Words cannot express my feelings about this

[bcbm]

Motion says Virginia man charged in case to testify against others

By JEFF BARNARD / Associated Press

One of the six people arrested this month on federal charges they were part of an ecoterrorism campaign has agreed to testify against others charged in the case, according to court papers.

A defense motion filed in U.S. District Court in Eugene says Stanislas "Jack" Meyerhoff, 28, a former Eugene resident who has lately been attending Piedmont Community College in Charlottesville, Va., is one of the unnamed informants the federal government has relied on for evidence in the investigation.

Public defender Craig Weinerman named Meyerhoff and another man, Jacob Ferguson, as informants in a motion for the release of Chelsea Gerlach, who is being held without bail.

The motion is to be argued Thursday in U.S. District Court in Eugene.

Gerlach, 28, who grew up in the Eugene area and worked as a disc jockey in Portland, faces trial on indictments she and Meyerhoff helped topple a high tension power line outside Bend in 1999 and that she served as a lookout while others were setting fire to the Childers Meat Co. plant in Eugene in 2001.

No group took responsibility for the toppling the electric tower, but the Animal Liberation Front took credit for the meat plant fire to protest the treatment of livestock.

Authorities have also named Gerlach as a suspect in the 1998 arson of a ski resort in Vail, Colo., that caused $12 million in damages, though she has not been charged. The Earth Liberation Front took credit for that, saying it was fighting ski resort expansion into lynx habitat.

Meyerhoff also was indicted on charges he firebombed the office of Superior Lumber Co. in Glendale, now known as Swanson Group, in 2001, as well as offices and a truck shop at the Jefferson Poplar Farm in Clatskanie the same year. Earth Liberation Front took credit for both those.

In a status hearing Tuesday, Meyerhoff asked the court to show mercy.

"I pray that the court is merciful with those who have renounced these crimes and have moved on to be students and professionals," he said.

Weinerman characterized Meyerhoff and Ferguson as "serial arsonists" whose credibility was undermined by the fact that they face life in prison without parole if convicted on charges of being in possession of a firebomb.

He argued that the weakness of the government's case and Gerlach's strong ties to the community — her mother lives in Eugene and her father lives in Sweet Home — should qualify her for release on bail.

Weinerman wrote in the motion that following his arrest Dec. 7, Meyerhoff admitted he was involved in the Childers Meat fire and claimed Gerlach also was involved, but could not recall her specific role. He has not been charged in that fire.

Ferguson, who told authorities he also took part in the meat plant fire, characterized Gerlach's role as a lookout with a hand-held radio, the motion said.

The motion gave no age or hometown for Ferguson, but noted that he has not been charged in any of the cases.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Barry Sheldahl said the prosecution would respond to the motion in court.

Ferguson also admitted taking part in the firebombing of a U.S. Department of Agriculture plant research lab in Olympia, Wash., in 1998, the Superior Lumber Co. fire in 2001 and the tree farm fire the same year, the motion said.

"Ferguson has admitted to actually setting the fires in these arsons according to an affidavit filed in connection with the issuance of search warrants in these cases," the motion said.

That affidavit also says that the informant, not named, went with an investigator to the tree farm in December 2004, and described how the firebombing was carried out. In 2005 he wore a hidden microphone and obtained tape recordings of conversations with defendants Meyerhoff, Kevin Tubbs of Eugene, Daniel McGowan of New York City, and William C. Rodgers of Prescott, Ariz.

The affidavit includes a transcript of McGowan saying two of the firebombs from the tree farm fire did not go off, and a notation that investigators found a bucket of fuel at the scene with a fanny pack, typically used to hold the bomb timer, immersed in it.

McGowan was indicted on charges he joined Meyerhoff in the arsons of the lumber mill and the tree farm.

[Ian]

No comrades of mine.

[LSD]

Out of pure curiosity, and recognizing that "words cannot express", what are your "feelings about this"?

Please tell me you don't support this primitavist nonsense! :o

[bcbm]

I support actions taken to defend the planet, particularly when those destroying it are doing so to build bourgeois resorts, or to make a quick profit at the expense of say, an old growth forest. I also support those who take action against the extremely destructive industrial animal agriculture industry. But that is not the point and I'd wish this topic not go into that.

The point is that snitches are the lowest scum on the planet and deserve nothing but the worst. If I believed in eternal damnation, even that would be too kind a punishment for them.

[ioncannon152]

I support actions taken to defend the planet, particularly when those destroying it are doing so to build bourgeois resorts, or to make a quick profit at the expense of say, an old growth forest. I also support those who take action against the extremely destructive industrial animal agriculture industry.

I'm with you comrade.

[LSD]

I support actions taken to defend the planet

Like torching meat plants and knocking down electrical plants?

Of course action needs to be taken, but these poor fools are focusing on the wrong damn issue. Industrialization isn't "going anywhere", and so long as capitalism's around it will remain destructive and unenvironmental.

Slowing down one resort's construction is "small potatoes" and until these "activists" realize this, they will continue to accomplsish nothing.


The point is that snitches are the lowest scum on the planet and deserve nothing but the worst.

It really depends on what they are "snitching" against.

I would agree that those who "snitch" against progressive causes are disgusting wastes of human flesh, but I have absolutely no problem with those who, say, "snitch" against fascists.

I see no value in the elevation of the "comradely bond" to something greater than the organization it serves. Accordingly, sometimes "snitching" is "good", sometimes it is "bad".

One's actions can only be judged in their totatilty.

[Ian]

Snitches get stitches

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 10:21 PM
Like torching meat plants and knocking down electrical plants?

Of course action needs to be taken, but these poor fools are focusing on the wrong damn issue. Industrialization isn't "going anywhere", and so long as capitalism's around it will remain destructive and unenvironmental.

Slowing down one resort's construction is "small potatoes" and until these "activists" realize this, they will continue to accomplsish nothing.
I think its important that they're at least acting outside the system and accomplishing at least "small potatoes." Its better than selling newspapers or most of the other jerk-off bullshit the "left" has occupied itself with these days. Not to say there is no good work being done, but...



It really depends on what they are "snitching" against.

I would agree that those who "snitch" against progressive causes are disgusting wastes of human flesh, but I have absolutely no problem with those who, say, "snitch" against fascists.

I see no value in the elevation of the "comradely bond" to something greater than the organization it serves. Accordingly, sometimes "snitching" is "good", sometimes it is "bad".

One's actions can only be judged in their totatilty.

Being a snitch shows a complete lack of integrity. I don't care who you're snitching on, you're scum.

[LSD]

I think its important that they're at least acting outside the system

Yes but far-right hate groups also operate "outside the system", the problem is that's not enough.

Firebombing medical clinics and meat factories does not harm capitalism, it merely harms the workers who work at those plants. The corporations can easily rebuild, with a nice insurance windfall to boot, but the employees end up unemployed or worse.

Organizations such as the ALF and ELF do not oppose capitalism, they oppose modernity. They honestly couldn't give a fuck if the organization of a factory is capitalistic or proletarian, so long as they see it as a "threat" to "the earth" or to "the animals", they will try and shut it down ...or blow it up.

That is not a progressive attitude. There are environmental issues, yes, but they are not the ones that the ELF thinks that they are. Primitavism is simply not an option, industrialization is here to stay, and the only way of making society environmentally sustainable is the elimination of capitalism.

Blowing up resorts is fighting the symptom instead of the cause, and as long as "ecoterrorists" continue to do so, they will remain worse than useless.

Despite the actions of self-styled radicals like the ELF and ALF, over the past decades, environmental conditions have continued to degrade. No small-scale individual terrorism can ever hope to stop the momentum of societal organization. What it does do, however, is turn people off, make "radicalism" seem petty, and make environmentalism seem "extreme".

Yeah, that&#39;s really helping the "cause"... <_<


Its better than selling newspapers or most of the other jerk-off bullshit the "left" has occupied itself with these days.

Is it?

I agree with you on the relative passivity of the modern left, but personaly, I prefer intelligent passivity to reactionary action.

The problem with the ELF is not that it is active, it&#39;s that it is actively wrong.


Being a snitch shows a complete lack of integrity. I don&#39;t care who you&#39;re snitching on, you&#39;re scum.

So someone who infiltrates a neo-nazi group, learns of their plans to blow up a black church, and then informs said church, is "scum" and has "no integrity"?

Sorry, but that&#39;s utter crap.

The people who are "scum" are the lunatics who feel that they have a "higher obligation" than serving society; who see their "loyality" as more important than saving lives.

If "snitching" results in a better outcome than not "snitching" then it is justified; if it does not then it is not. It&#39;s no more complex and no more simple than that. I know it&#39;s uncomfortable to accept, but there is no such thing as a universal "wrong"; everything is contextual.

[bcbm]

the problem is that&#39;s not enough.

I never suggested it was. I support diversity of tactics.


The corporations can easily rebuild, with a nice insurance windfall to boot, but the employees end up unemployed or worse.

Actually, quite a few companies, at least in the fur farming industry, have insurance policies that cover quite a bit less than their animals are actually worth, so the company usually gets the shaft when something bad happens. I would imagine the scenario may be similar in other earth and animal-related industries.


Organizations such as the ALF and ELF do not oppose capitalism, they oppose modernity. They honestly couldn&#39;t give a fuck if the organization of a factory is capitalistic or proletarian, so long as they see it as a "threat" to "the earth" or to "the animals", they will try and shut it down ...or blow it up.

I find it somewhat troubling to refer to the ALF or ELF as a homogenous entity with a set ideology, since both have been organized specifically to avoid all of that. However, for the record:

"The ELF realizes the profit motive caused and reinforced by the capitalist society is destroying all life on this planet. The only way, at this point in time, to stop that continued destruction of life is to by any means necessary take the profit motive out of killing."


Is it?

I agree with you on the relative passivity of the modern left, but personaly, I prefer intelligent passivity to reactionary action.

Then we disagree here, though I don&#39;t find all ELF/ALF actions to be reactionary.


So someone who infiltrates a neo-nazi group, learns of their plans to blow up a black church, and then informs said church, is "scum" and has "no integrity"?

I don&#39;t believe that would qualify as "snitching," as I am using the term here. Primarily, I have a problem with people turning on their former friends and hopping in bed with the pigs.


If "snitching" results in a better outcome than not "snitching" then it is justified; if it does not then it is not. It&#39;s no more complex and no more simple than that. I know it&#39;s uncomfortable to accept, but there is no such thing as a universal "wrong"; everything is contextual.

Yeah, yeah, but I still don&#39;t have to like snitches.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

LSD has pretty much summed it up..

This is petty bourgeois crap that will accomplish nothing; and if it has any effect at all, will actually cause people to have a worse opinion of any legitimate action.

Primitivism is for cave men.

[Delirium]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 08:08 PM


Primitivism is for cave men.
Primitivism is for the self-reliant. Though i consider myself a socialist of some sorts, I think it far more likley that the system will come down though means other than revolution. IF that happens I know that i will be able to feed myself.

Fuck Industrialization

On the topic of eco-"terrorism" I support most of blackbanner&#39;s comments. These groups are better than releying on compromising environmental groups that achieve little. This is direct action, What you propose is too little, to late. Who knows when the revolution will come, maybe not even in my lifetime, but i know that these issues need to be adressed now and not later.

[LSD]

Actually, quite a few companies, at least in the fur farming industry, have insurance policies that cover quite a bit less than their animals are actually worth, so the company usually gets the shaft when something bad happens.

Even if so, it&#39;s a much smaller "shaft" than that which its employees recieve.

A slightly reduced quartterly profit does not compare with unemployment, poverty, or death.

The point you seem to be missing here is that the ELF/ALF are doing nothing for people. While they destroy livelyhood, torch medical centers, and murder workers, they are offering absolutely nothing to these already oppressed people that they are harming the most.

The reason that environmental concerns are important is because they are potentially threatening to people. The ELF does not recognize this. It sees the "protection" of the "earth" to not only be seperate from human welfare but to actually be more important.

This is a fundamentally anti-humanist and anti-progressive standpoint and cannot be supported. Even if such organizations occassionaly do successfuly hurt the bourgeosie, we still cannot give them our support.

If a neo-nazi group vandalized a McDonalds for hiring Latinos, it does not mean that we should support this action no matter how much we may hate McDonalds Corporation.

If the motive is reactionay then so is the action ...and so is the organization.


I find it somewhat troubling to refer to the ALF or ELF as a homogenous entity with a set ideology, since both have been organized specifically to avoid all of that.

Well, obviously.

But like other decentralized terrorist groups, there are fundamental core beliefs on which it is founded and those who choose to commit acts in the name of that organization adhere to those basic ideas.

The ELF can be judged on the basis of 1) it&#39;s self-proclamed ideas, and 2) the actions taken in its name.

Both of these are reactionary.


However, for the record:

"The ELF realizes the profit motive caused and reinforced by the capitalist society is destroying all life on this planet. The only way, at this point in time, to stop that continued destruction of life is to by any means necessary take the profit motive out of killing."

That is a single quote, out of context, and it doesn&#39;t really help your argument.

It is clear from this statement that the ELF&#39;s problem with capitalism is not it&#39;s oppressive nature, but rather that it "is destroying all live on this planet". Accordingly, it follows that they would similarly oppose any other economic arrangement that seemed to be doing the same.

That means that if a successful revolution occured and a polluting factory was siezed by its workers and operated in a democratic proletarian fashion ...the ELF would still blow it up.

The ELF doesn&#39;t want to remove the profit motive, it wants to remove the profit motive "out of killing [nature]".

That&#39;s not enough.


Then we disagree here

We do? :blink:

You prefer reactionary action to inaction?

Well, if it&#39;s just action that you want, regardless of the motive, then there&#39;s a short german fellow with a mustache you should meet...


I don&#39;t believe that would qualify as "snitching," as I am using the term here.

Of course it would.

If someone joined a neo-nazi group, played nice, made friends with everyone, earned the organizations trust, and then betrayed their secret plans to their enemies, that would seem to be the definition of "snitching".


Primarily, I have a problem with people turning on their former friends and hopping in bed with the pigs.

What if their "former friends" are planning on killing innocent people?

Would you have had a problem if one of the 9/11 hijackers had had a change of heart and informed the NYPD?

How about if an Aum Shinrikyō member had warned the Tokyo police before the subway gas attack?

Both of these actions would qualify as "turning on their former friends" and "hopping in bed with the pigs", they would have also saved many innocent lives.

Sounds like a good thing to me.


Primitivism is for the self-reliant. Though i consider myself a socialist of some sorts, I think it far more likley that the system will come down though means other than revolution. IF that happens I know that i will be able to feed myself.

That&#39;s not primitvism, it&#39;s survivalism, and they are two entirely seperate things.

Primitavism is not about personal survival, it&#39;s about how to shape society.


These groups are better than releying on compromising environmental groups that achieve little. This is direct action

Yes it most certainly is, but, again, it&#39;s the wrong direct action.

After all, Klansmen believe in "direct action" as well, that doesn&#39;t mean that you should support them&#33;

[Delirium]

Many of the points LSD makes are valid, and i will clarify my position more. I have yet to master the quote function so i hope this will do.

On ALF (and related organizations/causes): I personally dont have strong feelings here, there is a difference between animals and humans, I of course opposed cruel practices, and cruel living conditions, but my priority here is with the environment.

Just as with everything else this is not a black and white issue, The well being of the earth is the primary focus, and people secondary, but a healthy environment in the long run is good for all of humanity.

"This is a fundamentally anti-humanist and anti-progressive standpoint and cannot be supported. Even if such organizations occassionaly do successfuly hurt the bourgeosie, we still cannot give them our support."

I give them my support, for the protection of the environment is is the intrests of humanity.

Primitivism and Survivalism are two different thing and thankyou for correcting me, I am a survivalist and somewhat a primitivist.

You cannot take the ELF and compare them to groups such as neo-nazi and call that an argument. I understand that you are trying to say that they are reactionary, but as i said this is a very gray issue. Perhaps they are reactionary, but that is not the important issue to me.

[LSD]

Just as with everything else this is not a black and white issue, The well being of the earth is the primary focus, and people secondary

The "[well being of] people is secondary"??? :blink:

What kind of metaphysical superstitious anti-humanist nonsense is that&#33;?

Insofar as human society is concerned, the wellbeing of humanity is not only the paramount "focus", it&#39;s the only "focus"&#33;

Human society exists to serve human people, period.


I give them my support, for the protection of the environment is is the intrests of humanity.

That&#39;s not a good enough reason.

While the protection of the environment is in the interst of humanity, that does not mean that you should support any organization that claims to fight for it.

The ELF/ALF may well care about the environment, but they do so for the wrong reasons. That means that while they may be, superficially, fighting for the interest of humanity, when looked at in their totality, it is clear that their actions actually do more harm than good.

The ELF/ALF hurt workers, prevent advancement, undermine progress, and perhaps most damningly of all, have done nothing to help the environment&#33;

The fact is, despite all their "efforts", environmental damage has never been so bad. The fact is that when dealing with capitalism, there is simply no way, short of total mass civil insurrection, to make harming the environment "unprofitable". It will always be cheaper to spend less money; it&#39;s sort of an economic law.

The ELF/ALF believe that they can use capitalism to help "nature"; we believe that we must destroy capitalism to help humanity.

These are not compatible positions.


You cannot take the ELF and compare them to groups such as neo-nazi and call that an argument.

Of course I can, it&#39;s called an analogy.

The fact that organizations such as the ELF/ALF engage in "direct action" does not make them progressive if the motivation for such action is inherently reactionary.

Again, I bring up the example of a neo-nazi group vandalizing a McDonalds. It doesn&#39;t matter if the target of the attack is our enemy as well, we cannot lend our support to organizations which are ideologically opposed to the revolutionary left.

The problem with the ELF/ALF is that their primary concern is not humanity. They honestly do not care about the welfare of people, they care about the welfare of imaginary intangibles like "nature" and "harmony".

As such they are superstitious anti-materialists and no comrades of ours&#33;


On ALF (and related organizations/causes): I personally dont have strong feelings here

Then why on earth are you posting in this thread? :lol:

[Delirium]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 10:31 PM

Just as with everything else this is not a black and white issue, The well being of the earth is the primary focus, and people secondary

The "[well being of] people is secondary"??? :blink:

What kind of metaphysical superstitious anti-humanist nonsense is that&#33;?

Insofar as human society is concerned, the wellbeing of humanity is not only the paramount "focus", it&#39;s the only "focus"&#33;

Human society exists to serve human people, period.


I give them my support, for the protection of the environment is is the intrests of humanity.

That&#39;s not a good enough reason.

While the protection of the environment is in the interst of humanity, that does not mean that you should support any organization that claims to fight for it.

The ELF/ALF may well care about the environment, but they do so for the wrong reasons. That means that while they may be, superficially, fighting for the interest of humanity, when looked at in their totality, it is clear that their actions actually do more harm than good.

The ELF/ALF hurt workers, prevent advancement, undermine progress, and perhaps most damningly of all, have done nothing to help the environment&#33;

The fact is, despite all their "efforts", environmental damage has never been so bad. The fact is that when dealing with capitalism, there is simply no way, short of total mass civil insurrection, to make harming the environment "unprofitable". It will always be cheaper to spend less money; it&#39;s sort of an economic law.

The ELF/ALF believe that they can use capitalism to help "nature"; we believe that we must destroy capitalism to help humanity.

These are not compatible positions.


You cannot take the ELF and compare them to groups such as neo-nazi and call that an argument.

Of course I can, it&#39;s called an analogy.

The fact that organizations such as the ELF/ALF engage in "direct action" does not make them progressive if the motivation for such action is inherently reactionary.

Again, I bring up the example of a neo-nazi group vandalizing a McDonalds. It doesn&#39;t matter if the target of the attack is our enemy as well, we cannot lend our support to organizations which are ideologically opposed to the revolutionary left.

The problem with the ELF/ALF is that their primary concern is not humanity. They honestly do not care about the welfare of people, they care about the welfare of imaginary intangibles like "nature" and "harmony".

As such they are superstitious anti-materialists and no comrades of ours&#33;


On ALF (and related organizations/causes): I personally dont have strong feelings here

Then why on earth are you posting in this thread? :lol:
By ignoring the environmental problems now we are insuring that they will harm the well being of society in the future. You can label and distort these environmental groups however you want, but that does not change the actions which they do in reality. (no personal insult intended)

Just a Black Banner pointed out you continue to lump all of them into a single dogmatic ideology which is inaccurate to do.

Do you spend any time in the free air without artificial lighting?

[LSD]

By ignoring the environmental problems now we are insuring that they will harm the well being of society in the future.

Again, I am not denying that environmental problems exist. I am merely pointing out that the solutions that organizations such as the ELF and ALF offer are misguided, ineffectual, and destructive.

There is no way to make environmentalism "profitable" within capitalism; the ELF&#39;s attempts to use capitalism to serve "green" purposes cannot help but to fail. In the end, all that ecoterrorist groups are accomplishing by their actions is to marginalize environmentalism and trivialize activism, not to mention killing, maiming, injuring, and impoverishing many many people.


You can label and distort these environmental groups however you want, but that does not change the actions which they do in reality.

And what have I "distorted"?

I am merely calling it as I see it, no "labeling" required. Really, the actions of the ELF/ALF speak for themselves. When the ALF firebombs a medical clinic, it doesn&#39;t take me to "label" it a bad thing, it&#39;s simply a bad thing&#33;

Instead of slandering me and accusing me of misrepresentation, why don&#39;t you specify exactly what it is that you disagree with in my argument?


Just a Black Banner pointed out you continue to lump all of them into a single dogmatic ideology which is inaccurate to do.

I am not "lumping" anything. I am analyzing the ideology that they themselves admit they hold. Again, even disparate terrorist groups have core principles on which they are founded.

No one would contend that Al Quaida does not have a fundamental ideology just because it is mainly composed of disconnected cells.

Likewise, to deny that the ALF/ELF have basic values is ludicrous. If the ELF/ALF did not have principles for which they stand, they would not exist, people would not commit acts in their names, and we would not be having this discussion.

Honestly, the only one denying reality here is you. The ELF/ALF are not "shy" in their anti-humanism, I really don&#39;t understand why you insist on arguing fact.


Do you spend any time in the free air without artificial lighting?

As little as possible. But then, of course, I do live in Canada so that&#39;s to be expected&#33; :lol:

[violencia.Proletariat]

By ignoring the environmental problems now we are insuring that they will harm the well being of society in the future.

of course. but the elf is not doing anything to help create sustainable developement. while they are torching suv&#39;s others are researching better energy sources. which seems more effective?


You can label and distort these environmental groups however you want, but that does not change the actions which they do in reality

yes it doesnt. in reality their actions are very stupid and DONT help the environment. if we were to follow the elf&#39;s example of helping the environment we would have to blow up every vehicle on earth.

[bcbm]

Even if so, it&#39;s a much smaller "shaft" than that which its employees recieve.

A slightly reduced quartterly profit does not compare with unemployment, poverty, or death.

The environmentalist movement has, in the past, attempted to build links with logging workers and others in "the industry" to find a common ground. You can guess how well those efforts were received by the powers that be. I think the ELF could certainly be more exclusive, but at the same time I&#39;d rather someone lost their job than see an entire old growth forest levelled.


The point you seem to be missing here is that the ELF/ALF are doing nothing for people. While they destroy livelyhood, torch medical centers, and murder workers, they are offering absolutely nothing to these already oppressed people that they are harming the most.

Medical centers? What action specifically are you referring to? And murder workers? Do you even know what the hell you&#39;re talking about? The ELF/ALF, in 30 odd years of existence, have never killed a single human being or animal. Indeed, in order for an action to qualify under the ELF/ALF banner, no one can be harmed.


The reason that environmental concerns are important is because they are potentially threatening to people. The ELF does not recognize this. It sees the "protection" of the "earth" to not only be seperate from human welfare but to actually be more important.

This is a fundamentally anti-humanist and anti-progressive standpoint and cannot be supported. Even if such organizations occassionaly do successfuly hurt the bourgeosie, we still cannot give them our support.

I don&#39;t see why recognizing that the earth doesn&#39;t exist entirely for humans to use and exploit and that nature has its own value is fundamentally at odds with humanism or being progressive.


But like other decentralized terrorist groups, there are fundamental core beliefs on which it is founded and those who choose to commit acts in the name of that organization adhere to those basic ideas.

The ELF can be judged on the basis of 1) it&#39;s self-proclamed ideas, and 2) the actions taken in its name.

I was having trouble finding the ELF documents, since their website has gone down. If you can find them and would like to post them up, then please do, I&#39;m happy to discuss them and look over them.


That is a single quote, out of context, and it doesn&#39;t really help your argument.

It is clear from this statement that the ELF&#39;s problem with capitalism is not it&#39;s oppressive nature, but rather that it "is destroying all live on this planet". Accordingly, it follows that they would similarly oppose any other economic arrangement that seemed to be doing the same.

That means that if a successful revolution occured and a polluting factory was siezed by its workers and operated in a democratic proletarian fashion ...the ELF would still blow it up.

The ELF doesn&#39;t want to remove the profit motive, it wants to remove the profit motive "out of killing [nature]".

That&#39;s not enough.


From what I know of ELF activists and having read any number of radical environmental sabotage zines, I can assure you that they, at least most of them, are opposed to the profit motive and all oppressive structures. As I said, if you&#39;d like to get some basic ELF documents, let&#39;s have them.

And I doubt they would blow up the factory... right away. ELF actions are usually taken when other means have failed.


We do?

You prefer reactionary action to inaction?

I was disagreeing that all of their actions are reactionary.


Well, if it&#39;s just action that you want, regardless of the motive, then there&#39;s a short german fellow with a mustache you should meet...

:rolleyes: You&#39;ve moved quickly into the "lowest-common-denominator" form of debate.


What if their "former friends" are planning on killing innocent people?

Would you have had a problem if one of the 9/11 hijackers had had a change of heart and informed the NYPD?

How about if an Aum Shinrikyō member had warned the Tokyo police before the subway gas attack?

Both of these actions would qualify as "turning on their former friends" and "hopping in bed with the pigs", they would have also saved many innocent lives.

Sounds like a good thing to me.

I suppose in the case of innocent lives, yes it is a good thing. But that isn&#39;t what we&#39;re dealing with here, so I have no problem denouncing these scumbags. And like I said, I still don&#39;t have to like snitches. This also seems to suggest the only alternative to going through with the plan is turning state&#39;s evidence, and I don&#39;t think it is.


The fact is, despite all their "efforts", environmental damage has never been so bad. The fact is that when dealing with capitalism, there is simply no way, short of total mass civil insurrection, to make harming the environment "unprofitable". It will always be cheaper to spend less money; it&#39;s sort of an economic law.

And they want to end capitalism too. However, they feel that some action must be taken now to protect things. Old growth stands and other things have been saved, at least temporarily, by ELF/ALF and other group&#39;s actions. I believe their general view is that we don&#39;t have time to wait for massive social upheavel, something has to be done right now to save the planet.


the ELF&#39;s attempts to use capitalism to serve "green" purposes cannot help but to fail

What? When has the ELF attempted to use capitalism to serve green purposes?


not to mention killing, maiming, injuring, and impoverishing many many people.

The first three claims have no base in reality, and the latter is somewhat suspect.

[LSD]

The environmentalist movement has, in the past, attempted to build links with logging workers and others in "the industry" to find a common ground.

I can&#39;t speak to the veracity of this claim, but I am certainly not suprised that such attempts would fail.

Workers and "ecoterrorists" have diametrically opposite priorities. Workers want to live and feed their families, "ecoterrorists" want to "save" "nature". In practice, of course, this means eliminating their livelyhoods without offering any alternative.

If these "environmental" organizations actually had a coherent plan for society, then regular people might take them seriously, but trying to make current society "green" without any form of plan of action at all is not only hopeless, but, as we can see, is dangerous as well.


I&#39;d rather someone lost their job than see an entire old growth forest levelled.

And that&#39;s why "ecoterrorism" is incompatible with the revolutionary left.

As communists, our priority is people, not trees. And while we recognize the importance to humanity of preserving a viable environment, we also recognize that it is only important insofar as it helps humanity.

We aim to emancipate the workers, not to make them casualties in a ridiculous "green war".


Medical centers? What action specifically are you referring to?

You&#39;re joking, right?

The ALF&#39;s history of targetting and destroying medical research facilities is hardly a "secret". On the contrary, they&#39;re rather proud of it.

If you want a specific example, I suppose the Michigan State University firebombing works.


Indeed, in order for an action to qualify under the ELF/ALF banner, no one can be harmed.

Utter bullshit.

The ALF has violently attacked both Brian Cass and Michael Kendall, going so far as to attempt to blow the latter up in his car; and earlier this year, the ALF declared that it intends further violence against people that it dislikes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/animalrights/sto...1514393,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/animalrights/story/0,11917,1514393,00.html)

Meanwhile, ALF sub-groups like the "Animal Rights Militia" and the "Justice Department", which are mainly copmosed of ALF members, and which are financially and rhetorically supported by the ALF (the "Justice Department" Manifesto is hosted on the ALF website) have long histories of extreme violence against people.

The bomb attacks against "Boots the Chemist" outlets, the sending of rat poisin dipped razor blades to medical researchers, and the sending out of letter bombs to animal shelter operators.

Caling these terrorists "peaceful" in any way is laughable.

These people honestly believe that animals and "nature" are more deserving of protection than human beings; they see it as their purpose and responsibility to "protect" all animals and "nature" from the "evils of man".

That means hurting people.


I don&#39;t see why recognizing that the earth doesn&#39;t exist entirely for humans to use and exploit and that nature has its own value is fundamentally at odds with humanism or being progressive.

Because nature doesn&#39;t have "it&#39;s own value", not insofar as human society is concerend. Human society exists solely to protect its own members, just like any other society, it has no externalistic obligations.

Accordingly, within human society, the life of any human must always take priority over a non-member creature or especially an intangible like "nature".

After all, simply put, "nature" doesn&#39;t exist. There is no such thing as a "natural world" and an "unnatural world". Everything that exists is the result of "natural" processes, and humans are just as much a part of the ecosystem as a squirl or a redwood tree.

The idea that we have some sort of "special responsibility" because of our capicity for rational thought is ludicrous. We have an obligation to maximize the bennefits to humanity, no more.

Now, this does mean ensuring that the world is in a condition that it optimal for human life and that does mean keeping the environment functional, but the problem with organizations such as the ALF and ELF is that they do not recognize this corolory. They see the preservation of "nature" to be an aim in and of itself.

This means that even if they, occassionaly, seem to have overlapping goals with progressive leftists, in the end, we cannot support them because we have diametrically opposed world views.


From what I know of ELF activists and having read any number of radical environmental sabotage zines, I can assure you that they, at least most of them, are opposed to the profit motive and all oppressive structures.


Some of them are, some of them are not, but either way, it is not their primary concern.

Even worse, their definition of "oppressive stuctures" is entirely warped. They do not use the term in its humanist materialist sense, but in a supernaturalist metaphysical sense in which the eating of meat or vivisective research constitutes "oppression".

The ELF/ALF seek "total animal liberation", this means that animals should have every single right and protection that humans currently enjoy from human society.

Not only is this concept laughably impractical, it is also deeply dangerous as an aim. Because they see chipmunks and rabbits as being equally valuable as humans, "ecoterrorists" will fight for their "liberation" no matter the organization of society.

This means that even in a proletarian communistic society, these nutbags will continue to attack research centers and slaughter houses, even if the conditions of both are radically improved.

If you view all creatures (except, for some reason, bacteria) as being effectively "human", then you can never rest. This means that, inevitably, they will be our enemies.

Right now, the mechanisms of industry are in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Accordingly, they are the target of ALF/ELF attacks. Not because they are bourgeois, but because they are industrial. This means that following a successful revolution, in which the class domination has reversed and the proletarians find themselves in control of the industries they have worked for so long, they will also find themselves in the crosshairs of "ecoterrorists".

We should not wait until that day comes. Unless we point out now the dangerous and anti-human nature of their rhetoric, their numbers will continue to grow, and we will only be worsening the comming battle.


And I doubt they would blow up the factory... right away. ELF actions are usually taken when other means have failed.

And what "other means" are thsee?

What "other means" did the ALF try before sending out rat poison to scientists? What "other means" did they try before firebombing MSU?

"Ecoterrorists" are just that, terrorists. They operate by instilling terror and fear so as to motivate change. This is done through violence.

"Other means" don&#39;t tend to work so well.


And they want to end capitalism too. However, they feel that some action must be taken now to protect things.

They don&#39;t give a fuck about capitalism, not as an organization.

While these bodies may contain many self-declared "anarchists" and "radicals", as organization bodies, their interests are not economical or political. They seek to defend "nature" exclusively.

Again, they seek "total animal liberation", a disney-like fantasy world in which all creatures "live in harmony".

This viewpoint is obviously idealist and deeply unmaterialist. As such it is in the realm of the lifestylist "anarchists" and the utopian "socialists", neither of which have any history of ever managing to accomplish anything.


What? When has the ELF attempted to use capitalism to serve green purposes?

That&#39;s their entire mission statement&#33; Trying to "take the profit motive out of killing".

They believe that if they can make it more expensive to be "green" than to not, corporations will accede to their profit motive and meet their demands. It may not be "legal", but it actually is rather capitalistic.

The endgame scenario for the ELF/ALF would be terrorizing companies so much that they submit to every demand and pay the extra bill. This scenario is highly unlikely to every actually happen, but if, for the sake of argument, it did manage to subsist, what kind of world would it create?

It would certainly be a "greener" and more vegetarian one, but it would still be a capitalist one. The ALF/ELF are not trying to destroy corporations, they are trying to influence them.

That is not nearly sufficient&#33;


Old growth stands and other things have been saved, at least temporarily, by ELF/ALF and other group&#39;s actions.

"Temporarily" is the operative word.

Again, not only are the ELF/ALF dangerous, petty, misguided, and anti-humanist, they are also ineffectual.

Trying to manipulate capitalism to serve idealist causes is a hopeless endeavour. Companies will not submit to this band of petty-bourgeois "radicals", rather they will simply step-up domestic oppression and use the tools of the bouregois state to crush them down.

True revolutionaries do not want to operate within the system, we wish to demolish it. As long as ones aims extend only so far as specific policy issues, like the environment, and not to a total reformation of society, one will always be vulnerable to the powers of that community.

The same reason that the riots in France failed to accomplish anything is why, even after 30 years, the ELF, the ALF, and all their sister organizations have failed to come even one step closer to their goals.

Of course, the fact that these goals are patentely insane doesn&#39;t help either.


The first three claims have no base in reality

:lol:

No, of course not. Because the ALF and ELF are the "nice" terrorists who would never hurt anyone, and only care about the cute fluffy puppies and the poor sweet whales. :rolleyes:

Not only has the ALF and its many sub-groups actively attempted to kill and injure hundreds of people, but even its most outspoken members now admit that it&#39;s "time to kill".

“You know, those people – I think they should appreciate that we’re only targeting their property. Because frankly I think it’s time to start targeting them.” - Rodney Coronado, convited arsonist, assaulter, and "hero" of the ALF.

http://consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/1758


and the latter is somewhat suspect.

And how is that?

If you destroy a factory or a research facility, what do you think happens to all the workers who used to work there.

Not that the ALF/ELF care, of course, they have "higher" concerns... <_<


I suppose in the case of innocent lives, yes it is a good thing.

That&#39;s all I&#39;ve been saying; the validity of "snitching" is dependent on context.

[pedro san pedro]

LSD - i side with you on this argument, but i&#39;ld be interested to know how you feel about the environmental movement as a whole? groups that have decent levels of stratergy, propose alternatives and actually have reasonable sucesses.




The environmentalist movement has, in the past, attempted to build links with logging workers and others in "the industry" to find a common ground. You can guess how well those efforts were received by the powers that be. I think the ELF could certainly be more exclusive, but at the same time I&#39;d rather someone lost their job than see an entire old growth forest levelled.

what a load of bollocks. the elf is never going to save a substansual area of OGF - going out and committing petty acts of vandalism once every 6 months does not make you an environmental activist - it makes you, at best, a hobbyist.

at worst, it makes you someone who is holding back environmental change. the environmental movement&#39;s image as a whole is affected by these atcs, and not positively.

if the ELF was really, really committed to environmentalism, and not just random acts of &#39;bad arse rebellion&#39; posing as environmentalism, they&#39;ld realise that environmental wins come from people that poor a lot more time and energy doing what is often very boring work on a daily basis.

it is very hard to point to a single, large environmental campaign that was one by solely direct action - it is a combonation of tactics, so ething that the ELF lacks, that wins campaigns.

all these people are doing is dressing up in ski masks and playing rambo. the have no commitment to environmentalsim that extends beyond doing anything &#39;fun&#39;.

[pedro san pedro]

I don&#39;t see why recognizing that the earth doesn&#39;t exist entirely for humans to use and exploit and that nature has its own value is fundamentally at odds with humanism or being progressive.


environmentalism recognises that there is a need to preserve our planets life support systems bceause they are crucial for the human race to continue. it also recognises that the ecosystem is a very interconnected thing and that by changing one aspect of it - for example driving a species to extinction - has an effect on the system as a whole - effects that are often negative. it does not recognise nature as having &#39;its own value fundamentaly&#39;.

indeed, i wonder if you would be so kind as to enlighten us as to what this &#39;fundamental value&#39; actually is??

[LSD]

LSD - i side with you on this argument, but i&#39;ld be interested to know how you feel about the environmental movement as a whole? groups that have decent levels of stratergy, propose alternatives and actually have reasonable sucesses.

I, of course, support environmentalism as a cause.

One would have to be utterly naive or incredibly idealist to not recognize that human civilization is not at the point that we exist seperate from our environment. The protection of our ecosystem must go hand in hand with any reasonable plan for society.

Capitalism, unfortunately, does not meet this requirement; yet another example of its fundamental failure.

In terms of "green" organizations working today, I would say that many of them are doing some good work. I think that, unfortunately, the vast majority of them are operating under false pretenses, however.

The thing about environmental damage, after all, is that it is what economists would call an "externality". The problems it causes are subtle, indirect, and take a while to manifest. Accordingly, an economic system which operates solely on the basis of short-term profits, will never care about "external" concerns.

Indeed, there has never been an environmentalist success caused by the market. It wasn&#39;t the "consumer" that banned DDT, it was the government. Corporations are not going to voluntarily pay more to pollute less when they can simply hire a publicity firm to cover their asses for half as much.

"State action" and "market hampering", the very forces that libertarians and mainstream economists hate with such passion, are the only thing that has ever managed to gain even a single environmental inch.

Although, to be fair, there has only been a very small number of inches gained.

All of that said, however, I still have no problem with reasonable, thought-out, logical attempts to at least stave off utter disaster, even within the present system. As we are all painfully aware, revolution is not "around the corner", and environmental damage is accelerating at a very alarming rate.

If contemporary environmental organizations manage real accomplishments, they have my full and unmitigated support ...just so long as they realize that it is not a permanent or long-term solution.

[pedro san pedro]

i&#39;ld agree with the bulk of that post, accept for the part about the market never leading to success. while this may normally be the case, campaigns such as the ge free food movement have been successful in influencing companies policies by shifting, or at least giving the perception of the potential for shifting the market.
i also feel that consumers supporting green power are going to contribute to an eventual shift away from fossil fuels. of course, governments have the power to enforce much greater protection, and are of course, sometimes consumers themselves

[LSD]

i&#39;ld agree with the bulk of that post, accept for the part about the market never leading to success. while this may normally be the case, campaigns such as the ge free food movement have been successful in influencing companies policies by shifting, or at least giving the perception of the potential for shifting the market.

Except the campaign against GM foods is not an example of progressive rational environmental change. Rather it is yet another example of consumer hysteria and reactionary fear-mongering.

I will concede that the market is often quite good at accentuating that.

It is worth noting here, however, that there is absolutely no indication that GM foods are "going anywhere". Despite the massive, and misguided, movement to try and "stop" so-called "frankenfoods", there are more and more GM crops being planted every day.

Again, consumers simply do not have the access, the motivation, or the freedom that would allow them to truly influence environmental policy. Even if a significant number of people truly wished to only purchase products from environmental companies (voting with their dollars), most of them are simply unable to do so.

In innumerable fields, there are no environmental companies and no real ability for one to start up. Not to mention that, since being "green" is almost always more expensive and those who start such companies tend not to be overwhelmingly wealthy, purchasing only environmental products is often more than many people can afford.

And, of course, many companies will simply lie; claim to be environmental and find ways around it.

Now, this is not to say that one should not attempt as much as one can to be environmental in one&#39;s life. One shouldn&#39;t expect that doing so will have a serious impace on the world, but it does keep the issue in mind and it certainly does not hurt.

But the big stuff, the important stuff, is always done outside of the market. After all, the same number of people wanted clean air in 1962 as did in 1964, but for some reason they were unable to effect any changes with their "dollar votes".It took serious state "market hampering" before any actual improvement could occur.

In the end, we must not only look to act outside of the market, we must look to eliminate the market itself. Otherwise the priority will always be skewed by the very nature of the system and the environment will remain "our children&#39;s problem".


i also feel that consumers supporting green power are going to contribute to an eventual shift away from fossil fuels.

But if that were going to happen, it would have happened already.

Unless things radically change, what&#39;s going to end fossil fuel use is the end of fossil fuels. Ultimately there will simply be no alternative but to use energy alternatives.

Again, the market cannot provide a preemptive solution.

[pedro san pedro]

if one looks at where GE crops are grown and which crops are the most abundant, you cou can see that consumers have been effective in at least slowing this technology.

a vast majority of crops are grown in only 4 countries - america, mexico, argentina and china. more countries have outlawed the growing of crops than have them&#33;

the crops that are grown the most are soya, canola and maize. the reason for this being that these crops are used a lot for oils and animal feed. most countries that hacve labelling laws in place do not require the labelling of foods contaiing GE oil, or of animals that have been fed GE crops. this is the reason that companies focus on these - they know that if their products were labelled as containing GE material, then they wouldn&#39;t sell. This alone shows what power consumers have.

consumer based campaigns have recently been very successful in pushing the poultry industry away from the use of GE feed in both Australia and New Zealand.

another examaple of a succssful consumer driven campaign that springs to mind is brett spar, where shell was convinced not to dump an old oil station in the sea, after they saw the potential for a massive consumer backlash.

However, i agree that, for the activist, this type of power is very very difficult to harness. boycotts are tremendously difficult and should not be relied upon to win a campaign. I can also se that a lot of the time, polluters are beyond the reach of everday consumer&#39;s wallets and rely very little upon the way that they are percieved by the general public. for example, a large chemical company with a heavily polluting whatever probably doesnt rely upon people buying its products while they are out doing the shopping, and must be fought in a different manner.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by pedro san [email protected] 2 2006, 04:45 AM
the elf is never going to save a substansual area of OGF
Actually, the sabotage campaigns of enviromental and animal rights activists have in many cases harmed the profits of the companies targetted and caused their stock prices to drop. By decreasing the profitability of enviromentally destructive actions they force capitalism to slow or stay away from those kinds of enterprises. If it weren&#39;t effective they wouldn&#39;t have been targetted for repression.

[LSD]

Actually, the sabotage campaigns of enviromental and animal rights activists have in many cases harmed the profits of the companies targetted and caused their stock prices to drop.

To a miniscule degree, yes. But that is not the issue.

The issue is whether such actions have actually helped the environment.

They haven&#39;t.


By decreasing the profitability of enviromentally destructive actions they force capitalism to slow or stay away from those kinds of enterprises.


That is indeed the theory, but it has not been borne out by reality.

Far from making environmentally destructive activities "unprofitable", all that the ELF has managed to accomplish is to make environmentalism a valid target for state repression.

Corporations will not stop saving money merely because occasionally, random projects are haphazardly attacked by amateur petty-bouegeois hoodlums.

Rather they will hire better security, pay a little extra in insurance, and pressure the government to be "tougher on terrorism".


If it weren&#39;t effective they wouldn&#39;t have been targetted for repression.

Of course they would.

The ELF/ALF are domestic terrorists. They are causing destroying property and costing money. The fact that they are doing this is no in question, nor is the fact that corporations tend not to like this sort of thing.

The question, rather, is is it sufficient to force corporations to "go green"; and the answer to that is quite obviously no.

Rather, as you accurately point out, these companies look to the tools of state and market oppression to take care of their hoodlum problem. Indeed, the very fact that repression has proved so effective, demonstrates why the ELF can never be successful in their aims.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:43 PM
Far from making environmentally destructive activities "unprofitable", all that the ELF has managed to accomplish is to make environmentalism a valid target for state repression.

Corporations will not stop saving money merely because occasionally, random projects are haphazardly attacked by amateur petty-bouegeois hoodlums.

Rather they will hire better security, pay a little extra in insurance, and pressure the government to be "tougher on terrorism".
There are no "valid targets" for state repression; and the state will always target any effecitve left-wing or enviromental activists regardless of their tactics. Money spend on insurance, etc. is money that can&#39;t be spend cutting down forests or funding other enviromentally destructive actions. The higher the costs, the lower the profit margin. Higher security & insurance costs thus translate to lower profits. The lower the profit margin of enviromentally destructive enterprises the lower the investment will be in those areas, which will at least slow enviromental destruction. I don&#39;t think anyone in the ELF or any other radical enviromentalist believes sabotage alone is sufficient to save the enviroment - ultimately we need to get to the root cause by abolishing capitalism. But that doesn&#39;t mean stop gap measures to defend the enviroment aren&#39;t justified.

"Terrorism" is nothing more than a perjorative word for anything the government doesn&#39;t like. Labelling a person or group "terrorist" is a way of singling them out as legitimate prey. The government doesn&#39;t stop with labelling ELF terrorist, either - the same justification has been repeatedly used to repress class struggle revolutionaries. By labelling ELF you buy into the governments whole "terrorism" BS and make it easier for them to label us the same.

[LSD]

There are no "valid targets" for state repression; and the state will always target any effecitve left-wing or enviromental activists regardless of their tactics.


No it won&#39;t.

A bourgeois republic needs to maintain a veneer of legitimacy. This means respecting the line between "private" and "public" sectors.

Of course the bourgeois will attempt to prevent environmental progress, it eats into their profits, but, as we know, environmental progress has come.

Generally, it comes when public pressure is so great that the rulling class must submit to public demand and make minor public consessions to secure their power. Much like the economic concessions made in the 1930s.

This kind of reaction, however, only comes when the pressure is exerted from a significant proportion of the population. Isolated small terrorist cells do not qualify.

On the contrary, they asist the bourgeois in deamonizing environmentalism and retaining public support. Most Americans think that animal rights protesters are too extreme because of the vociferous nature of organizations such as PeTA and the ALF.

The same is not yet true for environmentalism, mainly because the ELF and alike consitute such a tiny proportion of the "green" movement.

But if they continue in their efforts, it won&#39;t be long before the public will begin to equate "green" with their car blowiing up and their place of work firebombed.

That&#39;s only good for one group -- the bouregoisie.


Money spend on insurance, etc. is money that can&#39;t be spend cutting down forests or funding other enviromentally destructive actions. The higher the costs, the lower the profit margin. Higher security & insurance costs thus translate to lower profits. The lower the profit margin of enviromentally destructive enterprises the lower the investment will be in those areas, which will at least slow enviromental destruction.

No, the lower the profit margin, the lower the proift margin. That&#39;s it.

Simply reducing profits is not sufficient, rather they must be reduced so much that it becomes cheaper to be "greener". So far, the ELF is not even close to doing that, nor will they ever be capable of doing so.

Being environmental is so much more expensive, that it is worth it to pay the premiums and hire the security rather than paying for more expensive land, less polluting chemicals, properly dumpted waste, etc...

Again, environmentalism cannot be forced throught the "market". The ELF believes that it can manipulate capitalism to serve environmentalist needs, it cannot.


I don&#39;t think anyone in the ELF or any other radical enviromentalist believes sabotage alone is sufficient to save the enviroment

Again, I cannot speak to the "long-term goals" of any hypothetical ELF member, but I can point out that their actions show absolutely no opposition to capitalism, merely its application against "nature".

In their own words, ""The ELF realizes the profit motive caused and reinforced by the capitalist society is destroying all life on this planet. The only way, at this point in time, to stop that continued destruction of life is to by any means necessary take the profit motive out of killing."

The ELF doesn&#39;t want to remove the profit motive, it wants to remove the profit motive "out of killing [nature]".

That&#39;s not nearly enough.


But that doesn&#39;t mean stop gap measures to defend the enviroment aren&#39;t justified.

No, but it does mean that they must be effective.

The ELF is not.


"Terrorism" is nothing more than a perjorative word for anything the government doesn&#39;t like.

Terrorism is the unconventional use of violence for political gain.

It is also, of course, a rather charged word and one which is often abused for partisan reasons. But denying that there is "such a thing" as a terrorist is politcally correct nonsense.

[pandora]

Originally posted by pedro san [email protected] 3 2006, 12:41 AM
if one looks at where GE crops are grown and which crops are the most abundant, you cou can see that consumers have been effective in at least slowing this technology.

a must be fought in a different manner.
Not consumers, people. People have slowed down GMO&#39;s. As consumers there is not a large enough resistance. People are not just consumers.

[Alexknucklehead]

Originally posted by Datura [email protected] 30 2005, 09:17 PM
Primitivism is for the self-reliant.
No, primitivism is for deranged anti-humanist nutters who don&#39;t seem to realise that in order for their &#39;fight against the megamachine maaaan&#39; to actually work 5,900 million people would suddenly have to drop dead for it to be able to sustain itself. Aside from the millions of other endless arguement towards the &#39;principles&#39; of these intellectually retarded people.

Primitivists and their sickening disregard for any kind of human life have nothing in common with revolutionary politics of any nature. And um...self-reliance and primitivism are not the same thing.

[Commie Rat]

Even with extensive consumer lobbying it is the gov that makes the laws and forms the watch groups to push them. In the end the consumer have very little power, as the company will either hide what it is doing or simply relable its products as the gov watch is now a toothless tiger, see examples from No Logo