What liberals and their allies in the environmentalist wacko movement fail to understand is: their message has gotten out. Their anti-capitalist, socialist, gloom-and-doom, fear-based, lunatic ravings have been amplified -- and Americans understand exactly who they are, and what they're about. As the "Mr. Big" of the vast right-wing conspiracy, I am proud, ladies and gentlemen, to play a major part in the exposé leading to their depression.
- Rush Limbaugh April 25, 2005
Currently, about 20 million people tune in to Rush Limbaugh every week. His lingo is now conservative lingua franca. Limbaugh figured out that if you repeat your best lines -- e.g., "environmentalist wackos" -- often enough, they become more than just funny catchphrases; they become a reconfiguration of reality and a call to arms. In his world (and it's a world in which a lot of people live), you can't be an environmentalist and escape wacko-ism.
In Limbaugh, a large group of Americans who felt their country was being taken away from them found an emotional outlet. If his facts didn't always ring true, his anger did. Limbaugh proved that someone with a quick wit and a microphone could wield tremendous power, and his success spawned a legion of copycat shows across the country.
Filmmaker Patrice O'Neill at a
community screening of "The Fire
Next Time" in Montana's Flathead
Valley.
Photo: Chris Peterson.
One of them is hosted by John Stokes of KGEZ in Montana's Flathead Valley. Stokes is featured in the new PBS film The Fire Next Time, which premieres Tuesday, July 12. The documentary was made by Patrice O'Neill and The Working Group, a film company that also works with communities to overcome intolerance. The film follows several groups in Kalispell, Mont., over a two-year period in which their community goes up in flames -- figuratively and literally -- over conflicts about environmental preservation.
Everybody in Kalispell cares about trees. Trees feed the timber industry, help drain the land, attract tourists, and provide habitat for wildlife; and they also catch fire and endanger homes and lives during the annual forest-fire season. Talking about trees in Kalispell means talking about livelihoods and lifestyles, and the valley's different interest groups are like sticks dangerously rubbing together in its drought-plagued forests.
Enter Stokes, radio host and human blowtorch. On environmentalists, Stokes has this to say: "Eradicate 'em. Their message stinks. They're destroying America. And it all came out of the Third Reich. You know, the Third Reich was born out of the environmental community. I don't make it up. It's there." Stokes attends town meetings, holds rallies, and burns green swastikas to protest what he sees as the tyranny of liberals, the U.S. Forest Service, immigrants, the government, and, of course, the people he refers to as "eco-Nazis" and "green Nazis."
John Stokes prepares to burn a
swastika to draw attention to
"green Nazis."
Photo: Montana Human Rights Network.
"John Stokes came to this valley and all of the sudden the people had a way of telling the truth," says one timber worker featured in the film.
Clearly, Stokes and his listeners are angry. They're angry at the Forest Service and the more uncompromising environmentalists for not letting loggers thin the forests in a way that will (they think) boost the flagging Montana economy and prevent fires. They're angry about losing their timber-industry jobs. They're angry about watching property values soar as millionaires buy weekend ranches in the valley.
During forest-fire season, when the valley's residents are at their most vulnerable, Stokes' provocations are strongest. "Anybody who's ever written a check to the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, Audubon, Citizens for a Better Planet," he says, "hope you're happy with yourself, 'cause we blame you." Stokes warns his listeners to be careful, because "there are eco-arsonist terrorists out there." He holds up a copy of an Earth Liberation Front manual and tells the camera, "They just had a terror training camp in Missoula in June."
It's not true, but it doesn't matter: with his rants, Stokes has placed environmentalism squarely in the middle of the most charged discourse in post-9/11 America -- the one revolving around the word "terrorism." And while Stokes seems extreme, these days, he's not the only one warning of an alleged link between environmentalists and terrorists. Joe Friday is too.
Hummers: innocent victims?
Photo: FBI.gov.
Fed Up
On June 21 of this year, FBI Deputy Assistant Director for Counterterrorism John Lewis called eco-terrorism one of the top domestic terrorist threats in the U.S. One month earlier, he'd made similar statements before a congressional committee. The FBI claims that 1,200 acts of eco-terrorism have taken place since 1990, causing over $110 million in property damage. Although ELF has said that it has never and would never target humans, the FBI is worried that might change. It has decided that ELF and the Animal Liberation Front pose a threat comparable to militias of the Timothy McVeigh stripe (whose numbers have fallen but whose threat remains significant [PDF], especially in Montana), and to white supremacist groups (whose numbers are rising, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center). Ironically, the Flathead Valley was home to one of the more notorious militia groups, Project Seven, which in 2003 was found with a cache of arms and a hit list of government officials.
The FBI says its concern is based on the fact that eco-terrorists are currently the most active of domestic terrorism groups. But when I spoke with FBI spokesperson Bill Carter, he was unable to detail the nature of the 1,200 "acts," how many had occurred in each of the past few years, or how many people have been involved in committing them (although Lewis' testimony says about 150 cases are currently under investigation). Even the top brass at the FBI seems confused about the extent of the threat. In February, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III testified before the Senate Committee on Intelligence that major incidents of eco-terror had actually declined in 2004.
Meanwhile, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) recently published a policy paper [PDF] that questioned why a draft of the 2005 terrorism priorities of the Department of Homeland Security reportedly did not mention right-wing terrorist groups (such as militias), while eco-terrorism was placed front and center. Thompson asked to testify before a May congressional panel that discussed eco-terrorism and threats to the nation's infrastructure, but his request was denied by the panel's chair, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.). It was only the second time in history, according to a Democratic spokesperson for the House Committee on Homeland Security*, that a member of Congress had not been given the privilege of making remarks before a panel.
According to the Associated Press, Inhofe said he hoped to investigate how ELF and ALF raise money and support from "mainstream activists." "Just like al-Qaeda or any other terrorist organization, ELF and ALF cannot accomplish their goals without money, membership, and the media,'' the AP quoted Inhofe as saying.
Now what self-respecting terrorist
would rescue cute li'l puppies?
Photo: arkangelweb.org.
It's not that Thompson -- or anyone, for that matter -- is defending acts of terrorism on behalf of the environment. (Thompson has denounced ELF and ALF, as has every major environmental group.) It's that they are trying to figure out how and with what consequences environmentalism and terrorism got coupled together in the first place. Yes, some expensive and illegal acts are committed in the name of the environment; and yes, the framework of terrorism is an easy and useful one for the FBI and the DHS to use when handling those incidents. (By calling ecological sabotage "terrorism" as opposed to arson or vandalism, federal officials are given slightly greater powers in investigating and bringing perpetrators to justice.) But what does it mean for environmentalism when the whole movement is defined by its margins? And what does it mean for the nation and the world when language is used so loosely even as last week's attacks in London make the danger of real terror tragically plain?
For some, broadening the term "terrorist" to include organizations like ELF is bad for both environmentalists and for our sense of what real terror is. "These people are not environmentalists, they're arsonists," says Eric Antebi, a Sierra Club spokesperson. Antebi also rejects the idea that ELF's actions constitute real terrorism. "Eco-terrorism is not a legitimate phrase -- it cheapens what real terrorism is. We have seen in this country the real forms that terrorism takes," he says.
However atypical ELF and ALF may be of environmentalism, they have come to characterize the movement for many on the right, in Congress, and in law enforcement. The backdrop to this development, of course, was September 11, 2001. First of all, 9/11 solidified the power of a government that also happens to be anti-environmentalist. Second, because of a (perhaps justified) national state of paranoia, 9/11 complicated the use of a tool that has been always essential to the environmental movement: direct action.
"We used to put banners on bridges, banners on big monuments," says John Passacantando, executive director of Greenpeace USA. "When people are worried about this kind of structure, you don't see us doing that. Our direct actions always have to be in the tone and the temper of the time."
The FBI insists it distinguishes groups like ELF and ALF from the rest of the environmental movement, and is committed to the lawful expression of free speech. But the government has occasionally raised the specter of terrorism to support its cause, even if it meant darkening the name of mainstream environmental groups. In a widely publicized 2003 case in which Greenpeace activists boarded a ship carrying illegal mahogany from the Brazilian Amazon bound for the U.S., the Department of Justice seemed so bent on prosecuting the environmental group that it dug up an obscure 1872 law prohibiting "sailor-mongering." Greenpeace's Passacantando says that during the trial, federal prosecutors regularly referred -- directly and indirectly -- to 9/11. (At one point, he says, federal prosecutors stood a scale model of the ship on its aft next to two other scale models: a skyscraper that looked like one of the twin towers, and a 747.) "Even with Greenpeace, a group that's been doing nonviolent action for 30 years, they tried to make us look like terrorists," he says. The case was thrown out of court.
Meanwhile, few seem to be paying attention to another kind of eco-terror. For many environmentalists and politicians, eco-terrorism used to mean blowing up a nuclear plant or poisoning a water system -- actions that, unlike those of ALF or ELF, would deliberately put thousands or tens of thousands of lives at risk. Ironically, the post-9/11 crackdown on terrorism has stifled some of the organizations that used to draw attention to those threats. "Greenpeace used to go into nuclear plants, chemical plants," Passacantando says. "We don't do that anymore. We could -- the security there is terrible. We put out reports instead."
In a country where up to 80 percent of the citizenry professes some support for environmental protections, the environmental movement has somehow found itself on the fringes of the political discourse. In part, that's because people like Rush Limbaugh and John Stokes have been effective at reducing the image of the environmental movement to a group of little green Hitler elves, running around blowing things up.
Clearly, destroying private property in the name of the environment is a crime, and the few activists doing so are a proper focus of law enforcement. But equating ELF and ALF direct actions with the deadly attacks of terrorist groups fuels the anti-environmental rhetoric of the right and irresponsibly conflates two very different kinds of criminal activity. What we lose in the process is our grasp on both the real nature of environmentalism and the real nature of terrorism. For someone like John Stokes, who is only interested in exploiting his listeners' fear, the difference doesn't matter. For the rest of us, it should.
Correction, 11 Jul 2005: This article originally cited a Democratic spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security; it should have cited a Democratic spokesperson for the House Committee on Homeland Security.
Calling all radicals: Unite for Kerry-Boxer
Dispassion as the world ends: The absent heart of the great climate affair
Comments
View as Threaded
jdhlax Posted 4:42 pm
08 Jul 2005
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:20 pm
09 Jul 2005
And that plays into the hands of the corporatists. Non-vioelnce is the ONLY way.
Are these acts committed by the opposition disguised in out midst?
I think that is often the case.
A few bad actors have had a lot of publicity. It's the result of a tabloid mass media mass delusional culture.
Blog on micro-media! Fight the power!
Permalink
City Hippy Posted 10:24 pm
09 Jul 2005
I agree with the previous comments that the only way is through non-violence...violence just plays into their hands.
Calling someone a terrorist is as many of you will know, a classic fallacy of logic known as the 'ad hominem' fallacy - where you attack the man INSTEAD OF the issue.
To call anyone a terrorist is to distract from the issue. Ultimately anyone even using the word 'terrorist' to describe a person or act is probably not really interested in a serious debate about reality.
We can all affect bottom-up change by making positive changes around us. In terms of top-down change we need to get the right people into power in the first place.
PLUS we can all make sure that less and less of our money goes to those supporting anything remotely negative to people and planet.
No one can legislate how we consume as far as I know. That remains our most powerful weapon and the dark side's major 'death star' weakness!
As Grist previously said: 'The proper reaction to Bush's mind-bendingly disheartening victory is not to fight with more violence but to fight with more savvy.'
As Ghandi said: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win."
To me it sounds like we are winning and are in Ghandi's stage three - the Dark Side are attacking and already getting desperate...hang in there folks...change is afoot!
Thoughts?
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:03 am
10 Jul 2005
The connotations of words are culturally determined. Although I can thank the feminist movement for improving my life and the lives of my wife and daughters, I do not need to buck the fact that the word feminist has developed a negative connotation. Few people use it anymore to describe themselves. As always, the extremists of the movement can be blamed for the negativity. The now defunct, but once popular idea that males and females are only different on the outside and that little boys and girls could be feminized or masculinized as desired into androgynous humans is, thankfully, history. I suspect the same can be said for groups like fundamentalist Christians. Reasonable, tolerant individuals who once described themselves as such will drift away from the term, abandoning it to the intolerant, ignorant, extremists.
Vegans, animal activists, alternative energy enthusiasts, organic farming advocates, ALF,ELF, PETA, and many others all tend to flock together under the environmentalist umbrella. Although everything and everyone is related in some way, that does not necessarily mean we should all cram under one brightly colored and easily attacked parasol. I say, throw the umbrella away and let each group thrive or fail on their own merits. It is also much harder to hit multiple targets.
Permalink
irt Posted 5:30 am
10 Jul 2005
oponents (corporatists) bandying the words "eco-terrorism" (and the like) is the same as this redefinition of violence and we are playing into their hands by accepting and using this redefinition.
remember Jeff Luers was sentenced to almost 23 years in prison for the burning of a few SUV's - a sentence longer than is usual in Oregon state for murder and rape.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 6:51 am
10 Jul 2005
Yes, "environmentalist" is on the verge of being discredited. So too with "liberal" and "feminist," along with, to a lesser degree, "labor" and "internationalism," etc.
What do all these terms have in common?
Here's where you go wrong:
As always, the extremists of the movement can be blamed for the negativity. ... I suspect the same can be said for groups like fundamentalist Christians.
Here's the thing: No. The same can't be said for fundamentalist Christians. They have their extremists -- in fact, the extremists are right out in front, in public, every day -- but are they discrediting the movement? Far from it. Evangelical Christianity is one of the fastest growing political and social forces in the world.
Environmentalism, feminism, liberalism ... these are all progressive movements, challenging the powers that be in one way or another, and they are all being discredited by a campaign of slander, conflating the most extreme elements with the movement itself.
Evangelical Christianity, libertarianism, the anti-choice movement, nationalism ... these are all regressive movements, and they are conspicuously not being discredited, despite the prominent -- some might say central -- role of their own extremists.
So is it really true that "the extremists of the movement can be blamed," as you say? Or is there something more going on here?
Permalink
City Hippy Posted 11:01 am
11 Jul 2005
Every cause thus far has needed extremists...when they push further than most will go, the non-extremists can then fill in behind and offer a more 'reasonable' compromise which society is often more open to accepting. It is the good cop/bad cop routine on an ideological scale.
But is that approach working? Not in the environmental arena. It is polarising us into a war on many fronts and what good will that do?
Lets keep our objectives in focus here: to protect people and planet. More war is the last thing we need.
WHO ARE WE?
As for the word environmentalist...it does not matter what we call ourselves the dark side will still condemn us.
If we try to outsmart them by not having a name that would be even worse...they will just give us a name and it will not be flattering I am sure.
IT'S THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM:
Einstein tells us that you cannot solve a problem using the same mindset that created it...and yet some people still believe that anger and destruction is the way to solve...anger and destruction.
The sad fact is the law should be on our side when we are acting in the public interest. We should not even have to act in the public interest in the first place...isn't that the very purpose of the law? Sadly the law and policy mechanisms of most democracies (ahem) have corporate interests nearer to its ear and so the public interest is not generally served. Certainly corporate interests are served much more often than public interests.
All too often to defend the public interest when the law (so called) fails to do so results in criminalisation by the essentially corporate system.
Yet acting in corporate interest to the demonstrable detriment of the public interest is encouraged and rewarded.
That is the real issue that needs addressing: the re-balancing of corporate VERSUS public interest.
LET'S SMASH THE PLACE UP:
Does smashing up SUV's achieve anything? Does anyone suddenly wake up and make a change in their life for the better? What are the numbers on this? Anyone?
For me it seems to result in a net loss to the cause of affecting positive change and plays right into the dark sides hands.
What are the results of years of luddite destruction? Do we live in a more connected, greener and fairer world? No...we live in a consumer corporate hell! Yeah sure we win the occasional skirmish but we seem to be losing the war!
The destructive path even ultimately leads to the justification of the destruction of human life in the interest of the majority.
RESPECT MY AUTHORITY:
As WB Yeats says in the second coming:
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold.
For me the center is the law...and if it does not hold OR act in the public interest then the public tend to act in their own interest...that to me is extremely chaotic and dangerous and spells the downfall of society - which for me is a bad thing.
I believe that it is therefore our job to support and encourage a more public interest oriented legal system. We simply need to address the imbalance, to tilt it back in favour of the people. It can be done. History proves that.
Giving up, getting angry and smashing the place up simply results in criminal records, loss of credibility and a net loss to the cause we strive for...protection of people and planet.
We need a new approach. We must 'kill them with fairness'! It worked for Rosa Parkes, Ghandi and MLK...we just need to use the anger we feel...and we all feel it...more constructively...only then can we be free of the chains which bind us.
If you made it this far thanks for reading!
Namaste
CH
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:43 pm
11 Jul 2005
You said:
They have their extremists [fundamentalist Christians] -- in fact, the extremists are right out in front, in public, every day -- but are they discrediting the movement?
My answer is yes. They are discrediting themselves . They may have momentum on their side at the moment, but I am confident that most Americans are not on their side, as was true with the Moral Majority. The phrase "fundamentalist Christian" turns the stomach of most Christians and virtually all non-believers.
You said:
Environmentalism, feminism, liberalism ... these are all progressive movements, challenging the powers that be in one way or another, and they are all being discredited by a campaign of slander, conflating the most extreme elements with the movement itself.
So is it really true that "the extremists of the movement can be blamed," as you say? Or is there something more going on here?
You are right. Without the conservative propaganda mills singling out the extremists and fruitcakes and presenting them to a gullible and ignorant public as the norm, the problem would not be so extreme.
I do understand your frustration. Personally, I refuse to pick another label for atheist although several alternatives are now available (Secular Humanist, Bright, and on and on).
The official definition for environmentalist is extremely benign. On the other hand, if the word is destined to be associated with idiots who arson SUVs and labs just because they are doing genetic research on trees, then I would be willing to pick a new label. And it doesn't stop there. It seems to me that there is no shortage of marginal thinkers who wear the environmentalist badge (at the grass roots level at least). Limbaugh is shooting fish in a barrel. If all environmentalists had your intellectual firepower, Limbaugh would have to look elswhere for his amunution, but that is not the way it is.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 4:49 pm
11 Jul 2005
Furthermore, it's not "idiots who arson SUVs and labs 'just' because they are doing genetic research on trees," it's the idiots who own SUVs or do genetic research. If you participate in ecologically or environmentally destructive behaviors like these, you deserve whatever you get.
Permalink
City Hippy Posted 10:12 pm
11 Jul 2005
But I refuse to accept that the way to make the world a better place is to contribute to negativity and destruction.
Namaste
CH
Permalink
Brian Hosey Posted 4:12 am
12 Jul 2005
Ok, now as to the concerted effort to label environmentalists as terrorists: Such an effort is not based on literal truths, but is that really the issue? Think about the story of the tortoise and the hare. It would be ridiculous to say that the story is literally true. The idea of animals purposefully engaging in contests of physical prowess is silly. And yet the story has power because of the moral truth it conveys: slow and steady wins the race.
The current effort to craft a fable about environmentalists as terrorists weaves in a few literal truths but the main power of the fable is the moral truth it's attempting to convey: environmentalists care more about having pretty trees than they do about people having jobs. You can't defeat this type of story-telling by throwing facts at it. It's strength is that it resonates with people's beliefs--specifically the cynical belief that most people are selfish.
If we really want to cancel it out we need to tell our own story that resonates equally with people's other beliefs, beliefs like it's a small world and we need to find some way to share it wisely.
Let me tack on that we can't condemn "their" violence and yet claim "our" violence is okay. Violence is using force when one is too weak or too lazy to win with ideas. And yes, torching cars is violence. Fire scares people, and scared people are not likely to listen to our side tell our story of peace and sharing.
If we really want to demonstrate our commitment to the cause, how about we sacrifice some of our own cars in a coordinated, well publicised car-crushing event? People might still say we are crazy, but at least there might be some grudging respect thrown in as well.
On the positive side we do have good material to work with for crafting our stories. We are also doing a better job of telling our stories (go Grist!). If we continue to walk the walk and talk the talk, we will be the ones defining environmentalism and there will be no chance of the general public accepting anyone who calls us terrorists. We shouldn't surrender the label if we know we are right and are committed to winning it back.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 5:57 pm
12 Jul 2005
My point is that one's definition of violence depends on what one's priorities are. If your priorities are property rights and materialism, then you think that property destruction is violence. If your priorities are life, human or otherwise, you believe as the forum did.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 6:02 pm
12 Jul 2005
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:19 pm
12 Jul 2005
Arson and other destruction hurts our movement more than it helps. Period.
Think Ghandi, think King. Forget the destruction.
Stop infernal combustion with non-violent protests like the bike-ins.
Clogging traffic gets the point across without destruction.
Ethical relativism is the weapon of the neoconmen jd, just don't use it. Instead base our progress on rational, heartfelt, ethical principles that best defend mother earth.
Permalink
City Hippy Posted 12:46 am
13 Jul 2005
I agree we are in 'a desperate ecological and environmental state that calls for desperate actions where they'll be effective'.
I just do not believe the violence used IS effective or beneficial to the overall movement towards a greener and fairer world in either the short or long term.
In fact I do not believe any form of violence could be effective...sure slapping a kid stops the kid from biting his friend...but down the line...the violence has other impacts that need to be taken into account when assesssing the impact of the slap.
It is the same with regard to the environment. Sure destroying SUVs may remove those SUVs from the road...but there are other short and long term issues to consider here before we conclude that is the right way to go. Ultimately in my mind when we consider those issues we find that the result is in a net step back not forward.
Surely a better solution would be to get the car manufacturers into producing more and more ethical and green cars? Now that is a positive action and would compel people towards supporting the cause as opposed to violence that would repel people from the cause.
AND it is much more achievable AND the economy will suffer less AND people will suffer less AND people will not feel their lifestyle is being affected too much...which rightly or wrongly is the key to getting them to act AND it is peaceful not violent.
Love breeds love. Hate breeds hate!
Namaste
CH
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:19 pm
13 Jul 2005
Fight the power!! Clog up the arteries of the corporatist police state with non-violent protest!!!!
http://amazngdrx.myblogsite.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:26 pm
13 Jul 2005
These neo-conservatives are a whole different political animal bio-d.
They ought to be extinct. Poltical diversity should not include war for oily empire based on big lie tactics and destruction of mother earth for bottomline corporatist greed.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 6:03 pm
14 Jul 2005
Also, Ghandi and King both used non-violence as a tactic, not because they opposed violence under any circumstances. They just thought that they were sure to lose if they used violence.
City Hippy: In addition to what I said to Amazing I fully agree that we should always consider the long term consequences of our acts. In most instances, property destruction will cause more harm than good, so it shouldn't be used. However, you're both being absolutists about refusing to use or support a tactic that can sometimes save a piece of our Mother, which is more important than all the property in the world. There are instances where property destruction might be very good for the Earth.
This is off the subject, but I totally disagree with the idea that a parent should never slap a child. If you want to see natural parental behavior, watch the non-humans and you'll see parents whacking and biting their young when needed. What's not natural, and is also cruel and counterproductive, is beating a child or hitting him or her after the act being punished has occurred. But a slap on the butt during the act or immediately afterward is sometimes necessary. To a certain extent, might DOES make right, regardless of the fact that people like us don't like it. (Otherwise, the Native Americans would have defeated the Europeans and we wouldn't be here.) A child needs to learn that message or he or she will be in for a rude awakening. A child also needs to be taught, above all else, that the world does not revolve around him or her. Parents who are unequivocally opposed to slapping their children seem to think otherwise, to the detriment of the rest of us and the planet.
To both of you: Regardless of whether it helps or hurts, reading about SUVs or other Earth-destroying property go up in flames feels good viscerally. Therein lies part of the appeal of property damage.
Permalink
City Hippy Posted 9:24 am
15 Jul 2005
VIOLENCE
You are right! I am a moral absolutist...thanks! I believe in immovable boundaries of right and wrong and am proud of it. Regardless of the circumstances. That does not mean I do no wrong ever...life is not that black and white. But right is still right and wrong is still wrong. And that guides my action as far as possible. Violence is never right in my book...and if I use violence I pay a heady price via my soul and conscience.
I believe you are saying (correct me if I am wrong of course) that because the owner of the SUV is committing an act of violence against the planet that therefore gives us the right to use violence to stop them. Are you therefore saying that in some situations two wrongs DO make a right?
PLUS...if you burn someone's SUV...they will just go and buy another one...it is gonna be insured for sure. So you are actually helping to sell more of the damned things!
Better to use your energies to get the car companies to make greener cars and to get people to buy them.
And guess what...whilst violence against SUV's only hardens the resolve of SUV drivers and turns people away from joining us by making us look like extremists...more and more green cars are being built and bought and driven because of the moderate, not extremist, influences exerted by moderates and ultimately by consumers themselves.
It seems to me that you believe that punishing and preventing bad behaviour after the fact is important.
I believe that my energy is more efficiently spent trying to affect behaviour before the act rather than after.
You say: There are instances where property destruction might be very good for the Earth.
Can you please name at least one?
If to save the world we have to wage war...then what kind of world will we inherit even if we win!? Will it be worth it? I think not! There is always a more positive alternative. Always!
As John Lennon beautifully said: Fighting for peace is like f*cking for virginity!
SMACKING KIDS
Re smacking kids...for me, speaking personally, smacking my child would not be a good response by a parent in a stressful situation.
You said: To a certain extent, might DOES make right, regardless of the fact that people like us don't like it.
I say: not in my world.
Might does not MAKE right.
Might is totally NOT about right or wrong.
Might forces me to accept it AS right.
Right and wrong is about choice, about free will.
Might is about imposition and control.
Might may move the goalposts but it does not redefine right and wrong.
The First Nations peoples (or Native American's as you call them) were not wrong because they lost and the settlers were not right because they won. My point entirely. Right is not the issue. The settlers simply had more effective weapons. The settlers exerted control. What has right and wrong got to do with it?
Might does not make right. Might tells you to shut up and do as you are told or die!
The imposition of one's will over anothers' (ie parent over child) can never be a positive moral act in my mind. It teaches nothing other than 'the need for blind obedience' and the 'might makes right' mentality. Both of which are bad lessons for kids to learn in my view. It always strikes me as odd when parents catch their kid being violent and punish them using violence...irony or what eh?
I <SMACK> TOLD <SMACK> YOU <SMACK> NOT <SMACK> TO <SMACK> HIT <SMACK> YOUR <SMACK> SISTER <SMACK>!
Genius! How could that fail!
All my friends who have kids talk to their kids and explain to the kids what they have done when they do wrong. They do not punish negative behaviour...they want the kid to understand it.
They explain to the kid why it was wrong and why it must not be repeated and then invite their kid to take time out to think about it. And one of them has a two year old! AND IT WORKS!
No smacking required. No lessons that sometimes violence is justified.
Look forward to your reply
Namaste
CH
ps have you read livingstone's 'rogue primate'...I think you would enjoy it.
Permalink
Storm Dragon Posted 1:15 am
18 Jul 2005
Permalink
Japhet Posted 10:23 am
20 Jul 2005
The biggest problem with market activism (corporate campaigning) is getting their attention. You can't just roll into Bank of America headquarters and demand to see their CEO. People will laugh at you. They are powerful, busy people that do not have time for folks like you and me. If they did, there wouldn't be any such thing as corporate campaigning because all our requests would at least be dealt with upon first demand. So you need to get their attention (essentially, show them you mean business and its in THEIR best interest to sit down with you and talk eco-nomics). The way you do that is hit them where it leaves a mark, a mark that shows them we're not going away until they hear us out. Often its the size of a mosquito bite, other times its the size of a 2x4. And, even so they will most definitely ignore you for a good long while. Why do you think most of our campaigns extend into 2 year dedications? Its not because we're taking time off. What gets them to the table is consistent and unwavering pressure.
That being said, violence is never advocated or instiuted as a method at Rainforest Action Network. We have always and will continue to, focused on changing the world through non-violent direct action.
I love the above analogy with corporate targets as children and enviros being the parents. If only it was that easy! I think a more realistic analogy would be the enviros as the 8 year old kid warning their parents to stop cheating on each other before their marriage goes to the birds.
Once we get the attention of these coporations the discussion radically changes from "Us vs. Them" to "How can we work out an agreement/policy that works for both parties involved." You'd be amazed at how many of our former "targets" have become partners in leading corporate society into an environemntal future.
Great convo here and keep it up folks!
Permalink