Gristmill has commented before on what seems a fairly coordinated push by the feds -- assisted by far-right media types -- to hype "eco-terrorism" as the next big domestic threat. This serves three overlapping goals:
- It stokes fear and anxiety about terrorism generally, which can only serve the interests of the executive branch of government.
- Classifying acts as terrorism rather than simple crime (arson, theft, vandalism) substantially expands the police powers that can be brought to bear, in terms of surveillance, search and seizure, etc.
- It demonizes a political force that has sought, and in many cases successfully secured, legal and regulatory restraints on corporate power.
On June 12, PBS is running a documentary called "The Fire Next Time," about the incredible strife in and around Kalispell, Mont., over environmental issues. In part, that strife has been exacerbated by the inflammatory rhetoric of a talk radio DJ named John Stokes, who says of environmentalists, "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."
Today in Grist, an essay by Michael Kavanagh examines this sort of rhetoric,
alongside FBI efforts to cast "eco-terrorism" as the next big thing, and asks
what effect it's having, both on our sense of environmentalism and our sense
of real terrorism.
- new in Main Dish: The Terror of Our Ways
Comments
View as Flat
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?
http://cityhippy.blogspot.com
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.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
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?
www.grist.org
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
City Hippy (http://cityhippy.blogspot.com)
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.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
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
City Hippy (http://cityhippy.blogspot.com)
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
City Hippy (http://cityhippy.blogspot.com)
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.
City Hippy (http://cityhippy.blogspot.com)
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!
Jay Els
Educate, Motivate and Bring About Change. http://www.ran.org
Permalink