight weeks for the marathon can not be trained to - certainly not the time under 3:30. Either that in itself I have already, or not . I can not shake the feeling that the more I mess up, how to improve. Slowly starting to fall Prelaunch paranoia and every cough, or small boliestka hypochondriac in me waking up. I do not understand why I run intervals, when the risk of injury is much higher for them. And certainly I can not imagine what all you need to go through a similar situation in elite athletes.
do not be alarmed! I forfeited depressed, nor am I overtraining. The point is rather that for eight weeks for the marathon can not be trained to - certainly not the time under 3:30. Either that in itself I have already, or not . I can not shake the feeling that the more I mess up, how to improve. Slowly starting to fall Prelaunch paranoia and every cough, or small boliestka hypochondriac in me waking up. I do not understand why I run intervals, when the risk of injury is much higher for them. And certainly I can not imagine what all you need to go through a similar situation in elite athletes. Milos Škorpil in one of the articles for behej.com wrote: "Marathon is a race against opponents. Marathon is run in which meet their resilience, that is the only opponent I'm myself." I add that I know in particular the resistance to it during training. The main objective is to survive in health training and the race itself only confirmed or refuted, if I had it or not.
training this week
| Monday | leave |
| Tuesday | 15 km aerobic |
| Wednesday | 3 km jog 10x1 km at a pace of 10 km 3 km výklus |
| Thursday | 12 km free |
| Friday | leave |
| Saturday | 30 km free |
| Sunday | 8 km wild hockey or bike |
| TOTAL | 73-81 km |
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Which Razor Scooter Do I Get For My 4 Year Old
Marathon below 3.30 - the settlement date
Total:
Together :
D-Day is five weeks away. For now, this particular nasviedča calendar. Training morale slightly behind. Moreover, Convince yourself about it.
Week # 34: 20 8. - 26 8. 2007
| Day | plan | fact |
| Monday | 10 km free | 10 km TF @ 157bpm |
| Tuesday | 10 km free | 10 km TF @ 157 bpm |
| Wednesday | 2 km jog 4x1 km racing pace in the 10km (ie 4:20 min / km) 2 km výklus | 2 km jog 4x1 mile @ 3:50 / km 2 km výklus |
| Thursday | 10 km free | 11 km TF @ 152bpm |
| Friday | off | leave |
| Saturday | cross country weekend behej.com | behej.com: 37 km uphill |
| Sunday | cross country weekend behej.com | behej . com: 7.5 km free |
Total:
- running 85 km for 8 hours.
Week # 35: 27 8. - 2 9. 2007
| Day | plan | fact |
| Monday | leave | leave |
| Tuesday | 8 km freely | bike 35 km |
| Wednesday | 10 km free | bike 53 km |
| Thursday | leave | leave |
| Friday | 12 km fartlek | 2 km 12 km jog TF @ 161bpm (4:51 / km) |
| Saturday | 8 km freely | bike 59 km uphill |
| Sunday | 32 km at a moderate pace | 20 km free 1 hour hockey |
Together :
- run 34 km at 3:06
- bike 147 km per 7 hours
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)