Elf

[Ele'ill]

http://heraldnet.com/article/20090904/NEWS01/709049802

What are your thoughts on the comments to this article?

I understand the ELF philosophy I just don't think the ELF actions are well thought out.

I think the common comment- 'vandalism is wrong no matter what' is fucking insane but in the same breathe I agree that they could have probably done something much less destructive and a whole lot more creative.

Like that person months ago that just hopped a fence and walked into that energy plant and pressed the off button.


I tend to be nonviolent. Violent people give me anxiety. There are people that claim property destruction isn't violent but these people are aggressive enough to not have a problem drawing violent people to them (FBI, Police etc).

[h0m0revolutionary]

I thought that action was beautiful.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I thought that action was beautiful.

Why? What's the point? It doesn't work as an evironmental action because it's a drop in the ocean and they're going to press ahead with them anyway. Not to mention that what little if any environmental benefit to this action is going to be obliterated by the energy used to clear the site.

It doesn't work as propaganda either because it just looks like the actions of some asshole vandals. It might impress other nature worshippers but that's preaching to the choir.

[yuon]

For more comments and discussion, see: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/09/05/1755238/ELF-Knocks-Down-AM-Towers-To-Save-Earth-Intercoms?from=rss


Andy Skotdal, general manager of the family-owned sports-radio station, isn't convinced ELF is responsible, even though the group's North American press office in Washington, D.C., issued a news release and posted an item on its national Web site Friday saying it was.

He suspects disgruntled locals who have long opposed the siting of the towers on 40 acres of farmland may have taken matters into their own hands after losing a key ruling in King County Superior Court a few weeks ago.

"My suspicion is, it's somebody local," Skotdal, whose family has owned the station for 20 years, said by phone Friday as he watched dozens of sheriff's detectives and FBI agents comb the property for evidence. "It could be somebody painting ELF on a banner to throw off suspicion."

It doesn't matter if the people responsible for the vandalism were directly linked to ELF or not, said Gary Perlstein, a professor emeritus at Portland State University who has studied the domestic terrorism group.

“If it goes along with their philosophy, then they will claim responsibility,” Perlstein said.

Lee Bennett, president of Citizens to Preserve the Upper Snohomish River Valley, said since the Skotdals began transmitting from the Short School Road site in February, area residents have dealt with radio interference that has interrupted phone service, computers and TVs.

The radio station's sports programs were blasted over the public-address system of a nearby church, and the radio waves have even caused garage doors and a couple of automatic car windows to randomly open, he said.

Though Bennett and his neighbors long have fought the radio-transmission towers — and received notices from the county last week that their property-tax assessments would be reduced because of them — he disapproves of ELF's actions.

"I think this is the completely wrong thing to do," Bennett said. "I don't think the towers should be there, but this is not the way they should come out."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009809764_radiotowers05m.html


" Due to the health and environmental risks associated with radio waves emitted from the towers, we applaud this act by the ELF," stated Jason Crawford, a spokesperson for the North American Earth Liberation Front Press Office. "When all legal channels of opposition have been exhausted, concerned citizens have to take action into their own hands to protect life and the planet."
http://www.elfpressoffice.org/

---

A lot of people don't really understand the ELF (or RAAN, or CrimethInc, etc.). They are effectively a disorganised, non-organisation. There is nothing but an idea, as such, anyone can claim to be part of the ELF.

As such, to say, the ELF are ignorant idiots, is, in fact, an ignorant comment. There is no such thing as the "Earth Liberation Front" as such. Just groups of people operating independently, without coordination, and without connection with each other.

I don't know much about this act, other than what I read on the links I've included above. It doesn't strike me as the sort of act that is commonly done by the "ELF", and as such, it's probably a new cell. Perhaps a cell that formed only to knock these towers over.

I don't know how much good this did, but I refuse to condemn the action. If nothing else, it's people taking things into their hands, and fighting the state and corporations.

[yuon]

I tend to be nonviolent. Violent people give me anxiety. There are people that claim property destruction isn't violent but these people are aggressive enough to not have a problem drawing violent people to them (FBI, Police etc).
Oh yeah, I just read this.

Property destruction isn't violent. If you could be so good as to explain how destruction of property is violent, I'll explain how you are wrong.

It is not their fault that the police, the state as a whole, is violent. That's the state, it's what it does.

[scarletghoul]

Ecoliberal wankers can fuck off.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't know how much good this did, but I refuse to condemn the action. If nothing else, it's people taking things into their hands, and fighting the state and corporations.

You need a better reason for carrying out an action than for the sheer sake of doing it, otherwise how do you know if you're wasting your time or not?

[bcbm]

Some people tried to stop something that was going to negatively affect their lives through legal means and, after they got steamrolled by the state and some corporation, they just got rid of it the old fashioned way. Cool. What's the problem here?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Some people tried to stop something that was going to negatively affect their lives

That's highly debatable. Radio frequencies are less energetic than visible light - unless you're standing very close to a powerful transmitter you're in no danger from radio waves.


through legal means and, after they got steamrolled by the state and some corporation, they just got rid of it the old fashioned way. Cool. What's the problem here?

They're just gonna build another one, so it was fucking pointless? Not to mention there doesn't seem to be a good reason for knocking it down in the first place.

[bcbm]

That's highly debatable. Radio frequencies are less energetic than visible light - unless you're standing very close to a powerful transmitter you're in no danger from radio waves.

It was placed on their farmland when they didn't want in there and lowered their property values, both of which I would say negatively affected their lives, beyond the other crap mentioned in the article.


They're just gonna build another one, so it was fucking pointless?

At a cost of significant time and money. Perhaps the hope was that they might not find it worth it to rebuild?

[Ele'ill]

The only thing that these types of actions do is further polarize community.

The only people who can get behind a movement that uses extreme tactics are radicals and radicals are few and far between.

[Demogorgon]

The only thing action like this typically receives is less public support for environmentalism.

[Ele'ill]

Oh yeah, I just read this.

Property destruction isn't violent. If you could be so good as to explain how destruction of property is violent, I'll explain how you are wrong.

Property destruction is violent.

3 a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force <the violence of the storm> b : vehement feeling or expression : fervor (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fervor); also : an instance of such action or feeling c : a clashing or jarring quality : discordance (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discordance)


1 : marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity <a violent attack>
2 a : notably furious or vehement <a violent denunciation> b : extreme (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extreme), intense (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intense) <violent pain> <violent colors>
3 : caused by force : not natural <a violent death>
4 a : emotionally agitated to the point of loss of self-control <became violent after an insult> b : prone to commit acts of violence (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence) <violent prison inmates>




Thanks Merriam.

Let's be realistic. Who in that community is going to say 'Yeah, I'm really glad the issue was handled like that!' ?

A minority of radicals.

The majority of people that didn't want the towers there will now back out and shut their mouths because they have never considered themselves violent and destructive and since the radicals have now set the bar at their level, it gives common folk no place to stand.

That thoughtless ELF action did nothing but rebuild two more towers and completely take the fight away from what I would consider to be fledgling activists.

Someone smashing windows or tipping towers will bring violence to them either by drawing in others that will do the same or by drawing in the full violence of the state.

On this particular case: From the articles it sounds as if there was already community support against these towers. Something else could have been done. There was the opportunity to show the people in this community that there are other communities being threatened by the same Monstrous towers, dams, whatever.





It is not their fault that the police, the state as a whole, is violent. That's the state, it's what it does.

Its their fault for knowing the state is powerful but still trying to out muscle it- and upon being completely fucking ruined- complaining that the state is violent.

[Havet]

ELF, PETA, GreenPeace (http://www.revleft.com/vb/coal-ship-boarded-t111625/index.html), and the likes, might have good ideas, but are flawed in their practices.

Not only does open violence lead to more violence, it scares potential supporters and discredits the whole movement.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Violence is besides the point. The question is if this accomplishes anything and I agree with those who say it doesn't. It does nothing to build a movement or give people confidence in their ability to fight for change in society and their lives.

Since this act is not in connection to any movement or public outcry against these towers, this act is essentially the equivalent of dumpster-diving: the individual who did this act gets to feel all morally warm and fuzzy for a while but that is the sum result of this action. Te environmental movement is not moved forward (and some would say it hurts the movement) and the company that installed the towers is inconvienenced and that's about it - it's not like they are going to pack it in after this silly pointless act.

If, on the other hand, there was toxic powerlines running through a small rural community and residents had been fighting an organizing for months against it but the company, and country and state officials were brushing them off, I think one person going and doing some kind of violence to stop the pollution would be a clear message and I would support that.

Students in the 60s sabotaged weapons research labs and ROTC offices, campus police stations that were cooperating with the government and spying on radical groups, military recruitment centers and so on. This violence I would probably support because it was in the context of a larger movement and mass anger at these instituations that were taking tax and tuition funds and using them to further an unpopular war. However, if someone were to do this today on a campus where there are no mass protests, I'd say they are totally wrong in their tactics and should focus on building protests and teach-ins.

[Ele'ill]

Since this act is not in connection to any movement or public outcry against these towers,

Maybe you mistyped or perhaps I am interpreting what you typed incorrectly but if you read the article you would know that there WAS public outcry against these towers.



this act is essentially the equivalent of dumpster-diving: the individual who did this act gets to feel all morally warm and fuzzy for a while but that is the sum result of this action.

The only people that perpetrate dumpster diving being a revolutionary tactic are those jealous radicals that wish they had thought of doing it first. Is dumpster diving really a threat to your movement? Fuck- tell me what movement you're a part of so I can abandon ship if need be.

I am so tired of the petty attacks on dumpster diving - crimethinc - and people that want to live what they preach.

I dumpster dive. I don't hold conferences about it. I don't think anybody does. That would be idiotic.



"YOU DUMPSTER DIVE BECAUSE YOU THINK YOU ARE A REVOLUTIONARY"

I dumpster dive because its free food. Do you know how much food our communities waste? Would you rather pay 15 dollars for a tiny jar of almond butter or have one for free?

"AARararGH- I'D RATHER PAY 15 DOLLARS FOR ONE MMMAUAH"

[StalinFanboy]

I dumpster dive. I love free shit.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Maybe you mistyped or perhaps I am interpreting what you typed incorrectly but if you read the article you would know that there WAS public outcry against these towers.I didn't get the impression that there was a movement against this - just a court case.


The only people that perpetrate dumpster diving being a revolutionary tactic are those jealous radicals that wish they had thought of doing it first. Is dumpster diving really a threat to your movement? Fuck- tell me what movement you're a part of so I can abandon ship if need be. No, it is not part of our movement. It does nothing - it is like yuppies having bio-fuel cars so they can feel better about themselves.

Instead of spending your time digging through trash when you don't need to, why not organize a movement to force your city to have decent food for the poor - more vouchers for people who need assistance. Once you do that and low-income people no longer HAVE to dig through the trash to eat - there will be much more food for you to eat out of the trash.


I am so tired of the petty attacks on dumpster diving - crimethinc - and people that want to live what they preach.I live what I preach - every day I talk to my coworkers and try and figure out how to build alliances with other union members and other activists so that one day we will be able to put our own agenda and needs forward as workers and eventually take power in our own interests.

Easting out of a dumpster, smoking pot, eating vegan, does nothing for society - it only does things for individuals and there's nothing wrong with that unless you put forward these strategies as a way forward for everyone.


I dumpster dive. I don't hold conferences about it. I don't think anybody does. That would be idiotic.I work in Berkeley CA and live in Oakland CA - Vegans and other lifesylists see other people as "part of the problem". A co-worker of mine is an immigrant and lives in Oakland and had his car vandalized in Berkeley. They wrote a note and said his car was "the reason we're in Iraq". That's not the way to build a movement against the war or for the environment.




"YOU DUMPSTER DIVE BECAUSE YOU THINK YOU ARE A REVOLUTIONARY"

I dumpster dive because its free food. Do you know how much food our communities waste? Would you rather pay 15 dollars for a tiny jar of almond butter or have one for free?

"AARararGH- I'D RATHER PAY 15 DOLLARS FOR ONE MMMAUAH"I pay much more to my crooked landloard than I do for food; I get exploited much more by my employer than I do by food companies. I would rather have a world where thoes who work have power over their own lives and democratic contol over the resources in society. This takes organization, and particapatory democratic structures, and collective action. You will not be able to find liberation and democracy at the bottom of a dumpster.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I dumpster dive. I love free shit.So do I. Why limit it to dumpster diving? Why not steal? I do all the time - I just don't think of it as a revolutionary act.

I work at a hotel in a College town. We have weddings every weekend and every weekend middle-class frat boys try and crash the weddings for free booze. It's free alcohol that's just going to get thrown out - how revolutionary brah!:rolleyes:

[StalinFanboy]

So do I. Why limit it to dumpster diving? Why not steal? I do all the time - I just don't think of it as a revolutionary act.
Amen to that brother.

[bcbm]

Let's be realistic. Who in that community is going to say 'Yeah, I'm really glad the issue was handled like that!' ?

A minority of radicals.

Or maybe the people whose land the towers were built on? I don't think this was a "minority of radicals," I think this was just some pissed off people in rural Washington. Believe it or not, people besides radicals are willing to use violence to defend their interests... check out the Bolt Weevils in Minnesota, or the long history of folks in the US who get a bit shooty when things don't go their way.


The majority of people that didn't want the towers there will now back out and shut their mouths because they have never considered themselves violent and destructive and since the radicals have now set the bar at their level, it gives common folk no place to stand.

Why is it so unbelievable that "common folk" were the ones who knocked the fucking thing over?


That thoughtless ELF action did nothing but rebuild two more towers and completely take the fight away from what I would consider to be fledgling activists.

They fought, they lost, they took matters into their own hands. This is a pretty common occurence with land issues in the rural US.

[Ele'ill]

Or maybe the people whose land the towers were built on?

The radio corporation's land.



I don't think this was a "minority of radicals," I think this was just some pissed off people in rural Washington.

They hung an ELF banner from a fence. Radicals.

Irrelevant. Radical action made them radicals.




Why is it so unbelievable that "common folk" were the ones who knocked the fucking thing over?

What's unbelievable is that you're still arguing about an article that you didn't even read. (although I AM going to check the link and make sure its linking to the right article.)

ELF tag was left. ELF isn't a group. It was an ELF action. Radicals.




They fought, they lost, they took matters into their own hands. This is a pretty common occurence with land issues in the rural US.

"They". How vague. The article says there have been previous "ELF" actions at other times unrelated to this current radio tower thing. The public was angry about the towers. There was a court case presumably (I think it was mentioned in the article although I don't have the link right now).

Radical environmentalists decided to act on their own without community support (as we can tell because of the comments left and quotes in the article as well as in other articles on the same incident).

Its not even that they're extremeists its that they could have done something a bit more clever and something that would last longer.

[nuisance]

Why? What's the point? It doesn't work as an evironmental action because it's a drop in the ocean and they're going to press ahead with them anyway. Not to mention that what little if any environmental benefit to this action is going to be obliterated by the energy used to clear the site.

The point of such actions are not to bring capital down to its knees in one fatal swoop, and if you believe that is possible then I suggest you evaluate such a position. Actions of sabotage are designed to replicatable, so as to catch on, in the hope that such acts of sabotage and property destruction do not become isolated incidents but part of a wider movement.


It doesn't work as propaganda either because it just looks like the actions of some asshole vandals. It might impress other nature worshippers but that's preaching to the choir.
The fact that these actions are being replicated disproves this sentiment, whether you agree on with it or deem it to be a product activity is irrelevant . Plus, they get the job done with actual direct action- don't want SUVs- dispose of them, don't want luxury flats- burn them.

[Ele'ill]

No, it is not part of our movement. It does nothing

My point is that nobody has ever said it was part of a movement. Although you won't often see non-leftists diving on a regular basis.





Instead of spending your time digging through trash when you don't need to, why not organize a movement to force your city to have decent food for the poor - more vouchers for people who need assistance. Once you do that and low-income people no longer HAVE to dig through the trash to eat - there will be much more food for you to eat out of the trash.

There are groups that do this AND I'm sure a lot of people in these groups get food from dumpsters.


Easting out of a dumpster, smoking pot, eating vegan, does nothing for society - it only does things for individuals and there's nothing wrong with that unless you put forward these strategies as a way forward for everyone.

I asked a friend once why she was vegan and she told me a little bit about the food industry in the United States. She loaned me some dvds, a magazine and a cookbook. There was A LOT I was not aware of. I am not a vegan.

I saw a video regarding dumpster diving once. I showed it to a friend who then wanted to go with me. He was very skeptical on what we could pull from a dumpster and actually use. I showed him the waste. He asked more about how much we waste as a nation. I explained. Capitalism leads to excess everything - unchecked - including waste.

I don't smoke Marijuana.

The power isn't necessarily in doing it but in educating why its done.

I am not advocating any of these as being a worldly solution but it can make a lot of things click and come together for someone who is learning about the world.




I work in Berkeley CA and live in Oakland CA - Vegans and other lifesylists see other people as "part of the problem". A co-worker of mine is an immigrant and lives in Oakland and had his car vandalized in Berkeley. They wrote a note and said his car was "the reason we're in Iraq". That's not the way to build a movement against the war or for the environment.

What kind of car? Just kidding, of course. I don't agree with bullying people. That isn't even terrorizing its bullying, petty bullshit.

They were most likely teenagers feeling important but when the adults do it- its as if they're declaring that they are so powerful as a movement that they can just belittle anyone they want for any minor infraction of their ideological point system. They push everyone away.





I pay much more to my crooked landloard than I do for food; I get exploited much more by my employer than I do by food companies. I would rather have a world where thoes who work have power over their own lives and democratic contol over the resources in society. This takes organization, and particapatory democratic structures, and collective action.


My point was to get a free jar of good almond butter you look in a dumpster.






You will not be able to find liberation and democracy at the bottom of a dumpster.


"Speak not of revolution until you are willing to eat rats to survive"

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The point of such actions are not to bring capital down to its knees in one fatal swoop, and if you believe that is possible then I suggest you evaluate such a position. Actions of sabotage are designed to replicatable, so as to catch on, in the hope that such acts of sabotage and property destruction do not become isolated incidents but part of a wider movement.


The fact that these actions are being replicated disproves this sentiment, whether you agree on with it or deem it to be a product activity is irrelevant . Plus, they get the job done with actual direct action- don't want SUVs- dispose of them, don't want luxury flats- burn them.

The problem is that such actions aren't "catching on" to the extent that capitalism is threatened, and there's no indication that they will ever do so. Burning SUVs and flats may get rid of a relatively small number of them, but it does nothing to address the system that builds them in the first place and creates a demand for them.

Another thing to consider is that the conception of ELF "as an idea" leaves it vulnerable to the actions of provocateurs - damage something that's seen by the local people as useful or at least harmless, claim it as an ELF action and then the ELF is discredited in the locals' eyes as a bunch of vandals at best. I'd be surprised if this hasn't happened already.

I also question the environmental sense behind torching & destroying stuff - waste disposal and recycling aren't exactly as good as they can be under a for-profit system - what do you imagine happens to the leftovers?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

If a group of anarchists destroyed a bank, would everyone be saying the same thing? Obviously propaganda by the deed doesn't seem to be catching on, yet it seems rather popular, if not advocated, by some posters here.

Am I missing a distinction between anarchist destruction of property and the ELF destruction?

[nuisance]

The problem is that such actions aren't "catching on" to the extent that capitalism is threatened, and there's no indication that they will ever do so. Burning SUVs and flats may get rid of a relatively small number of them, but it does nothing to address the system that builds them in the first place and creates a demand for them.
ELF actions are not claimed to be revolutionary, but a tactic (like antifa is to antifascism and ALF is to animal rights). They understand that the problem they confront shall not be devastated until capital is. However, people consider these tactics as effective while working towards the downfall of capitalism.

Perhaps the most important and logical question which needs to be asked is, are the actions of the ELF successful? If the group does not stop a given entity fully with one action that does not mean the action was unsuccessful. The ELF actions have at least three major goals in mind:
1)To cause maximum economic damage to a given entity that is profiting off the destruction of the natural
environment,
2)To educate the public on the atrocities committed against the environment and life,
3)To make it known that any entity profiting off the destruction of life for profit may be considered the next
target.
With these three goals in mind every action taken by the ELF has successfully met at least one or more of these goals.


Another thing to consider is that the conception of ELF "as an idea" leaves it vulnerable to the actions of provocateurs - damage something that's seen by the local people as useful or at least harmless, claim it as an ELF action and then the ELF is discredited in the locals' eyes as a bunch of vandals at best. I'd be surprised if this hasn't happened already.
Well, this can happen to any group, formal or informal. The ELF press office can condemn actions that are reported to them that contradict the principles of the 'group'- which is non-violent direct action to cause economic damage to those profiteering in from the destruction of the Earth. But then again you have to look at the aims of ELF-
'The ELF realizes that the destruction of life is not a mere random occurrence but a deliberate act of violence performed by those entities concerned with nothing more than pursuing extreme economic gain at any cost. With this realization in mind, the ELF maintains that it is only logical to work to remove the profit motive from killing the Earth and all life on it.'
http://www.elfpressoffice.org/elffaqs.html


I also question the environmental sense behind torching & destroying stuff - waste disposal and recycling aren't exactly as good as they can be under a for-profit system - what do you imagine happens to the leftovers?
The point is to cause maximum economic damage. And that is what they try to do.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

ELF actions are not claimed to be revolutionary, but a tactic (like antifa is to antifascism and ALF is to animal rights). They understand that the problem they confront shall not be devastated until capital is. However, people consider these tactics as effective while working towards the downfall of capitalism.

Effective in achieving what, precisely?


Well, this can happen to any group, formal or informal. The ELF press office can condemn actions that are reported to them that contradict the principles of the 'group'- which is non-violent direct action to cause economic damage to those profiteering in from the destruction of the Earth.

You don't have to kill or hurt people to alienate them. Acting like vandals or hooligans (or perhaps more importantly, being percieved as acting so) will do that as well.


The point is to cause maximum economic damage. And that is what they try to do.

I think that capitalists do more economic damage to each other than any activist could dream of.

[nuisance]

Effective in achieving what, precisely?
Causing economic damage against selected targets.

You don't have to kill or hurt people to alienate them. Acting like vandals or hooligans (or perhaps more importantly, being percieved as acting so) will do that as well.
Did you not read what was posted? ELF aren't overly interested in public relations under such a banner. Read the actions aims and objectives, again.

I think that capitalists do more economic damage to each other than any activist could dream of.
Great for you! But is that damage they cause eachother carried out purposely against things because of their profiteering from the direct destruction of the Earth? No? Nonetheless, would you not say that the more economic damage to capital the better? Activist is such a dreadful term.

[yuon]

They hung an ELF banner from a fence. Radicals.

Irrelevant. Radical action made them radicals.

What's unbelievable is that you're still arguing about an article that you didn't even read. (although I AM going to check the link and make sure its linking to the right article.)

ELF tag was left. ELF isn't a group. It was an ELF action. Radicals.

They could still well be common people...


If a group of anarchists destroyed a bank, would everyone be saying the same thing? Obviously propaganda by the deed doesn't seem to be catching on, yet it seems rather popular, if not advocated, by some posters here.

Am I missing a distinction between anarchist destruction of property and the ELF destruction?
Lots of the same people would be condemning it as a waste of time.

Destroy parking meters: "whoa radical dude, that was such a blow against capitalism".
Destroy a recruiting building: same response.

Some people just don't appreciate direct action.

[9]

http://heraldnet.com/article/20090904/NEWS01/709049802


Wtf, I live in Everett... Oy.

[bcbm]

They hung an ELF banner from a fence. Radicals.

Irrelevant. Radical action made them radicals.

Quite possibly to try and over up the fact that it was a local action.



What's unbelievable is that you're still arguing about an article that you didn't even read. (although I AM going to check the link and make sure its linking to the right article.)

ELF tag was left. ELF isn't a group. It was an ELF action. Radicals.

You make it sound like it is completely impossible this was just the work of normal citizens who were pissed off. Why?



"They". How vague.

Well its an anonymous action, so its pretty much all guess work.



The article says there have been previous "ELF" actions at other times unrelated to this current radio tower thing. The public was angry about the towers. There was a court case presumably (I think it was mentioned in the article although I don't have the link right now).

There have been previous ELF actions all of the Northwest and they're not all connected. As "the public" being angry... talk about vague. Sounds like a lot of people opposed the towers and I doubt any of them were too shook up over what happened.


Radical environmentalists decided to act on their own without community support (as we can tell because of the comments left and quotes in the article as well as in other articles on the same incident).

One of the comments said that this was a very heated issue locally and wouldn't put it past some of the local people to knock them over so, there you go.


Its not even that they're extremeists its that they could have done something a bit more clever and something that would last longer.

Well if it was just locals, than it seems likely they'd just be concerned on the local issue?

[Ele'ill]

They could still well be common people...

Not if they're acting as a radical cell using extreme tactics.

The majority doesn't do this.



Some people just don't appreciate direct action.

The proof of failure is in the result.

New tactics or retire, thanks.



Quite possibly to try and over up the fact that it was a local action.

You make it sound like it is completely impossible this was just the work of normal citizens who were pissed off. Why?

There have been previous ELF actions all of the Northwest and they're not all connected.




I believe ELF's press page confirmed that this was an ELF action.

This implies that someone at the press site has contact with someone (probably a fairly experienced activist with the desire to put the rest of their life on the line for their beliefs).




One of the comments said that this was a very heated issue locally and wouldn't put it past some of the local people to knock them over so, there you go.

There have already been previous ELF actions in that county.

The comments left indicated that the people who were opposed to the towers were also opposed to what they believe are violent actions.

There were at least two other articles stating the same opinion. I will see if I can find them.




Well if it was just locals, than it seems likely they'd just be concerned on the local issue?

I don't understand what you mean here.



The main point I was making is that most people don't like violent actions even if it solves their problem. (although temporarily)

These groups that use direct action either take it way down to the point of petty vandalism (and by petty I mean I've seen or done worse when I was in 5th grade at recess) and act like they've put their life on the line outright.

or its these huge destructive actions followed by these absurdly complex ideological psycho babble press releases that I can't even follow without a brain hemorrhage (and I like that type of shit)

And these fucking people actually wonder why no one is jumping on this bandwagon?

These corporations being attacked are not going bankrupt because of it. This isn't some trend that's catching on- partially because of the severe consequences for burning down a building and being part of a "terrorist" cell but- I think the main reason is that out of all the shit that's been broken, sabotaged, set on fire, blown up and defaced by ELF or whoever-

....Its all been repaired or replaced.

Fucking useless.

[yuon]

I won't bothered responding to the rest of the post. None of us really know who did it, and I guess we won't ever know.

The proof of failure is in the result.

New tactics or retire, thanks.

But this, I guess we'll just have to retire the class war then.

[bcbm]

I believe ELF's press page confirmed that this was an ELF action.

This implies that someone at the press site has contact with someone (probably a fairly experienced activist with the desire to put the rest of their life on the line for their beliefs).

No it doesn't, because that is not how the ELF press office works at all. It is an ELF action because it meets the three criteria for an ELF action, nothing more and nothing less. Having people engaged in illegal underground action be in direct contact with the aboveground section would be absolute stupidity and the ELF is not "organized" this way at all.


The comments left indicated that the people who were opposed to the towers were also opposed to what they believe are violent actions.

Which means every single person in the community feels that way? I doubt it. And somebody being interviewed by a newspaper when the FBI is crawling around is going to say "Good work!" I doubt it.


I don't understand what you mean here.

If the action was undertaken by local people pissed off on this one issue, why would it make sense to chide them for not going after something bigger?



or its these huge destructive actions followed by these absurdly complex ideological psycho babble press releases that I can't even follow without a brain hemorrhage (and I like that type of shit)

That sounds more lik 17N than any ELF communique I've ever seen.


These corporations being attacked are not going bankrupt because of it. This isn't some trend that's catching on- partially because of the severe consequences for burning down a building and being part of a "terrorist" cell but

Actually the attacks were spreading for awhile, though Operation Bite Back seems to have taken a lot of the wind out of the sails.


I think the main reason is that out of all the shit that's been broken, sabotaged, set on fire, blown up and defaced by ELF or whoever-

....Its all been repaired or replaced.

Fucking useless.

Not all of it, incidentally, but I agree it hasn't accomplished much of anything besides long jail sentences for people. At the same time, if people feel pissed off enough about something to go knock the thing over, I can't see how that is a bad thing.

[Ele'ill]

I won't bothered responding to the rest of the post. None of us really know who did it, and I guess we won't ever know.

But this, I guess we'll just have to retire the class war then.

What war?


No it doesn't, because that is not how the ELF press office works at all. It is an ELF action because it meets the three criteria for an ELF action, nothing more and nothing less. Having people engaged in illegal underground action be in direct contact with the aboveground section would be absolute stupidity and the ELF is not "organized" this way at all.

Arrests have been made in the past because contacts do exist.




Which means every single person in the community feels that way? I doubt it. And somebody being interviewed by a newspaper when the FBI is crawling around is going to say "Good work!" I doubt it.

The fact that these underground direct actions occur as such implies that the majority of the people don't want violence to solve their problems other wise these wouldn't be underground direct actions they'd be relatively open acts of war.

Realistically, the people that agree with the action wouldn't say 'I don't agree with the action' they'd probably not say anything.




That sounds more lik 17N than any ELF communique I've ever seen.

Perhaps not a direct ELF press communique but the zines and internet forums and internet 'news' sites post this shit after every snail queef.




Actually the attacks were spreading for awhile, though Operation Bite Back seems to have taken a lot of the wind out of the sails.

I'd argue the severity of the attacks. Attacks or vandalism?




Not all of it

Nearly all of it. Upper nineties.




incidentally, but I agree it hasn't accomplished much of anything besides long jail sentences for people. At the same time, if people feel pissed off enough about something to go knock the thing over, I can't see how that is a bad thing.

Its a bad thing because there's more at stake than proving a dead ideology can work. Most normal people would cease and deist this one legged marathon. (someone really needs to shoot it in the head and be done with it.) As long as this failed 'direct action' method is allowed to stay alive the movement will fail over and over and honestly this isn't about making things better. There is a definite deadline for the future existence of species, the future existence of the gears of our planet and how we can keep everything on a permanently correct course.

Enough of the bullshit kid games.


Much of the environmental movement despises these types of actions because these actions prompt the FBI to monitor and spy on every environmental group that exists. These types of actions further militarize the state- which granted, would militarize on its own albeit much slower.

And yeah I know- the general population are fucking morons and should probably be behind these actions but you know what? They're not.

That's the reality of what we have to work with.

[StalinFanboy]

I think I get what Mariel is saying.

If we do an action, and it fails right off the bat, we should realize that anarchism is a complete failure and give up. We should then start voting, and sympathizing with our poor bosses. Also, it's important to realize that people who carry out direct action cannot ever be just normal people. Ever. A normal person votes.

[9]

I live in the city of Everett, which is in Snohomish County and, while a big urban port city, it is still only a ten or fifteen-minute drive from rural Snohomish. There is a widely acknowledged sense here - in the city, anyway, that this was not a local action. I do not have any way of knowing for certain, of course, that it wasn't an action by the rural Snohomish community, but the broad perception here is that it was not. And if it was a local/community action, the local/community "perpetrators" certainly went to great lengths to provide the impression that it wasn't, which doesn't make a lot of sense. And while, yes, there was a movement within the rural Snohomish community which actively opposes the towers, every indication seems to be that this movement was not involved in toppling the towers, and they have condemned the action:



"It has been a long legal battle and I'm upset to see this kind of violence happen here," said Lee Bennett Jr., president of Citizens to Preserve the Upper Snohomish River Valley. "This is not the way to handle it."But ultimately, unless/until there is clarification about who carried out the act, it is a bit silly to have a passionate argument about whether or not the action was justified. If it was a community action against something negatively affecting the community, I doubt anyone here would condemn it. If it was a couple young radicals from the Earth Liberation Front taking advantage of community opposition in order to ingratiate themselves (at the likely expense of polarizing the local workers and undermining the efforts of the organized community opposition) - which does appear to be the case in this instance, though it hasn't been fully substantiated - then the action is worthy of condemnation.

[Tzadikim]

The only genuine form of environmentalism is socialism. Socialism, which corrects the anarchic and harmful effects of capitalism on the economy, will, at the self-same time, reverse its long-standing trend of putting profits before the welfare of the world. Only a planned economy can avoid unnecessary damage to the biosphere; an 'environmentalist' is, by definition, a socialist.

[9]

The only genuine form of environmentalism is socialism. Socialism, which corrects the anarchic and harmful effects of capitalism on the economy, will, at the self-same time, reverse its long-standing trend of putting profits before the welfare of the world. Only a planned economy can avoid unnecessary damage to the biosphere; an 'environmentalist' is, by definition, a socialist.

Regardless, I'm sure you will acknowledge that virtually no one uses the term "environmentalist" in the manner you've provided, and that the liberal environmentalist ("green") movement does not generally espouse even reformist "socialism" and does not, for the most part, consist of socialists. So we can contort the word to mean something removed from its modern context, or we can address it as it pertains to contemporary political action (e.g. the liberal environmentalist movements which have become popular in the West).
Also, I think that this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anyone-else-here-t116789/index.html) and this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/modern-communism-green-t95715/index.html) may be more relevant to your argument than the present thread is. :)

[Ele'ill]

I think I get what Mariel is saying.

If we do an action, and it fails right off the bat,



This isn't right off the bat. Right off the bat was about ten to fifteen years ago.





we should realize that anarchism is a complete failure and give up.

You are in no posistion to attain it yet. Right now you need to convince millions of people that it is the right system to live. That's the stage we're at right now- convincing people.

If you really want it badly enough you wouldn't be sticking to what we could ironically call the 'shock and awe' philosophy that most teenagers and imperialist generals revel in.





We should then start voting, and sympathizing with our poor bosses.

Wah.

The cool, dirty, cheap and selfish avenue of change needs to be closed for now.

Yeah, revolution sucks- it isn't fun- its fucking hard and will take its toll on you.




Also, it's important to realize that people who carry out direct action cannot ever be just normal people. Ever. A normal person votes.

Also know- Most people who don't vote- don't carry out direct action. :)

[Havet]

Only a planned economy can avoid unnecessary damage to the biosphere; an 'environmentalist' is, by definition, a socialist.

Uh...nope.

Only a free economy where its traders are directly responsible and accountable for their consequences, and where community "property" or possession rights (agreed upon by everyone) are established.

[ToxicSoil]

Omg, I love this movie!

[Skooma Addict]

I honestly think some people care more about the well being of the environment than the well being of humanity. Funny thing is environmentalists rarely practice what they preach. Al Gore is a perfect example.

[danyboy27]

bombing tower is bad mate, dont you remember 9/11?

on a more serious note, this was a waste of time.

[StalinFanboy]

This isn't right off the bat. Right off the bat was about ten to fifteen years ago.






You are in no posistion to attain it yet. Right now you need to convince millions of people that it is the right system to live. That's the stage we're at right now- convincing people.

If you really want it badly enough you wouldn't be sticking to what we could ironically call the 'shock and awe' philosophy that most teenagers and imperialist generals revel in.






Wah.

The cool, dirty, cheap and selfish avenue of change needs to be closed for now.

Yeah, revolution sucks- it isn't fun- its fucking hard and will take its toll on you.





Also know- Most people who don't vote- don't carry out direct action. :)

Nah bro. I know hella people who carry out direct action. Not to be political but because they need to. All of my co-workers are racist and reactionary as fuck, but they are totally down to show solidarity with their coworkers, and steal and lie on their time cards all the time.

[bcbm]

I honestly think some people care more about the well being of the environment than the well being of humanity.

The two aren't exactly seperate.

[Ele'ill]

Nah bro. I know hella people who carry out direct action. Not to be political but because they need to. All of my co-workers are racist and reactionary as fuck, but they are totally down to show solidarity with their coworkers, and steal and lie on their time cards all the time.

What?

[Ultra-Violence]

I fucking hate these fucking stupid ass fringe groups nothing but fucking privilaged ass fucking kids going around destroying shit to get back at thier fucking parents for what ever fucking reason. Groups like ELF and ALF can suck my fucking cock and die!

how about fucking helping out people in the un-employment line or the homeless or the un-documented workers!:cursing: something more usefull and meaningfull that actualy helps the community

[Ele'ill]

I fucking hate these fucking stupid ass fringe groups nothing but fucking privilaged ass fucking kids going around destroying shit to get back at thier fucking parents for what ever fucking reason. Groups like ELF and ALF can suck my fucking cock and die!

Class doesn't matter here. The tactic is what doesn't work.






how about fucking helping out people in the un-employment line or the homeless or the un-documented workers!:cursing: something more usefull and meaningfull that actualy helps the community

I agree.

[StalinFanboy]

What?
I'm saying normal people carry out direct action, fool.

[Ele'ill]

I'm saying normal people carry out direct action, fool.

Radicals carry out direct action.

The masses wouldn't need to be for direct action. By nature these types of actions are carried out by a minority of the population and this minority holds a minority belief.

[bcbm]

You wouldn't need to have any particularly radical beliefs to carry out direct action, especially the kind Godstomper is talking about.

[StalinFanboy]

Radicals carry out direct action.

The masses wouldn't need to be for direct action. By nature these types of actions are carried out by a minority of the population and this minority holds a minority belief.
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/7/30/lalalalalal128619326596992453.jpg


What part of my post did you not understand? The people I work with are representative of a large portion of America (Conservative White working class), yet for some reason they still participate in forms of direct action and worker's solidarity. Maybe you're completely unaware of this, but solidarity and direct action are common occurrences in every day life, and are quite necessary.

[Ele'ill]

The people I work with are representative of a large portion of America

:laugh:



yet for some reason they still participate in forms of direct action

What forms? Be specific.

(getting their boss decaf on coffee runs isn't direct action)




and worker's solidarity.

Did I say anything about worker's solidarity?




Maybe you're completely unaware of this, but solidarity and direct action are common occurrences in every day life, and are quite necessary.

:rolleyes:

Perhaps you're unaware that solidarity and direct action are two completely different things.

To keep this thread on track I want to clarify that we're talking about the environmental movement, ELF and failed direct action tactics.

[Ele'ill]

You wouldn't need to have any particularly radical beliefs to carry out direct action, especially the kind Godstomper is talking about.


Fudging your time punches? :rolleyes:

And you fuckers rant about dumpster divers.

[Ultra-Violence]

Class doesn't matter here. The tactic is what doesn't work.







I agree.


i disagree i think class has alot to do with it do u think immigrants or the un-employed and even the working poor EVEN KNOW or care what these stupid fucks are even doing? shit They dont even know wtf anarchims is and a have a distorted view of marxism. plz class has alot to do with this do u think working people who have to feed a family even have time for bullshit actions like this let alone go to a protest? this fucking bougie kids need to do something better with thier free time

[Ele'ill]

i disagree i think class has alot to do with it do u think immigrants or the un-employed and even the working poor EVEN KNOW or care what these stupid fucks are even doing?

No.

It doesn't matter if a poor person, rich person, alien, cockerspaniel, Ninja, horse or Quaking Aspen commited these acts. The point is that the actions DON'T have support and DON'T work.





shit They dont even know wtf anarchims is and a have a distorted view of marxism.

Perhaps there's a world outside of your history books?




do u think working people who have to feed a family even have time for bullshit actions like this


I don't agree with these actions.

I think you're absolutely wrong in assuming that because someone is part of the working poor that they can't contribute to a political movement.






let alone go to a protest? this fucking bougie kids need to do something better with thier free time

So by your logic-

1. The poor are too busy to dissent.
2. The rich aren't worthy of voicing dissent or sticking up for the poor.
3. Direct Action doesn't work (because only rich people do it)

:rolleyes:

[StalinFanboy]

:laugh:

Are you disagreeing with the fact that a large portion of America is White and working class?



What forms? Be specific.
Why? Would you also like their names and addresses?






Did I say anything about worker's solidarity? Nowhere? I never said you did.






:rolleyes:

Perhaps you're unaware that solidarity and direct action are two completely different things. Oh really? That couldn't be why I said direct action and solidarity, could it? Perhaps you're unaware but when someone says one thing followed by "and" and then says another thing, they are listing two separate things. That is the point of conjunctions.


To keep this thread on track I want to clarify that we're talking about the environmental movement, ELF and failed direct action tactics.
And you made the ridiculous statement that only radicals participate in direct action. I corrected you by saying that I have co-workers that participate in forms (albeit small) of direct action. I don't need to give you blow-by-blow accounts of this, and if you want to ignore what I've said, go ahead. I wouldn't expect anything else from you.

[Ele'ill]

Are you disagreeing with the fact that a large portion of America is White and working class?

I don't believe that the people you work with are a microcosm of the working class.

The people I have worked with are very happy and proud of their country and they're proud to be worker bees. I believe this is the main issue that needs to be addressed. You can't use direct action as a tactic when you're destroying inanimate objects that the majority of the people feel they should be protecting. They view the wealthy as justifiably so and they distrust anything out of the ordinary.

If people feel that maybe a rich radio tycoon has lost his marbles they will take the corporation to court. Which they did. Not put on masks and topple the towers in the middle of the night and THEN hang banners declaring it an ELF action which really did nothing except bring the FBI into it.



Why? Would you also like their names and addresses?

Because I don't believe that your co workers engage in direct action every day.

You said they engage in 'forms' of direct action every day. Workers look out for each other. The people that I have worked with distrusted their bosses but were happy to be their servants.

Make something up that's akin to what they do.





Nowhere? I never said you did.

Oh really? That couldn't be why I said direct action and solidarity, could it?

Ok.

I just thought you had married the two words and were implying that I had implied somewhere, against it.








Perhaps you're unaware but when someone says one thing followed by "and" and then says another thing, they are listing two separate things. That is the point of conjunctions.

Nope.

In fact, I can't even read. I have a maid that visits my residence. She types all of this for me and mops my drool up twice a day. When I walk my knuckles drag on the ground and I communicate with guttural clicks.

:rolleyes:

The mere fact that you brought solidarity into the conversation is a bit odd. Worker's solidarity doesn't inherently have anything to do with direct action.

There's also nothing inherently wrong with solidarity. This was never my argument.







And you made the ridiculous statement that only radicals participate in direct action. I corrected you by saying that I have co-workers that participate in forms (albeit small) of direct action.

Perhaps you're on life support but that isn't a correction. That would be a statement.

My problem with ELF's direct action as described in the article that is linked in the first post of this thread was that they committed this huge action when the community (made up of people that are just now learning about activism and how corporations are getting away with murder) was already involved.
This did nothing but hurt everyone.


How have those small forms of direct action helped anything? Have they?









I don't need to give you blow-by-blow accounts of this,

No, actually you do because that's how a discussion works. I've given you my opinion, blow by blow, and backed it up with plenty of evidence. I posted a link to the article as did some other people in here, listing the negative feedback by the community that was involved with taking this radio corporation to court.


and if you want to ignore what I've said, go ahead. I wouldn't expect anything else from you.

Ignore what? The empty opinions that you listed or the blow by blow that you won't post because you made that entire story up about your co workers?

[StalinFanboy]

I don't believe that the people you work with are a microcosm of the working class. And why is that?


The people I have worked with are very happy and proud of their country and they're proud to be worker bees. I believe this is the main issue that needs to be addressed. You can't use direct action as a tactic when you're destroying inanimate objects that the majority of the people feel they should be protecting. Why? If their intent was to destroy the tower, then the action succeeded. Perhaps they aren't interested in trying to convince people something is wrong. I'm sure that there were people who thought the action was good, and people who thought the action was bad.






Because I don't believe that your co workers engage in direct action every day. You don't need to. You believing it or not doesn't change the fact that they do.


You said they engage in 'forms' of direct action every day. Workers look out for each other. The people that I have worked with distrusted their bosses but were happy to be their servants. Yes I did say "forms," why? Because there are multiple forms of direct action. Yes workers do look out for each other (usually). And yes a lot of people may be distrustful of their bosses, but I don't really know anyone who's happy to go to work, unless they do something they truly enjoy (in which case they probably wouldn't even consider it work). But I don't see what them consenting to work for bosses has anything to do with anything. You don't really think they've experienced life in another way, do you? Tell you what, when we create a world where human labor is used for needs and desires, and then the working class still wishes to remain the working class, I will personally give up. But until then, saying they are "happy to be [the bosses] servants" is sorta stupid.








In fact, I can't even read. I have a maid that visits my residence. She types all of this for me and mops my drool up twice a day. When I walk my knuckles drag on the ground and I communicate with guttural clicks. Explains a lot, actually.







Perhaps you're on life support but that isn't a correction. That would be a statement. No, it was a correction because you said something wrong, and I corrected it for you. Aren't I nice?


My problem with ELF's direct action as described in the article that is linked in the first post of this thread was that they committed this huge action when the community (made up of people that are just now learning about activism and how corporations are getting away with murder) was already involved.
This did nothing but hurt everyone. Obviously they felt what was being done about it wasn't enough. Don't see how it hurt anyone.



How have those small forms of direct action helped anything? Have they?
Yeah they have.







Ignore what? The empty opinions that you listed or the blow by blow that you won't post because you made that entire story up about your co workers?
The only thing that's been made up here is when you said that only radicals engage in direct action.


LOL

[Ele'ill]

And why is that?

Its just a feeling I have based upon the other posts you've made in this thread and based upon my own experiences working directly with workers.


Why? If their intent was to destroy the tower, then the action succeeded.

The intent was for a community based movement to take the radio corporation to court in order to either sue or have the towers removed and presumably relocated elsewhere.

Sometimes it can take a while for these grass roots movements to win but when they do it means so much more..

.. than having a small number of people with a minority ideology illegally rush in and topple the towers, putting the community movement on hold and potentially fragmenting it with down time, bringing in the FBI and making the radio corporation look like the victim.

Well done guys. :thumbup1: :rolleyes:




Perhaps they aren't interested in trying to convince people something is wrong.

Good logic.

Go ahead and buy some weapons and start a revolution without community support. We'll see you on the six o'clock news being zipped up in trash bags with the backlash being any ideology that remotely resembles yours and anybody that has had anything to do with it will be labeled terrorists and harassed ceaselessly by the FBI, local police and whoever else.

The point (in advance) is that in order for dramatic change to occur you need dramatic PR. You need to show everyone why they should care and why they should take certain actions to make change occur.











I'm sure that there were people who thought the action was good, and people who thought the action was bad.

From the articles posted and linked Its obvious that most people who were against the towers were also against the actions. This has pretty much been my experience and its fairly consistent with past events as well.





You don't need to. You believing it or not doesn't change the fact that they do.

Then why are we still in this fucking mess?

Do you seriously think this direct action stuff just started when you became aware of politics?



But until then, saying they are "happy to be [the bosses] servants" is sorta stupid.

Most people think they need bosses. (This is getting slightly off topic although I would be happy to debate this in another thread.)








Explains a lot, actually.


In your case I'd take it. Being beaten to death in debate by a maid that mops up drool is more glamorous than failing against a comatose Neanderthal. :D








No, it was a correction because you said something wrong,


What did I say wrong? You don't have to direct quote me if you don't want to. Give me a general idea.




Obviously they felt what was being done about it wasn't enough. Don't see how it hurt anyone.

It put the entire court thing as well as any future community grassroots movement against the towers on hold. It enables the FBI to search whoever they want in the community thus adding uneeded stress and intimidation on people who may never have stood up for anything in their life.

I would consider this to be very detrimental to movements.





Yeah they have.

Give me an example. It doesn't have to be personal.







The only thing that's been made up here is when you said that only radicals engage in direct action.
LOL

So you did make the story up. I don't neccessarily hold this against you and I promise I won't bring this up in future threads.

Only radicals engage in direct actions that ELF represents.

Those types of actions are Knee jerk, reactionary, unplanned, selfish actions that give a temporary solution to problems that community movements could handle permanently and use to build networks of support. They can make more of a change and they can do it in the middle of the day, without masks, and not bring down the wrath of the empire on everyone in the movement.

The actions you're supporting, Godstomper, have not made anything better. Prove to me that they have.

[StalinFanboy]

Its just a feeling I have based upon the other posts you've made in this thread and based upon my own experiences working directly with workers. Like what posts?




The intent was for a community based movement blah blah blah I'm talking about the intent behind the "ELF" action. If their (the ELF chaps) intent was to knock down the towers, then they succeeded.






Good logic.

Go ahead and buy some weapons and start a revolution without community support. We'll see you on the six o'clock news being zipped up in trash bags with the backlash being any ideology that remotely resembles yours and anybody that has had anything to do with it will be labeled terrorists and harassed ceaselessly by the FBI, local police and whoever else.

The point (in advance) is that in order for dramatic change to occur you need dramatic PR. You need to show everyone why they should care and why they should take certain actions to make change occur. Revolution? Here I was thinking we were talking about some people knocking over some towers.













From the articles posted and linked Its obvious that most people who were against the towers were also against the actions. This has pretty much been my experience and its fairly consistent with past events as well. I think this has already been addressed. People aren't going to come out and say "YEAH I THOUGHT IT WAS AWESOME" because that shit is suspect.







Then why are we still in this fucking mess? Dunno


Do you seriously think this direct action stuff just started when you became aware of politics? Lol wut?





Most people think they need bosses. (This is getting slightly off topic although I would be happy to debate this in another thread.) Again, no one has experienced the sort of liberty I or any other anarchist/communist proposes. So until we have, this "people think they need bosses" business is pointless to bring up.











In your case I'd take it. Being beaten to death in debate by a maid that mops up drool is more glamorous than failing against a comatose Neanderthal. :D Cool. I wasn't aware we were debating for glory.











What did I say wrong? You don't have to direct quote me if you don't want to. Give me a general idea. That only radicals engage in direct action.






It put the entire court thing as well as any future community grassroots movement against the towers on hold. It enables the FBI to search whoever they want in the community thus adding uneeded stress and intimidation on people who may never have stood up for anything in their life.

I would consider this to be very detrimental to movements. Alright. Didn't think of that.







Give me an example. It doesn't have to be personal. Sabotage. If something breaks, then we can skip out on work.









So you did make the story up. I don't neccessarily hold this against you and I promise I won't bring this up in future threads. Where did you get this from?


Only radicals engage in direct actions that ELF represents.

Those types of actions are Knee jerk, reactionary, unplanned, selfish actions that give a temporary solution to problems that community movements could handle permanently and use to build networks of support. They can make more of a change and they can do it in the middle of the day, without masks, and not bring down the wrath of the empire on everyone in the movement.

The actions you're supporting, Godstomper, have not made anything better. Prove to me that they have.I'm not into ELF stuff anymore. When I was a young punk they were the shit. I do however support people taking action. I don't see this ELF action as revolutionary, nor do I find it particularly important. But I am very much in favor of people taking action within their community.

[Ele'ill]

Like what posts?


You can't take a small group of people and say they represent a much larger group.



I'm talking about the intent behind the "ELF" action. If their (the ELF chaps) intent was to knock down the towers, then they succeeded.

I think you're being a bit silly.

This is a step away from saying "If the ELF chaps' intent was to be an ELF chap then they've succeeded.."
The action was knocking the towers down the consquences were the FBI, the end of a grass roots movement and the radio corporation looking like a victim.





Revolution? Here I was thinking we were talking about some people knocking over some towers.


Its a blatant analogy. :rolleyes:

(but if you need me to explain it for you I will :))












I think this has already been addressed. People aren't going to come out and say "YEAH I THOUGHT IT WAS AWESOME" because that shit is suspect.

Yeah, in fact, I'm the one that pointed that out earlier in this thread.

The issue isn't that a few people in the community might agree with the actions. The problem is that the people in the community that were handling the tower problem in court now have all of their work destroyed or essentially put on hold.

Those towers will likely be rebuilt. The idea of knocking them down over and over again is not very likely. What is needed? Perhaps a grass roots movement against the towers oh wait, there was one but now the community is afraid of radical environmentalists and the FBI. The grass roots movement will not reorganize and try again because they are working class and cannot afford to put that much time into a mission again.








Dunno
Lol wut?

The idea of direct action has been around forever. It doesn't work without support. When enough support is present- direct action isn't needed.




Again, no one has experienced the sort of liberty I or any other anarchist/communist proposes. So until we have, this "people think they need bosses" business is pointless to bring up.

Again, Another thread perhaps.










Cool. I wasn't aware we were debating for glory.


For some, the lack there of paints a negative space.










That only radicals engage in direct action.

Perhaps we're arguing semantics of two different scenarios.

So far in the environmental movement- direct action has been harmful towards progress.

The question why could be answered here or in another thread.





Alright. Didn't think of that.

http://jamie-online.com/random-jamz/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/facepalm.jpg

You didn't have to think of it. I said this about five times in the last two pages.






Sabotage. If something breaks, then we can skip out on work.

Is this really an example of 'political' direct action? I understand the implications of sabotage but unless there's political motive this is nothing but laziness?

I think this happens a lot in the work place but isn't driven by a political ideology. From my experience its usually very small 'actions' that cause sabotage.






I do however support people taking action. I don't see this ELF action as revolutionary, nor do I find it particularly important. But I am very much in favor of people taking action within their community.

Rather than a small group of people taking illegal action and having no way of conveying why they chose this method to the rest of the community- I'd like to see the community evict harmful entities as a large group so that everyone knows why they did it and everyone is empowered to do it again if needed.

There are no lessons learned otherwise.

In this ELF scenario- What would stop the tower corporation from spoofing an ELF attack? I would think they'd benefit greatly from it. If they're going up against working class people(s) and the court hearing is stalled there is a good chance the people will back down.

The towers can be rebuilt without a problem.

Future attempts to dissent are over.


I'm not saying the tower corporation (wow, just had a dark tower series flash back.) was behind the toppling of their own towers. The idea illustrates how little a ripple the ELF action made in regards to positive change.

[StalinFanboy]

You can't take a small group of people and say they represent a much larger group.Yes you can.





I think you're being a bit silly.

This is a step away from saying "If the ELF chaps' intent was to be an ELF chap then they've succeeded.."
The action was knocking the towers down the consquences were the FBI, the end of a grass roots movement and the radio corporation looking like a victim. I think you're always a bit silly.

I understand what the action was. I'm saying that if their intent behind the action was simply to just knock down the towers for whatever reason (perhaps they were not satisfied with the way the tower problem was being handled), then they certainly succeeded. In a lot of actions like this, the intent is really to just take care of something. If their intent was to cause some sort of social rupture or revolutionary situation, then obviously they failed and are tools.









Its a blatant analogy. :rolleyes: I get that it was an analogy. It was just an incredibly dumb one. I don't really think analogies like yours have a place in debate.















Yeah, in fact, I'm the one that pointed that out earlier in this thread.

The issue isn't that a few people in the community might agree with the actions. The problem is that the people in the community that were handling the tower problem in court now have all of their work destroyed or essentially put on hold.

Those towers will likely be rebuilt. The idea of knocking them down over and over again is not very likely. What is needed? Perhaps a grass roots movement against the towers oh wait, there was one but now the community is afraid of radical environmentalists and the FBI. The grass roots movement will not reorganize and try again because they are working class and cannot afford to put that much time into a mission again. There shouldn't have ever been a reformist grass roots movement anyway. They should have just taken care of it on their own. Oh well.










The idea of direct action has been around forever. Fuck, I know this. I just don't know why you asked that question.









Perhaps we're arguing semantics of two different scenarios.

So far in the environmental movement- direct action has been harmful towards progress.

The question why could be answered here or in another thread. I don't know, the Cascadia Freestate was fairly successful.






Is this really an example of 'political' direct action? I understand the implications of sabotage but unless there's political motive this is nothing but laziness? I never said it was politically motivated. Fuck, you pull that facepalm shit with me, and then post this.

Is there something wrong with laziness in this situation? There are bout a thousand other things I'd rather be doing than removing brush and weed whacking for the county.





Rather than a small group of people taking illegal action and having no way of conveying why they chose this method to the rest of the community- I'd like to see the community evict harmful entities as a large group so that everyone knows why they did it and everyone is empowered to do it again if needed.

There are no lessons learned otherwise. Yes they should have. Instead of fooling around with that court shit.


Anyway, this is getting stupid. I don't care about the ELF this much. And it's just becoming a huge circle:

"I work with people who aren't radical in anyway that engage in direct action"

"I don't believe you"

"Why?"

"Because I don't"

"Why?"

"Because I don't"

[Ele'ill]

Yes you can.

No you can't. :rolleyes:




I understand what the action was. I'm saying that if their intent behind the action was simply to just knock down the towers for whatever reason (perhaps they were not satisfied with the way the tower problem was being handled), then they certainly succeeded.


"If their goal was to do something and they did something than they were successful at doing something"

Had they decided to do something unrelated- like have a beer- they would have been successful too.

Or perhaps they play hockey. A success!

Chess! Success!



In a lot of actions like this, the intent is really to just take care of something.

They made the situation much worse. The issue wasn't that the towers were there. It was that the towers are allowed to be there. They could knock them down every time they're rebuilt and it would only bring the rebuilding of the towers, police harassment, arrests and the weakening of community networks.




If their intent was to cause some sort of social rupture or revolutionary situation, then obviously they failed and are tools.

Then they exercise a blatant disregard towards movement.








I get that it was an analogy. It was just an incredibly dumb one. I don't really think analogies like yours have a place in debate.

Excellent cop out.














There shouldn't have ever been a reformist grass roots movement anyway. They should have just taken care of it on their own. Oh well.

Oh right. I forgot that to people like you- any type of nonviolent movement causing change is dubbed 'reformist' and is akin to pedophilia.

You need to unlearn this as fast as you can.



The issue wasn't that the towers were there. The issue was that the towers were allowed to be there.





I don't know, the Cascadia Freestate was fairly successful.

We need tactics that can include a larger network of people. People shy away from violence.

What we don't need are 'elves in the woods' that come out every so often to heckle the state and its children.

Its beyond fucking foolish and getting into the realm of stagnant pond water.





I never said it was politically motivated. Fuck, you pull that facepalm shit with me, and then post this.

My point being- If it wasn't political than perhaps it wasn't direct action. Maybe it was petty vandalism.








Did the facepalm.jpg still make you laugh though? I laugh whenever I see it.




Yes they should have. Instead of fooling around with that court shit.

Without the court shit, the towers will be rebuilt over and over again with the chances of getting caught and arrested while knocking them down increasing each time.

Useless.



Anyway, this is getting stupid. I don't care about the ELF this much. And it's just becoming a huge circle:

"I work with people who aren't radical in anyway that engage in direct action"

"I don't believe you"

"Why?"

"Because I don't"

"Why?"

"Because I don't"

I don't believe you because you haven't given me any examples of why direct action is a good thing- either in your situation at work or as a valid tactic for environmentalism.

(it sounds like kids breaking stuff so they don't have to do work)

And that's to both ELF AND your work scenario.