Mickey Z
Cool Observer
Monday, May 08, 2006
Does property destruction = eco-terrorism?
I wouldn´t worry about the “philosophical differences”, it´s just a state propaganda organ helping establish a connection in the public mind between protest on part of ordinary folk (though I don´t know enough about ELF or ALF to condemn or support them) and massmurder such as happened in NY. It may seem like breathtaking hypocrisy but don´t sweat it - hypocrisy is a tool designed to extract energy and emotion from caring folk by making them worry about how the state could champion two conflicting opinions in such a blatant fashion. Also, it helps create a cynical double public mind,resulting in populations who know well they´re being screwed every day and defend it with equal vigour. When I find someone sez something twisted like that I don´t usually bother getting sucked into the conflict or debating them on the morals of it, I just say Okay there´s a Nazi and walk away.
Posted by owen on from barcelona 05/08 at 07:05 AMGood morning owen. Good stuff, MZ.
Part of it is that the propaganda system is that it’s designed to distract the public away from things such as factory farming, etc, and criticize (or put in a bad light) anyone who speaks out or acts out against these things. Nevermind the harmful consequences on people and planet; this is just an inevitable way to do business, and always in the people’s “best interest”. Of course, things such as profits and toxicity are most often left out of the MSM analysis altogether. Inestead, it’s usually just some “whacked out” group of “eco-terrorists” who don’t know wtf they’re talking about, etc…
Take soda, for example. Everyone knows that it’s not good for you, but every 20 minutes there’s an advertisement from a major cola company (e.g., Coca-Cola) trying to sell their product to the population. Nevermind the risk of diabetes. Nevermind the Colombian union leaders being killed behind the scenes. Nevermind nevermind nevermind… it’s all off the MSM agenda. Same with alochol, which does far more damage. But everywhere you look there’s a billobaord or commercial encouraging you to consume addictive/harmful substances. I honestly don’t think anyone could convince me otherwise that we would even still have these things if it weren’t for the simple fact that they are profitable for some corporation. But I digress…
Posted by RT on from The Buyou City 05/08 at 07:51 AMHello everyone.
Owen, I hear you...but “sweating it” is my schtick, so to speak. It’s also a duty we all share thanks to, as RT says, “the harmful consequences on people and planet.”
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 05/08 at 10:55 AMWell HELLO Mickey, Owen & RT,
This is another slice of the dill pickle that is presenting the news in a manner that deliberately cultivates the misinformed opinion that is the desired end. Most moderately inquisitive or thoughtful persons end up suprised to hear more of the facts (the odd time it’s me presenting them in conversation) that round out the scenario being discussed.
On a similar note, I heard yesterday that the city of Chicago has banned the sale of Foie Gras and that the state(?) of California is considering the same ban, and further will ban the farming practice of manufacturing the product....Now if only Canada would ban all the farmers in Quebec from making it too.
PS: thanks to all of you who’ve been by mine to say hi ... miss you all too. I wonder if I’ve missed a siting of Joe while I’ve been absent...maybe Mudge is CEO of the Pizza place, and Cat Lady’s creating the recipe for perfect vegan pizza?
Posted by Amelopsis on from Canada 05/08 at 11:52 AMHello Amelopsis! We have heard from Mudge by way of Mickey...but Joe, he’s still MIA as far as I know.
Big shout out to my newly adopted home of Chicago for banning Foie Gras.
Mick, you say:
“What then, is the “philosophical difference” between the targeting of the tallest towers in Manhattan and the dropping of white phosphorous on babies in Iraq and why isn’t the corporate media setting aside space to ponder that question?”
There is no difference philosophically or otherwise...as you know.
The corporate media would rather “ponder” on how to keep its advertising dollars rolling in rather than the fact that we have most likely killed 100 times more innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan than were killed on 9/11.
Posted by JOS on from Chicago 05/08 at 01:13 PMThanks for this post, Mickey! Unfortunately the term ‘eco-terrorism’ is also used in Australia more and more, so comparing organisations such as the ELF to Al-Quaeda is becoming the latest ‘fad’ among so-called journalists, and not only at commercial outlets.
And hi, Owen, RT, Amelopsis (welcome back!) and JOS. Another rather wet day in Daylesford ..
captcha ‘moment’: at the moment it is dry.
Posted by Helga Fremlin on from Daylesford, Australia 05/08 at 02:40 PM‘The corporate media would rather “ponder” on how to keep its advertising dollars rolling in rather than the fact that we have most likely killed 100 times more innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan than were killed on 9/11.’
Exactly, JOS - thanks for putting my thoughts into words.
captcha ‘science’: And what about the MSM’s quite poor coverage of BushCo’s war on science?
Posted by Helga Fremlin on from Daylesford, Australia 05/08 at 02:46 PMHello Helga, Commando JOS, and...what a pleasant surprise to have the Empress join us. I appreciate the comments above but I’m also wondering—beyond the media coverage—if anyone has a strong opinion (either way) on property destruction as a tactic.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 05/08 at 02:50 PMgood question…
I don’t think it is an effective tactic. I admire those that do so because I am a little bit crazy-minded myself...and I am becoming so frustrated with my own apparant inability to be able to stop those that are destroying the earth or torturing animals.
In my mind there are many good arguments for this tactic. Their actions are destructive, why not try and stop or slow them down with destructive actions? In fact, their actions are significantly more destructive.
But I think the end result of property destruction is time in jail, the chance of injuring or killing an innocent, bad press, and hardly any effect on the corporation you are fighting.
Posted by Commando JOS on from Chicago 05/08 at 03:03 PMRe: property damage as tactic—just worsens the situation I think. Now, I can certainly understand the motives behind it, but it seems to defeat the purpose when all is said and done. Hence the whole “eco-terrorist” label and such. Non-violent, non-destructive direct action is far better I believe (unless provoked/attacked by the state first). True, these corps are doing plenty of damage, but they are far too powerful to fight that way. And besides, they have the state to back them up if anything like that happens. Afterall, no matter what they are doing (logging, torturing animals, etc.), NONE of it is considered illegal, unlike the property destruction against them is…
So let me put it this way: what’s the difference between the fanatical religious right bombing an abortion clinic and the ELF destroying a lab which tests and abuses animals? I don’t see much, really.. I think that is a far better comparison, just like what MZ suggested for 9/11 and the white phosphorous, which is a more meaningful comparison than what the corporate Seattle PI had to say.
Just my $0.03 (after adjusting for inflation)
Posted by RT on from The Buyou City 05/08 at 03:55 PMThis just in from the New Standard (related to my first comment, and I suppose the second as well): Junk-food Pushers on Defensive as Kids’ Advocates Push Back: http://tinyurl.com/ndn5q
Posted by RT on from The Buyou City 05/08 at 04:08 PMCommando and RT have essentially said what I was thinking. I’m not discounting the validity of any tactic but rather the timing. Poet Kenneth Rexroth wrote about “the self-appointed bureaucrats of the New Left” who “preach massive confrontation and deploy massed ranks of defenseless students as though they were the armies of Frederick the Great.” We don’t need martyrs.
More Rexroth:
“Just where is this revolution everybody’s talking about? It is in the hearts and minds of men and women, especially young, black, or colored who find the horrors of a civilization in its long, drawn-out death throes morally intolerable and who hope for a better world. Are they struggling for it? Is there a worldwide revolutionary movement? Of youth, blacks, and the Third World? There is not. There is a defensive struggle against extermination which isn’t even a holding action. Anyone who believes the youth and the blacks of America are on the offensive is hallucinating.” (1969)Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 05/08 at 04:11 PMMaybe we should excuse the ELF & ALF for using those destructive tactics instead of some sort of diplomacy to reach a solution. If it’s good enough for our government’s foriegn policy, then hey....why not?
Posted by Cart on from near Warshington DC 05/08 at 04:26 PMGreat discussion all around-- though I’m in and out all day running errands, cant be online much. Just wanted to say Public Enemy was amazing last night. Quick highlight, Chuck led the crowd at one point in a chant of “#### Bush”, then on with Cheney and Guiliani and a few others, and THEN on to “And #### John Kerry, where is he now anyway”... whole thing was great.
Flav was a total Thyme Animal.
Posted by James on from Hell's Kitchen 05/08 at 06:12 PMHey Cart and James.
Cart: I’m not totally sure what you mean.
James: Glad you had a good thyme.
I’ll see everyone tomorrow. Links ‘o plenty.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 05/08 at 08:17 PMKinda late to the party, but this—“There’s no philosophical difference between approving the torching of a large new home on Camano Island or the targeting of the tallest towers in Manhattan.”—says an awful lot about official discourse. What about the people who were killed in the former? Every time the pontificating class gets hot under the collar, their focus almost immediately shifts to vulgar propertarian outrage, and the death or harm that comes to people passes quickly from sympathy to tit for tat justifications for doing the exact same thing they claim to deplore. The writer of that op ed should collapse with shame.
Thinking about property destruction a tactic for the people fighting that “philosophical outlook”, I compared the art of Bansky to torching a McMansion. Bansky doesn’t run even the remote risk of people getting hurt and what he does seems more likely to change minds at a fundamental level.
Posted by J. Alva Scruggs on from 05/09 at 01:08 AMI agree, Mr. Scruggs...Banksy rocks.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 05/09 at 06:57 AM
Next entry: URL jam
Previous entry: Ludwig Wittgenstein vs. Mike Tyson
Copyright © 2005-2007 Mickey Z.
