You freaks really are nutbars.

I’ve been telling people for years that as soon as the pacified communists among us, many of them wearing the mantle of ‘environmentalist,’ felt pushed into a corner they would return to their violent amoral ways. The GW propaganda has been so ’successful’ because of the traitors within who work in the mainstream news media and in various NGOs whose expensive non-grassroots commercials run continuously to brainwash an ignorant public.

I have one message for you eco-commies: “My grass is green, and stay the hell off of it!”
http://www.willowtown.com/promo/links.htm

(It was taken down twice, so I added this the last time I posted):
Gee, for some reason this keeps disappearing off your web page. You must have a malfunction. Like the general “Liberal” hatred of reality and disrespect for the ‘freedom of speech’ of anyone who doesn’t stupidly go along with your garbage.

We certainly have to have a diversity of tactics; that’s not in question. You have to be careful, though, of defining violence differently from how it is perceived publicly. I think most people would consider property destruction violent, even though it doesn’t physically harm a living thing. Similarly, most people would consider driving or flying violent. I understand where you’re coming from on all those assessments, but defining your terms differently from those we need on our side gets us nowhere. In fact, acting on these unconventional definitions may be less effective in achieving change than working through the system.

I personally believe that the most effective avenue for creating positive environmental change is through the political and business arenas. That is where power lies, and those with power must be influenced to make better decisions. Will property destruction thus influence them? I don’t think so.

-Alex

Indian independence. Ostensibly spearheaded by Gandi. In fact, the British empire was over-extended and being defeated militarily. There were numerous riots. And in the end, India just got neo-colonized.

The civil rights movement. We all hear about MLK, but what about the BPP and violent race riots?

The Vietnam war. Was it peaceful protest at home? The US was being defeated militarily. If not for the violent resistance of the Viet Cong, there would have been no peace. Not only was the US losing militarily, but its own soldiers were killing their officers… Additionally, there were violent movements domestically - dozens of bombings of military installations - ROTC, recruitment centers.

The last chapter in the myth is the movement against the Iraq war. Before the US invaded, there was a larger world-wide nonviolent demonstration than ever beofre. MILLIONS in the streets. Didn’t make a drop of a difference…

It’s important we’re very clear what is meant by violence.

For me, violence is an action which knowingly harms a living thing. In this light, everything contributing to global warmign is violence. Using power that comes from coal is violence, driving a car is violent, flying all over the globe is violent.

Property destruction is not violent. In fact, it may be an act of peace if that property is used for violent ends - i.e. police cars, military recruitment centers, coal plants, banks that hold accounts for weapons contractors and environmental rapists, etc.

We musn’t use tactics that violate our own principles, but we must support a diversity of tactics in this movement. Unless there is a threat to the powers that be, no progressive movement will ever achieve anything.

I believe you’re misconstruing the kind of nonviolent action that is being advocated for here. The appropriate analogy is not to walking past the rape scene; that’s the same as not doing anything. The appropriate analogy is to rushing in and demanding that the rapist get off of the woman, and standing your ground even when he pulls a knife or something on you. You will note that in the analogical instance of physically trying to fight the rapist, you’re likely gonna get the shit kicked out of you as well.

It’s an interesting philosophical issues as to which of violence and non-violence is more courageous. Courage is defined as the ability to face danger with confidence and resolution, without submitting to fear. Both violent and nonviolent action certainly both involve confidence and resolution, and the best kind of each certainly involve a suppression of fear. I think there are few issues to consider: 1. Which kind of action involves greater danger, 2. Which action is more resistant of fear, and 3. Which one involves more confidence and resolution.

1. In both actions, you’re likely to be arrested, though perhaps you risk a longer sentence and a greater likelihood of arrest in violent action. In terms of physical danger to one’s person, I’d say both are equal. In violent action against people, you may be more likely to be fought back against, but in nonviolent action you have no way of protecting yourself if you are assaulted. So, clearly both involve a certain amount of danger, and the level depends on the specific situation.

2. Clearly both actions involve resistance to fear. Any clear statement involving threat of danger involves resistance of fear. It’s hard to differentiate between the two on this count, but it seems to me that one would be more fearful if one wasn’t actively fighting back physically than if one were doing so. And again, of course, this question depends on the individual situation and the level of experience of the protester. A more experienced nonviolent protester will probably be less fearful than an inexperienced violent protester, and vice versa.

3. Again, clearly both involve confidence and resolution. It seems to me, though, (and I could be misunderstanding violent action) that violent protest is more hidden, perhaps acting at night to avoid detection, whereas nonviolent action is ALWAYS visible and in-your-face, because otherwise nonviolence would be pointless (hunger strikes wouldn’t work if you didn’t tell anyone, nor would chaining yourself to a tree work if you only did it at night). I think it takes more confidence and resolution to do something out in the open with everyone watching than it does to do it secretively, even if the secret action holds graver legal danger.

So, I must conclude that which type of action is more courageous totally depends on the situation and the people and threats involved, though generally they involve about equal courage.

So I think the issue is not really about courage (I mean, I don’t really care if your action is courageous or not), but instead whether it accomplishes what needs to be accomplished. And it is my understanding and observation that working within the system gets the long-term job done much better than violent action, which may get the desired short-term solution but does little for the long-term.

Conservatives and oil addicts tend to look more at the short term than the long term. Isn’t that one of the points we criticize them on? Wouldn’t it be rather hypocritical and silly to do the same?

This statement makes no sense whatsoever. Let’s say you’re walking down a city sidewalk and you walk past an alley where you see a woman being raped by a man much bigger than you. Does it take more courage to keep walking or to go try to physically force the man off of her?

Let’s say a forest is being clearcut beside your home. Does it take more courage to start a petition against the loggers or to go on the logging site and destroy some of the killing machines? Keep in mind that I’m not asking what is more effective, but what takes more courage.

It takes far more courage to fight the killers than to use tactics that the system responsible for the killing deems acceptable. If you won’t fight against the destruction/rape of the earth and the poisoning of your body and the bodies of those you love, what will you fight for?

thank you for your posts!

R Margolis,

how is high-tech “sustainable”?