Monday, December 24, 2007
Sometime last week, a small group of Lakota Sioux Indians withdrew from all treaties and declared their land an independent autonomous zone. The actor, libertarian politicians, and Indian rights activist Russell Means stated that, "we are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us." The newly free Sioux country plans on printing its own currency, passports, and driver licenses all while remaining tax-free for all who renounce their United States Citizenship for the newly created Sioux Nations.
Though the actions of Russell Means, a libertarian who has ran on the Republican ticket for Vice-President, and the small group of Sioux appears to be more of a media action than an actual threat to US power but it does bring up the importance of Dual Power in radical activism.
Dual Power, is a Leninist phrase that is the revolutionary creation of counter-institutions within a state. The goal of duel power is to provide alternative institutions that undermine the state by questioning the states sovereignty over police and welfare actions. The anarchist federation, Love and Rage, first incorporated dual power into American anarchist politics during the early 1990s. The group, attempted to posit dual power as being the central component of a revolutionary politics; taking from the Zapatista's the lesson that dual power organizing can threaten the state while revolutionaries engage in a protracted war against the state.
What does this mean in relation to the Lakota Sioux? In my opinion, the Sioux action has the potential to invigorate the importance of dual power within the Anarchist milieu for the first time since Love and Rage and also provides the first opportunity, since the height of the AIM movement in the 1970s, to provide the indigenous community of the US with community control. I personally see dual power to be an important part of Anarchist politics as it provides a much-needed space to create revolution spaces and allows for experimentation. As activists we can try different programs and engage in different tactics and see what works. It also allows for us, as a community, to set up community run programs organized to provide mutual aid, all while weakening the dependence of people on the state and empowering people to take their lives into their own hands. I personally, hold very little hope for this action. It is not because the Sioux cannot take care of themselves, it is more along the line that I do not trust Russell Means to provide any radical or revolutionary inspiration for the movement. This, if anything, appears to be a more legitimate and inspirational version of the Patriot Movement throughout the West. I hope that I am wrong and that the newly freed spaces do more for the people who live there and do more for the radical movement in the US more generally, I just do not see that happening. So Sioux nation prove me wrong!
Thursday, December 13, 2007
One of the biggest reasons people give for rejecting anarchism is their fear of what will happen in a world without police protecting them. To deal with this issue I want to look into two myths surrounding the police (with more to come later): first, that not all cops are bad, and secondly that they have a dangerous job.
Sometime in the next week or two, I will attempt to dispel two other myths: 1) that the cops are there to protect you and 2) the cops deter crime.
Myth 1: "Not all cops are bad"
The Chicago Tribune reports also claims that at least 12 of the people killed where shot in the back, often from very close range. In one of this instance Cornelious Ware, was shot to death by 5 plain clothes police officers who claimed they saw him wave a gun. His 15 and 13 year old siblings claimed otherwise. The forensics evidence came back and showed that the gun found at the scene had no blood on it, even though Ware was shot in the hand that was theoretically holding the gun.
Of course, the police officers where found to be free of all charges and let to go back to work. The civil courts found otherwise, as early this year a Chicago jury sided with the Wares and before the verdict came out the police department gave the family nearly 6 million dollars to keep quiet. The civil court found that the police officers shot and killed Ware and then placed a gun to cover their asses. They originally got off because the oversight board refused to interview people, miss quoted the witnesses (removing the fact that he was unarmed), and refused to look at the autopsy evidence. In addition, the protocol in the
What we have here is systemic police misconduct, abuses of power, and departmental cover-ups. It might not be earth shattering information for most people to hear this but it helps dispel the myth that "not all cops are bad." Why is this? Because, this expose shows that there is an institutional framework set-up within the
What also comes out of this story is how horrible a job police oversight boards do. These boards are always just rubber stamps for police decisions. Instead of looking into misconduct and attempting they instead just provide a legal cover-up for the police. The CopWatch program is a much better and more successful way of addressing and stopping police misconduct.
Myth 2: "Cops have a tough and dangerous job"
The other argument in defense of the police is that "they have a tough and dangerous job." This argument is also fallacious. If you look at the statistics there are 676,000 police officers in this country and last year and 147 died on duty (this includes all who died from heart attacks, car accidents, etc). This brings the death rate for police officers to be 21 per 100,000 putting them below carpenters, electricians, coal miners, convenience store workers, and about 30-40 other professions. This number is actually only slightly higher then the death rate in child-birth last year (which was 17 out of 100,000). So if you think the cops have a dangerous job what about the soon to be mothers who are putting their life on the line (nearly as on the line as the police are) in order to have a child? Or the roofer who is always one bad step from killing himself should be allowed the right to kill or maim people.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
To get people pumped up for the event the folks at the RNC Welcoming Committee are coordinating a roadshow and there will hopefully be one in Eugene. The welcoming committee plan to make the event enormous and want to try and shut down the convention. Being that there are countless groups planning on attending from throughout the country I would believe its a possibility. Let me know if anyone wants to help organize some events in Eugene in support of this. Everyone should try to attend! Minneapolis is a great town and easily one of the best cities in this country!
For your enjoyment here is a video from the RNC Welcoming folks. Try to notice all the neat Minneapolis historic spots.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
I do not normally like doing this but Will Potter, from green is the new red, has written an account of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (2006) that is being published in Herbivore magazine. This law has eroded what few civil liberties animal and environmental activists have - do any activists actually have any legitimate civil rights protections? Look at the police responses to anti-globalization protests and the illegal infiltration and spying on peace groups - and has became a legal way to infiltrate, spy, and imprison, non-violent activist. It is amazing that the Congress had not done anything, to my knowledge, that extended police powers and weakened civil liberties in order to destroy the white power, patriot, or anti-choice movements. Also, it should surprise no one that the democratic leadership walked in lock-step with the conservatives in the passing of this bill. It was even co-sponsored by Dianne Feinstein who worked with her good buddy James Inhofe, the most anti-environmental senator, to get this bill passed without a recorded vote.
By Will Potter
About this time last year, corporations and the politicians that represent them were steamrolling the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act through Congress with little discussion or debate.
The mainstream press barely batted an eye. And national animal protection groups didn’t either, until the bill passed the Senate and it looked like it might actually become law.
Most people still don’t know about the law, and Project Censored has gone so far as to name it one of the most important, yet underreported, news stories of the year.
Activist communities have been talking about it, though. And, of course, with talk comes plenty of speculation and misinformation. So with the hopes of clearing up some confusion, and educating animal folks so they can spread the word to others, here’s a rundown of some of the basics, kind of an “Animal Enterprise Terrorism” 101.
What is the Animal
It’s a federal law that was passed in late 2006, expanding a previous law called the “Animal Enterprise Protection Act,” and expanding the definition of “animal enterprise terrorism.”
But wait, isn’t that what put the SHAC 7 behind bars?
The SHAC 7 were convicted of “animal enterprise terrorism” under the original law (not the new one) for running a controversial website [link: http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/newred/] that posted news of both legal and illegal actions against an animal testing company, and adamantly supported all of it with plenty of snotty, fiery rhetoric.
They weren’t accused of actually doing the illegal things they posted on their website (breaking windows, or rescuing animals from labs), but the government said that through their website and their words they were guilty of “conspiracy.” So they were convicted of “conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act,” “conspiracy to stalk,” and “conspiracy to harass using a telecommunications device.”
So how is this different than the original law?
Supporters say the biggest difference is that the new law expands the definition to include so-called “tertiary targeting.” So, the terrorism law not only protects a factory farm, for instance, but now it officially protects any business that does business with the factory farm. (That’s kind of how the anti-apartheid movement worked, too).
To say this is “new,” though, is B.S. The SHAC 7 were convicted of doing exactly that. They didn’t directly target Huntingdon Life Sciences: they targeted the businesses that did business with Huntingdon Life Sciences. AETA may make the “tertiary targeting” language official, but it’s not a new power.
A more significant difference, though, is that politicians took a law that was already vague and overly broad and made it even more vague and even more broad. It expands the law to punish actions that instill a “reasonable fear” in employees of an animal enterprise, or their families. The problem is that corporations have taken out full-page ads in the New York Times [link: http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/2006/05/12/washpost-ad/] and launched PR campaigns to label activists as “terrorists,” and make the unreasonable seem reasonable.
The biggest change, though, is perhaps one of the most minute. Labeling the law the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was a calculated decision. It’s meant to send a very clear and chilling message to animal advocates, and make lawful, everyday folks afraid of being labeled a “terrorist” in post-9/11
(A blow by blow look at the law is available at GreenIsTheNewRed.com).
Has anyone been prosecuted under this new law?
No. Ricardo Solano, one of the prosecutors in the SHAC 7 case, has been touting the passage of the AETA and promising industry groups that if animal activists “cross the line, the federal government will not stand idly by.” But so far, the government has not tried to use this new law.
And the previous law, which had been on the books since 1992, was only used twice. Once in the case of Justin Samuel and Peter Young, two activists who released mink from fur farms. And the other in the case of the SHAC 7.
Will I be labeled a terrorist for protesting or leafleting?
I doubt it, for a few reasons. And I should be clear, that’s not because of the language in the law “exempting” First Amendment activity. Anyone with any experience covering Congress or working on the Hill knows that’s hogwash. No law can blatantly outlaw First Amendment activity. Saying, “Trust us! It’s Constitutional!” doesn’t make it so.
Still, I don’t think people should be overly concerned of being rounded up as terrorists for doing something like leafleting outside a KFC. First, there’s limited law enforcement and “anti-terrorism” resources. I think this country is going down a very dangerous path, in terms of rolling back civil liberties, but things aren’t quite that bad (yet).
Second, corporations put a lot of money and resources into pushing this law, and I think they realize that using it to go after something like leafleting or protesting would immediately put it in jeopardy.
What about if I [insert legal or illegal tactic here]?
I don’t mean this is a cop-out, because it is important to question the scope of the law. But, in many ways, when you start asking this question, the law has already done its damage. When you start altering your legal actions and scaling back your nonviolent activism because you’re afraid of this legislation, then the law has already accomplished what its supporters intended.
Who was behind this?
Supporters include the usual suspects Herbivore readers know and love: National Association for Biomedical Research, Fur Commission USA, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Wyeth, United Egg Producers, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and many more. Even the
How the hell did this pass?
It passed the Senate by unanimous consent, with the support of key Democrats including Senator Diane Feinstein: it was rushed through in the middle of the night just hours before Congressional recess for November elections.
It passed the House on the very first day back from the elections, by an obscure procedure called “suspension of the rules” that is meant for non-controversial legislation (like, on the same day, renaming a bridge after the man who created the Roth IRA). Only half a dozen lawmakers were in the room.
Wasn’t Dennis Kucinich the only one to vote against it?
No. Dennis Kucinich spoke against the bill. However, no lawmakers present on the floor of the House, including Kucinich, called for a roll call vote, which would have shown that there weren’t enough members of Congress in the room for a legitimate vote.
So what do we do?
I never quite know how to respond to this. I created GreenIsTheNewRed.com as a clearinghouse for news and analysis of the Green Scare: what to do with this information is up to you. So, I’ll turn the tables here. What needs to be done to successfully fight the “Green Scare”? What’s the appropriate response to legislation labeling activists as “terrorists”? How should activists deal with the chilling effect of this “eco-terrorist” scare-mongering?
Defending basic civil liberties in this ever-growing “War on Terrorism” will mean reaching out to other animal activists, other social movements, and the general public to try to answer these questions.
For more ways to raise awareness about the Green Scare, check here.
Monday, December 3, 2007
From Portland Indymedia:
Former animal liberation prisioner Peter Young speaks about his time in prison, going underground for animal liberation and more.
| There will also be a free vegan meal provided by Food Not Bombs and the presentation of the documentary about the ALF, "all my heroes wear masks" www.uncagedfilms.com.|
where? University of Oregon, PLC 180 eugene, or
when? thursday december 6 @ 6pm
admission is free, and there will be a distro and more info about animal rights campaigns
Babylon and Beyond: The Economics of Anti-capitalist, Anti-Globalization and Radical Green Movements by Derek Wall
First my first book review on this site, I will be reviewing Derek Wall's new book. Derek Wall is a major player in the English Greens and is currently serving as the Principal Speaker of the Greens in
His new book Babylon and Beyond is an attempt to map out the current anti-globalization folks and provide a primer on their economic beliefs. He looks at: liberal criticism (George Soros and Joseph Stiglitz), the greens, different strands of 21st century Marxism, and Anarchista and Autonomists. The book does a wonderful overview of the mainstream major players (Soros, Klein, Hardt and Negri) but is very weak when it comes to any of the anarchist or "third world" strands of anti-globalization. The section on Soros and Stiglitz was the one I knew the least about and provided useful commentary on these die-hard wealthy liberals who have come to reject neo-liberal globalization. Both of these individuals are supports and early followers of philosopher Karl Popper. Popper was a philosopher and professor at the London School of Economics and became well known as a rationalist, an empiricist and as a positivist. Popper's most famous book, The Open Society and It's Enemies is a philosophical attack against state-communism and authoritarian regimes and a defense of liberal open societies.
Soros is a billionaire who made the majority of his fortune in the futures market, often buying and selling currencies. Since became a billionaire Soros has become the largest contributor to left-leaning liberal organizations, such as move on and the Daily Kos. Soros took from Popper the concern over an open society and created his philanthropic organization, the Open Society Institute, and turned his attention away from communist (though still attacked them) to unrestrained neo-liberal capitalism.
My main problem with Walls account of this section is his willingness to see these two figures as real critics to the current order and overstating their radical stances. He quotes Stiglitz as saying "For decades, people in the developing world have rioted when the austerity programs imposed on their countries proved to be too harsh…what is new is the wave of protest in developed countries" (quoted in Wall, 25). In response to this quote, which appears to be nothing more than descriptive and provides no normative opinions from Stiglitz, Wall states, "Stiglitz comes closer to endorsing violence against economic repression than any other commentator outside of autonomist anarchism" (Wall, 25). This sort of language permeates this section, with Wall constantly quoting and over-analyzing the statements of Soros and Stiglitz, making them more radical and more of a threat to the neo-liberalism then they are. Though Wall does question their radicalism, he does so by just positing that their policies might be a way for capitalism to save face in an uncertain time (just like the New Deal programs in the 1930s).
In addition, Wall contends that Popper and Karl Polanyi have influenced all the strands of the anti-globalization movement, if intentional or not. I find this very hard to believe, especially with the position of the autonomists and anarchists (especially green anarchists) who reject market systems and the conception of rational actors.
The other major section, for me and probably the people who read this blog, was the chapter on Autonomists and Anarchists. As a quick background, autonomists are followers (in a very loose sense of the word) of autonomists Marxist theories that became popular throughout
The lasting, tactical, legacy from this theory is the concept of the black-block. In the black bloc people dress entirely in black - originally black was chosen since that was the color most squatters had - with bandanas, baklavas, or gas masks covering their face. The outfit makes it impossible for the authorities to tell people apart and limits their ability to identify those involved. The goal of the black bloc is to "break the spell" and through acts of violence, often against property (can you be violent against property?) lull people out of the complacency of everyday life. Their tactics are meant to demystify the power of the state, the sanctity of private property and empower individuals to take action into their own hands.
In this chapter, Wall spends the vast majority discussing the Autonomists and Hardt and Negri's Empire. Wall seems rather sympathetic with this work, and though he disagrees with the tactic of property damages, seems to be a fellow traveler with them. What Wall show is his contempt for eco-anarchism, especially neo-primitivism by stating that,
The most extreme green anarchists, who reject civilization and see a society rooted in the primitive, draw heavily upon the work of John Zerzan. Zerzan, originally an autonomist, has argued that even such institutions as written language and agriculture function as instruments of social control (Zerzan 1999). The great refusal demands that we re-create a primitive society. Although suchtheorizing appears insanely extreme, primitivists point to studies such as Marshal Sahlin's The original Affluent Society (1972)" (Wall 135)
In this quote, Wall, first off compares all anti-civilizational anarchists with John Zerzan, something I am sure that Dave Watson and the fifth-estate folks would disagree with, and also creates a shallow argument/Strawman for Zerzan. He does not go into detail and explain why Zerzan opposes civilization or modern technology. Though I disagree with Zerzan on many issues, most importantly the issue of language, I feel that Wall did not give much credence to Zerzan and simply glossed over the primitivist argument without any reason.
From here Wall uses the works of Bookchin and other, more traditional anarchists, to criticize Zerzan and seems to be more willing to accept Bookchin or Goldman's rationalist approaches to anarchism then the more openly "irrational" and individualistic.
Either way, the section on Anarchism is very short and other then the small criticism of Zerzan and anti-civilizational anarchism, he spends no time talking about of anarchists activists in popularizing and motivating the anti-globalization movement. He does give some respect to the Spanish anarchists in the 1930s and their use of affinity groups (and its importance on modern day social movements) but at no point supported their perspective. He even failed to mention the selling out of anarchists by Marxists - Leninist, Stalinists, or Maoist- that happened throughout the 20th century.Overall, Walls book is a decent overview of different strands of globalization and does a good job discussing the green movement and 20th century Marxist theories. His big weakness comes in discussing the Anarchist influences in the globalization movement and his unquestioned support for the red-green activists (he gives a glowing review of Foster's book Marx's Ecology and almost every other eco-socialist out there). He also appears to have a profound support for Zen Buddhism and believes that by combining Zen teaching with green-socialist perspectives that you can provide a theory that is both local and universal.
I give this book 2 power fists out of 5. I would use it for a class as an intro to anti-globalization beliefs but but I feel that it does not provide much depth at all and tries to cover too much in a short space (less than 200 pages). I would recommend Walls book on Earth First and the Anti-Roads movement over this one any day.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
It has been a while since I have updated my blog. The last week has been very busy and its not like anything important came out in the news or happened in the world. Hopefully over the weekend, since its Thanksgivings weekend and I should finally have some free time I can catch up on some of the news floating around.
For tonight, I want to write about the new IPCC report that came out a few days ago. I have not had time to read it all, being that its well over 1,000 pages, and I probably never will. What I have found out is…that all our previous contentions about the cataclysmic effects of global climate changer were actually wrong and its actually much, much, worse then we thought.
According to leading scientists global climate change is occurring three times quicker than they had originally speculated. This is directly the result of human CO2 emission increasing three fold from the 1990 figures. The big difference between the 1990s and today is the rise of China and other mal-developing nations and their increasing dependence on the black crude heroin.
What this means is that we, as a species, need to find a way to drastically, and I do mean drastically, reduce our C02 emission stat. The vast majority of American’s will probably place the blame on China and other developing nations, neglecting the fact that the United States has been the leading source of CO2 emissions for around a hundred years and because of this has a responsibility to act. Others will probably look to new shiny technologies to fix the problem. Sort of like Popular Sciences number 1 green technology of the last year, nanosolar. Of course, nanosolar seems like a vast improvement over coal, natural gas, and nuclear power, and it is. But, this is not a long-term solution to any problem. Fixing nanosolar to every building will lower the amount of coal and oil that needs to be burned for electricity but it does nothing to stop our dependence on the automobile (think how far the average tomato travels, that traveling has to create CO2). I am sure that it also has many negative consequences that we are not yet aware of. For one, I am sure that their nano-particle ink has some sever environmental problems in either its extraction phase (it has to come from somewhere, at least until we invent magic) or in the recycling phase (it has to go somewhere as well).
So, for now nanosolar and other technologies might help the situation but they are band-aid solutions that do not address the root source of the problem. That root source is our belief in never ending economic growth and the centralization of government agencies. These are the real things we need to confront. We need to, first off, reject capitalism and move towards a locally produced, sustainable existence, which will necessarily require a radical reduction and/or abolition of government, as we know it. On top of this, we will see the end of major cities (cities are at their very heart unsustainable places to live) and a mass migration from the cities back towards the local village. By rejecting the gospel of growth and radically decentralizing, or abolishing, governmental institutions we can localize our life. This is the only long-term way to even come close to addressing global climate change.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
It appears that The Onion has taken over the job as Paris Hilton's publicist. According to an associate press report, she has decided to fight elephant alcoholism in India. That is right, Paris Hilton is fighting to stop elephants from binge drinking. It appears that Elephants are getting drunk of off a home-brewed rice beer and destroying electrical poles and other property.
Because I just cannot explain this any better I will let Paris speak about her newfound cause:
"The elephants get drunk all the time. It is becoming really dangerous. We need to stop making alcohol available to them... There would have been more casualties if the villagers hadn't chased them away. And four elephants died in a similar way three years ago. It is just so sad."
Not surprisingly drunken or destructive elephants are controversial issue in many areas of rural India. To some the animals are sacred and should be protect while others see their increasingly destructive behavior as a cause for concern. A local activist Sangeeta Goswami, head of animal rights group People for Animals, discussed Paris's comments and stated: "I am indeed happy Hilton has taken note of recent incidents of wild elephants in northeast India going berserk after drinking homemade rice beer and getting killed....As part of her global elephant campaign, Hilton should, in fact, think of visiting this region literally infested with elephants."
At least one person in the article understood why the animals are getting drunk. Soumyadeep Dutta, who heads Nature's Beckon, said that "Elephants appear on human settlements ... because they have no habitat left due to wanton destruction of forests."
Overall, this story made me think of an article in the book Igniting a Revolution: Voices in Defense of the Earth (published by AK Press) that argues that elephants that destroy powerlines, monkeys that ravage government buildings, ect... are an expression of non-human direct action against environmentally destructive development. Because of this, we should treat them as political prisoners or martyrs in the eco-war.
Monday, November 12, 2007
A recent oil spill off the coast of
Friday, November 9, 2007
This study also shows the controlling power of genetic research. These mice are able to have certain fears removed at a genetic level. This is a sign of the next stage of domestication; genetically removing certain traits that are not beneficial for domestic animals such as fear, rage, depression, ect. This story made me think of Douglas Adams Restaurant at the End of the Universe and the genetically engineered cattle that not only wanted you to eat them but also expressed it vocally. How long is it before we have little white mouse expressing their desire to catch cancer and bunnies that love burning chemicals in their eyes?
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Of course, these half-brained attempts are not nearly enough. At least one person in Georgia realizes the problem: "It's amazing that things have come to this," said Ray Weidman, owner of an Atlanta landscaper business. "Everybody knew the growth was coming. We haven't had a plan for all the people coming here?" Yep, the problem for Georgia is they have had increased growth, increased development, and increased agro-business all with no attempt to conserve or preserve what few water sources the state has. in fact, the biggest source of drinking water, Lake Lanier is already less than three months from being dry.
To be fair to Georgia this not a problem that only they are facing. Many cities, and regions, throughout the United States and the world are coming to realize that water is not an infinite resource. One can only assume that as weather patterns become more erratic and temperatures increase that droughts will only increase throughout the world (as will floods). The cosmic irony of all this is that as water sources in George, and Western United States (Southern California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico) are all drying up the ocean waters will probably rise (and in fact about 1/10th of the worlds population will either be flooded or refugees or about 643 million people) and other areas will be under constant barrage from hurricanes and rainstorm.
From the New York Times Science Section- It seems that researchers at Yale's Psychological Studies department have written a paper discussing the ability of capuchin monkeys to rationalize their decisions. In their study they found that the monkeys rationalized choices in a way similar to 4 year-olds. Of course when the Yale researchers had to choose between stating that "monkeys and children have 'richer motivational complexity' than we realize" or that the scientific "ways of dealing with cognitive dissonance are 'mechanistically simpler than previously thought" they of course choose the later. It appears that the scientists refused to accept that monkeys are more complex and "human-like" then they currently think and instead just lowered the value of rationalizing. Obviously it cannot be that important if monkeys, underdeveloped children, and amnesiacs can do it. No matter what they claim, this does question how separate and unique humans are from other animals. If rationalizing and cognitive dissonance isn't what makes humans "unique" and "superior" to other animals what does?
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
The human created world that surrounds us is in constant need of maintenance and support. This is an obvious statement to any one that has spent time walking through the woods and come across an old junk car or an old railroad spike . These human-made objects are at most 50 years old, and are already over come with rust and degradation. The few objects that have survived for hundreds, if not thousands of years, have either had constant upkeep, where made of fine and treated material (not the disposable products of the last 50 plus years of human existence) or where fossilized and preserved through random dumb luck. What this means is the artificial, human world, that surrounds us - the houses, the roads, the high-speed internet cables, the subways, ect- that make our current lives "easier," "more manageable" and "privileged" is incredible fragile, as can be seen in this photo gallery. Without constant upkeep, without reproducing and manufacturing new products, the vestiges of human civilization will have a short lived existence. How long do we give our current, cookie cutter, homes before the cement foundation and floor is broken open by roots, till water destroys the roof and warps and rots the wood, until the entire home and neighborhood is reclaimed by natural forces? One year? A decade?
This topic has been brought up by the author Alan Weisman in The World Without Us. In this book, Weisman argues that the vast majority of the human artificial world would degrade and be overcome by natural forces within a few years. The
This does not mean that life, either human or otherwise, will not flourish on the Earth. Many environmentalists, radical or not, seem to believe that we are killing the world; that the Earth itself is in danger of destruction. The comedian George Carlin put it best on The View when he said:
GEORGE CARLIN: The planet is fine. The people are fucked. Because everyone is trying to save the planet. The planet doesn’t need that. The planet will take care of itself. People are selfish. And that's what they're doing is trying to save the planet for themselves to have a nicer place to live. They don't care about the planet in theory. They just care about having a comfortable place. And these people with the fires and the floods and everything, they overbuild, they put nature to the test and they get what's coming to them. That's what I say….There are places that are going to go away. The map is going to change and that's because -- people think nature is outside of them. They don't take into them the idea that we are part of it. They say, "oh, we're going for a nature walk. We're going to the country because we like nature." Nature is in here. And if you're in tune with it, like the Indians, the Hopis, especially, the balance of life, the balance, the harmony of nature, if you understand that, you don't overbuild. You don’t do all this moron stuff. There are too many people-
George is right. The planet will take care of itself. When humans stop laboring to reproduce and maintain the artificial environment surrounding us, it will fall apart, degrade, and slowly compost away. Everything but the toxic waste, CO2 emissions, and nuclear byproducts of current human systems. What we can be certain of is that life will continue on this planet. My only hope is that we, as a species, will be part of that life.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Well, I need to work on a first post and I feel that the best use of this space is to provide a bunch of links for those interested in the topic. Please check out these other sites. They all have great information and are a resource for anyone trying to learn about this topic. Hopefully over the next week or so I will spend some time coming up with a glossary of terms and maybe a brief history of revolutionary and radical environmentalism.
Green is the New Red- http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog
This is a very well done blog that covers the government war against radical and revolutionary environmentalists. This is the best source for up-to-date news regarding the green scare and federal prosecution of environmental activists
Green Scare - http://www.greenscare.org
Speaking of the green scare. This is the site to get any and all information regarding those who are being persecuted or are incarcerated for suspected environmental and animal liberation activities. This is a great source for the history of the green scare and Operation Biteback, and for biographical and support information for environmental political prisoners.
Earth First Journal- http://earthfirstjournal.org/
This is the website for Earth First! which is a loose collection of environmental groups that share a biocentric world view, support non-violent direct action/civil disobedience, and promote a no-compromise perspective. The group has been going strong since 1980 and has undergone many different shifts and stages.
Earth Liberation Front - http://earthliberationfront.com/
Here is the website for the ELF. It is a shell of what it used to be when Craig Rosenbaugh and Leslie James Pickering ran the North American Earth Liberation Front Press Office from 1996 to 2001ish. The new site has some updates on actions and some information on green scare but is mostly now a way to find out about cheap Viagra. Overall the biggest problem with the site is its layout; it is incredibly hard to find anything on the site.
Biteback is, in my opinion, the best resource for animal liberation actions. The journal, and the website, has a quick link to actions that have happened and has articles and interviews with important members of the Animal Liberation movement. Want to know more about Animal Lib. go here.
Animal Liberation Front Press Office- http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/
This is the official link for the Animal Liberation Front press office. It is am alright source for information and has most of the released communiqués on file. It is also a decent source for news and background on the ALF. I find biteback to be better, if you order the journal.
Green Anarchy Journal- http://www.greenanarchy.org/
This is the most well known and most influential anti-civilizational journal in the
Fifth Estate- http://www.fifthestate.org
This is the longest running anarchist periodical in the
Green Theory and Praxis- http://greentheoryandpraxis.csufresno.edu/main.asp
This is an exciting academic journal started by Mark Somma, who is a professors of Political Science from Cal. State Fresno. They come out with a new issue biyearly and so far every issue, though small, has been incredibly interesting. The last issue, August 2007, has a movie called "Testify: Ecodefense and Political Violence" that I recommend. The best article, in my humble opinion, is the August 2006 one by Anthony Nocella and Steven Best titled "Revolutionary Environmentalism: An Emerging New Struggle for Liberation." This article is a great overview of revolutionary environmentalism both philosophically and historically. There is a shorter variant of it in the book Igniting a Revolution: Voices in Defense of the Earth published by AK Press.