Jack Burns Lives!

I think activism in your daily life is very important also. It’s easy to not be swayed by the preaching of someone like Al Gore. When it’s your friend, family or another close personal connection I think it makes all the difference in the world because they already trust you. I see things changing, but from a local grassroots level, not from the top down. I think that’s going to be important. The politics of the issue, confuse and frustrate me. The current idea of growth will be the end of us. It’s sad, not so much for me as a human, but to see the beauty of the land disrespected so people can have their “shiny things.” Today on the radio a man called in and was talking about how we need to be energy independent. Of course, this only took the form of oil. If people would wake up and realize that it’s possible today. You don’t need the government to use more oil shale in the Rockies or Coal from the Alleghenies to be independent. Ride your bike, live in a smaller house, buy a more fuel efficient car, make your own bio-diesel. Hell I have a friend who’s my age that sells air filters to truckers that just so happens to come with 20 gallons of Bio-diesel that he makes himself. That’s the kind of energy indepedence we need. The old american way of doing things by being creative and have the balls to try and make a difference yourself…and if you aren’t ready to do that, shutup about it. Just because you can’t fill up your Expedition for under 2 bucks doesn’t give you the right to bitch about it. It’s the free market, and if you love Capitalism so much be prepared to deal with these types of things. My good friend and future politician brought up the whole energy independence thing to me today too so I’m kinda on an internal rant about it which just so happened to spill over into your post. Have a good one – Sean

“You cannot fight destruction and violence with destruction and violence.”

Well tell that to the people who stopped the Vietnam War (The Vietcong), those who put an end to slavery in this country or apartheid in South Africa.

As for Chelsea interview:
Though she tries to paint herself as an honorable person who took responsibility for her actions she is in fact a cowardly snitch. She sold out the earth, animals, movement and all she fought for not to mention her former friends she worked with. She claims she is not a good liar but she seems fairly comfortable misleading listeners in order to put her self in a positive light. After Chelsea began cooperating two other former elves where arrested and imprisoned and she is she is scheduled to testify against Briana Waters – http://supportbriana.org/ – who faces trial early next year. Her cooperation helped to make those things possible.

After Chelsea gave up her covert sabotage activities she may have simply immersed herself in a music community but others like Bill Rodgers, and Daniel McGowan continued to engage in radical activism. Maybe Fitz Cahall could have done some background research and mentioned that.

The Vietcong didn’t stop the Vietnam war. The war stopped because there was no longer any popular support for it at home. At least according to Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. But I do defend the right of people being attacked to defend themselves. However, that defense does bring more violence.

And the Civil War wasn’t fought to end slavery. Another misconception taught in pre 1877 history classes. Slavery was only one of many issues, not the least of which were economic. Apartheid isn’t a good example either.

Regardless, the use of violence or force against the powers that be in this country is foolish thinking. I hear NRA types talk a lot about how guns are our best defense against tyranny. Afraid not. The ability of the common man to defeat the government with his revolver, rifle or shotgun ended with the invention of the Gatlin Gun. You’re overmatched.

A better approach is the Atiko Move.Use their own force to bring about their downfall. You learn this in Taoist thought. Never meet force with force.

Radical activism means many things, not just the use of arson (which is incredibly environmentally destructive) to achieve your goals. Radical activism can also mean simply walking away and refusing to participate or support the dominant meme.

Thanks for stopping by, Dana.

Well the main thing I wanted to say was that Chelsea Gerlach should not be believed, admired or given a platform to voice her side of the story.

As for violence:
I do not support every action of the ELF, but not because I think that they are violent or that violence is wrong. Violent and militant tactics while not always appropriate should not be abandoned by any movement that hopes to win radical or revolutionary changes. I can’t think of a single movement that has won significant change without the use of violent.

True Zinn does say that he thinks the Vietnam war “ended because the protests in the United States reached a crescendo, which couldn’t be ignored” but goes on to state that it was a combination of this “and because the GIs coming home were turning against the war, and because soldiers in the field were — well, they were throwing grenades under the officers’ tents, you know, the fragging phenomenon.” http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/16/1338223 So in short violent murderous tactics helped to stop a near genocidal conflict. Now I agree with Zinn but stand by my point that the Vietcong were largely responsible for putting an end to US military intervention in Vietnam. If it were not for the military resistance on the part of the the Vietnamese people the efforts of the US anti-war movement and disgruntled soldiers would not have succeeded.

I am aware of the reasons why the civil war was fought my point was slavery in this country was not done away with non-violently and I’d be interested to see a history of apartheid that showed how it ended purely as a result of peaceful boycotts and protests.

Well, I’m not going to argue fine points about the Vietcong or the Confederacy. We could spend days on those subjects. But if you’re looking for an example of success with non-violent resistance, I’d offer up the Civil Rights movement in the South. That was largely a non-violent response to racism and Jim Crow laws. Also check out a book called The Future of Peace by Scott Hunt. I believe there are some examples of how non-violent resistance work.

I am, however, willing to discuss violence as it relates to defense of the environment. That’s very much an Abbey related topic and the topic of that post.

Not sure if you’ve read Abbey’s Master’s thesis regarding violence. It’s on this site, available for download, so if you haven’t already, check it out.

Regardless, I just don’t see how violence could possibly be effective in protecting the environment. I think it gives the state just the excuse it needs to come in and wipe out all opposition to the capitalist interests it protects.

I have my doubts about the veracity of Chelsea’s “story.” I didn’t really say anything in support of her, and I’m not a fan of anyone that turns on their friends to save their own ass. That would be a death sentence with some other groups that like to use violence in pursuit of their goals.

But I do believe its important to hear what she has to say. I hear that “no platform to voice their story” argument a lot with people that don’t care for Leonard Peltier and believe its dangerous to adopt an attitude that someone shouldn’t be heard.

Should Leonard Peltier not be heard? Who else shouldn’t be heard and who decides who’s given a voice and who isn’t? On what grounds?

Thanks again for the comments. It’s good for us to discuss such things.