Rod Coronado = ecoterrorist?

this is an excellent article written by Rod Coronado about what is going on in Freshwater, California, People that are willing to hold maniac tree climbers like Eric Schatz accountable are not terrorists-climbers like Shatz, who pulls tree sitters out of their trees are.
+++++++++
Canopy Invasion in Freshwater: Rethinking Direct Action Strategies
Earth First! Journal Beltane 2003
Rod Coronado

Not far from where I write this, the last indigenous Mattole people made their stand. In the late 1800s, they were slaughtered by vigilante ranchers on nearby Rainbow Ridge. The Mattole were the caretakers of the land. They were the defenders of the forests.

Now, this very hillside of old-growth Douglas fir, oak and madrone forest is under attack from the same economic interests that led to the slaughter of the Mattole people.

The Rattle 9 Timber Harvest Plan (THP) has been approved. Blue lines mark the trees slated for death. All that stands in the way of the chainsaws at this point are our treesits and blockades. While treesits remain here in the Mattole and on Gypsy Mountain, it was the Freshwater treesits that fell under attack on March 17. This is not an official report from Earth First!, this is my story of the continuing battle to preserve ancient forests in Northern California and why I believe chants and singing are not enough.

Monday, March 17—The Canopy Invasion Begins

The day began with the eviction of Remedy and Wren from the treesits in the trees known as Jerry and Everlasting Life. They had continuously occupied these trees for 362 and 300 days, respectively. More than 50 California Highway Patrol officers and sheriff’s deputies illegally shut down the only road to the treesits. When the road was reopened, more than one hundred supporters gathered to witness as Remedy’s lockbox was cut, and she was lowered to the ground. The group I was in began to walk onto the road, and when the police ordered us back, we linked arms and sat down to block the road.

Wren’s lockbox took nearly two hours to cut. As darkness fell, we could see sparks fall to the ground from the climber’s handheld disc grinder. When PL’s hired climber, Eric Schatz (aka Climber Eric), lowered Wren’s bound body to the ground, the crowd surged forward. The police began jabbing us back with their batons. Arrests were made as more supporters sat in the roadway, and others chanted and drummed. Local residents and activists began to circle Everlasting Life, which still held Climber Eric’s crew. PL’s lackeys demanded police protection and got it. Deputies kicked activists who sat in the road and then pepper sprayed and batoned those who resisted.

My affinity group decided to shutdown PL’s helicopter logging operation above the Freshwater encampment. Twelve of us walked past the Columbia Helicopter Company security guard and climbed onto the redwood trunks as they were being lifted by the helicopter, disrupting it’s takeoff. Many of the trees were five to six feet in diameter. The helicopter operator gave up and left the area. We disappeared as the sheriff drove up the road. The helicopter has not flown again in Freshwater.

Tuesday, March 18—The Fight for Life Continues

As supporters arrived in the morning, they were greeted with hoots from another group of treesitters who had reoccupied Jerry and Everlasting Life in the middle of the night. Climber Eric and his crew were only able to remove one treesitter while eight other forest defenders were arrested on the ground.

In a cruel act of frustration, PL loggers and sheriff deputies formed an armed circle to protect one of Climber Eric’s crew who cut through the bark and girdled two ancient redwoods known as Wind Dancer and Robin. Meanwhile, two other treesitters evaded capture by traversing to other trees and climbing to the top.

Wednesday, March 19—Utopia Under Attack

Few forest defenders had slept more than a couple of hours when the cell phones began to ring. The community was alerted to the attack on Utopia, a tree occupied by Silver Willow, one of the Utopian Tree Pirates. That morning, PL security, loggers and the Sheriff’s deputies stood guard while Climber Eric cut the limbs off of Utopia and then bound and lowered Silver Willow from the tree. At the same time, a forest defender attempted to lockdown onto PL’s gate and was arrested as Utopia fell.

After the attack on Utopia, the police congregated on the helicopter log deck to watch for our next move. Our affinity group decided to stop a PL log deck construction crew in the forest. We ran to PL’s gate and locked the police in on the helicopter pad area with a Kryptonite lock. Then, we sped down the hill to the road construction site, and a defender locked down to an excavator, stopping the operation for the rest of the day.

Thursday, March 20—Tale of the Tree Pirates

Another tree pirate, AMD, climbed to the very tip of Jerry to avoid capture by Climber Eric. Meanwhile, two groups played cat and mouse in the forest to stop PL loggers from felling unoccupied trees. When we made our presence known to loggers, they chased us down, each carrying plastic handcuffs. We ran away; it’s how some of us avoid PL’s known violent attacks on nonviolent observers.

In the afternoon, the crowd watched Climber Eric balance precariously at the tip of Jerry and pull AMD from the limb that miraculously held them both. When she was lowered to the ground, PL loggers advanced toward the ancient tree. Climber Eric began cutting the top of the tree and then a majority of Jerry’s limbs.

More activists were arrested on the road for disobeying police orders, while individuals dove into the woods under Jerry’s canopy. Climber Eric continued to cut limbs from Jerry despite the knowledge that activists were beneath him. Never have I seen such determination to destroy something so beautiful as that brave tree. Away from the view of the cops, friends and I cried. For months, we have struggled to protect these few old-growth trees, creating a community of resistance to the destruction of the natural world. Now we were watching as one of our elders was being destroyed.

Friday, March 21—The Battle to Save Merize

Climber Eric came face to face with three brave forest defenders who were resolute in their commitment to keep the tree named Merize alive. Thursday’s actions had made it clear that PL, the Sheriff and Climber Eric were intent on continuing their reckless endangerment of our treesitters’ lives. Enough tears had fallen.

Stormy, Crazy Bird and Ozark were all witnesses to PL’s violence the day before, and I knew each one’s strong determination to make a stand for the trees. Three resolute treesitters was more than Climber Eric expected, and he was forced to abandon his attempted murder of Merize.

Forest defenders attempted to lockdown to Climber Eric’s truck and were violently pulled from underneath by him and one of his crew. The police made no arrests and announced that they were leaving. Without police protection, Climber Eric left Freshwater and headed to the Redwood Logging Conference where PL President Robert Manne was delivering the keynote address.

Our Nomination for Ecoterrorist of the Month

Over the weekend, forest defenders scrambled to fortify Freshwater’s 19 treesits. At the end of the first week, we’d only seen one occupied tree fall, though three others had been seriously wounded. Five treesitters had been arrested, and many more were put at risk by Climber Eric’s reckless actions. When AMD was released from jail, she told the story of how, as Jerry’s tip began to crack, Climber Eric said that if she should fall, he and his crew had already corroborated that they would testify she had committed suicide.

The fact that the destroyers of ancient redwoods already have contingency plans for their next human victims should be a wake-up call for Earth First! and other forest defenders. No amount of positive healing energy directed toward these hired murderers is going to stop them. It’s time to hold Climber Eric accountable for all the treesitters he has endangered and for the ancient trees of Freshwater, the Mattole and Gypsy Mountain whose destruction he is enabling. It is our movement’s obligation to stop him before PL’s ecologically destructive logging results in the death of another activist. Any individual who is making it possible for PL to kill old-growth forests must be a target for our movement.

Monday, March 24—Named and Shamed

On March 24, we didn’t wait for Climber Eric to show up in our forest. We went to his home, business and insurance company. We arrived at Climber Eric’s house at eight a.m. and stood at the end of his driveway. His wife came and demanded that we leave the property. We refused and she called the police. We stated that Climber Eric and PL are responsible for killing and injuring forest defenders, and that we weren’t going to allow him to kill or injure anymore. Within minutes, neighbors were coming out of their houses and six Sheriff’s patrol cars arrived, followed by Carl Anderson, head of PL security and Richard Pettis, PL’s land manager. When Climber Eric, appeared he was visibly distraught—not the confident, controlled person he is when he’s protected by his co-workers and police. He rushed up to me and demanded to know what we were doing there. I told him we knew what he said to AMD in the tree and that we weren’t going to allow him to enter any tree occupied by a forest defender. The sheriffs led red-faced Climber Eric away to be interviewed by the media that had just arrived.

Taking Out an Insurance Policy

The next stop was Climber Eric’s insurance provider, Northwest Insurance Agency. AMD, myself and videographers from the Natural Guard met with a representative and demanded accountability from the legal underwriters who allow Climber Eric to remove treesitters. The agent refused to watch a video of AMD’s eviction or to accept a formal complaint, so we announced our intention to target Northwest Insurance Agency until they cancel Climber Eric’s insurance policy.

The lives of the trees Climber Eric helps kill are worth more than our allegiance to tactics that comfort our conscience, but do little more than slow the THPs. We need to do more than simply respond at the eleventh hour, when Climber Eric arrives in the forests to evict treesitters. He is an untrained, unlicensed and contracted employee of PL, not a law enforcement officer. It’s his job to remove the people protecting old-growth trees so they can be cut down. If Schatz’s Tree Service continues to accept employment as a treesitter evictor for PL, we will continue a campaign of protests and demonstrations at his home and business.

A Canopy Perspective on a Ground War

I remember watching the swabbing of pepper spray onto the eyes of Earth First!ers by the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department while in prison in 1998, not long before PL employees murdered our brother, David Gypsy Chain. It’s time for the direct action forest protection movement to reevaluate its tactics before another activist is killed. In the meantime, let’s use new tactics and strategies that have been proven effective in other direct action movements, especially, the “name and shame” tactic of home demos. Our tactics and strategies have become less effective, once our opponents become familiar with them, as PL has in Humboldt County.

Earth First!’s battle to protect old-growth forests needs to be about more than just building a better lockbox or a bigger slash pile. We need to recognize that we are losing. We need to remember that it’s okay to destroy big yellow machinery that is left unguarded in the places they intend to destroy. There is no greater act of nonviolence than an aggressive, nonviolent act that prevents a much worse act of violence from happening. This includes the dismantling and eradication of weapons whose sole purpose is the destruction of irreplaceable biodiversity.

Remember, we are the warriors who must put the Earth first. We are the last lines of defense for the last wild places of the US. If we back down now, there will be no one else to stop the bulldozers and chainsaws. We will be the ones left to cry when the places and animals we have fought for are destroyed. This movement is not a lifestyle. It’s not something to do before you go back to your corporate-controlled college to be trained as a cog in the wheel of the most violent society on Earth. This is a Warrior Society. By calling ourselves the uncompromising defenders of our Earth mother, we are accepting the responsibility to do more than chant, drum and direct healing energy. That’s all good stuff, but not the appropriate response from warriors empowered to protect the natural and animal world.

On Sunday, March 29, Freshwater forest defenders celebrated the one-year anniversary of Remedy’s treesit and the successful defense of Jerry, which has been reoccupied for the third time. The rain has brought a temporary, yet welcome break from PL’s terrorist attacks. Until federal and state agencies do their jobs to protect our natural heritage, the defenders of Freshwater, the Mattole and Gypsy Mountain need your help. A week of assaults has both shaken and strengthened this community. The mood is far from defeatist. Clenched fists and howls filled the air Sunday when folksinger Ethan Miller sang, “This ain’t no peace song, this is a declaration of war.” PL and Climber Eric take note.

Rod Coronado has been living in Humboldt as a ground supporter for the Freshwater and Mattole treesits. He is currently organizing a direct action campaign against Maxxam/Pacific Lumber and Eric Schatz Tree Service that will not require a nonviolence training.

So Rod has done his time, and I agree prison is beyond disagreeable. So Rod has gotten a lot (perhaps excessive, perhaps undeserved) amount of press. But much of the outrage stems from his standing outside Mr. Shatz' house brandishing a jug. This is analogous to Mike Tyson, a universally accepted violent man, and feared puncher, stepping up to someone and throwing a big right hook - then stopping short by a couple inches. Wouldn't you flinch? And wouldn't be pissed off because you feel violated by someone whom you can't defend yourself? Isn't that assault by threat?

Keep it in the forest because as soon as stalking and threats reach our neighborhoods, that's when things escalate out of control.

Those destroying our forests do not live in these same forests. We have to take it to THEIR neighborhoods. They cannot-and should not-feel safe...anywhere. The situation is already out of control and the last thing we need is someone attempting to deflate what little passion that already exists in this world for the environment...

Good for you! Now, please post your address so we can come pay you a little personal visit.

you so called forest defenders better be happy that we have NOT resorted to violence. I have been biding my time for ten years now becauce I was told that violence wont help. So PLEASE take this protest of yours to the next level, destroy equipment, tresspass on MY land. (I live in fortuna), lock down yourselves to my truck. after ten years i am more than ready. (so is everyone else).

So let me get this straight. Because the cause was justified (protecting old growth), and no human being was hurt, it is okay to engage in property destruction and threaten workers. Those are the same tactics that militant abortion protestors engage in. So I guess what they do is okay too by your standards of conduct?

The standard of conduct is revealed
by the destruction of the forest for profit.

Terrorism is defined as the use of force to intimidate a person or persons to see your political point of view. Under no circumstance does it claim the death of a human life. The fact is that when the eco-terrorists firebomb buildings they release tons of pollutants into the atmosphere. Does that sound like a person concerned with the environment? Think Again Ron! You care about yourself and nobody else. Do you care about the people who can no longer feed their children because your actions have destroyed their place of employement, or their homes? I think you don't even consider the consequences to your actions.

On a whole different level, now I see that the cops don't even back Gallegos anymore. I understand that many of you who frequent this site distrust the police, but this stand by the police sends a message loud and clear to the nonvocal majority. Gallegos is undesireable. You don't like this 'cause you are the vocal minority and you think he represents you. That must be unfair. Perhaps you are against democracy just as you are against capitalism. But do you have any real solutions? I doubt it.

Oh, and the oyster festival is this weekend in Arcata. How many of you forest protecting activists will be there scarfing up on thoseharmless, yet tasty mollusks? I'm sorry, but trees are NOT animals despite the admirable lesson stated in another article earlier. However, they are alive just like the oysters. Should we protect them too? They harm no one and are a part of the circle of life, anchoring the chain of being in their own way. In fact, they are a crop just like trees, but let's protect everything, for human arrogance knows no bounds. Shit! We can't even protect ourselves. Even the buddhists kill to live. So get real, we all use resources to stay alive or be comfortable. If you cannot recognize this, then you are deluded fools. If you saw the real effort that goes into forest management at PL, you would be ashamed, for that effort is the most extensive in the world. There is no insidious cover up, just people trying to do a good job and get paid for it. The pro-timber people who post here are not paid to. They are motivated to protect their own passionate way of life from the slander of zealots.

So if Rodney Coronado had burned down an abortion clinic or a black church instead of a university laboratory, that would have been just fine since, after all, those aren't acts of terrorism. Or, if Pacific Lumber decided to hire people to burn down Coronado's home while he wasn't in it -- again, that's not terrorism.

great article. i'm always amazed how things get turned around. CLEARLY, the ones actively destroying the environment are the "eco-terrorists". to call those who actively try and protect it as terrorists is paradoxical.

Rodney Coronado's own words posted in this thread remove all doubt that he advocates terrorism under the definition of using violence or intimidation for political ends. That includes destruction of property. His cronies who rationalize for him also imply that terrorism is OK. Any forest worker getting a "visit" from these folks is justified in adopting a stance of "extreme prejudice" given the record of threats and the reasonable suspicion that violent acts may be imminent.

Lovely.

All the pro-timber-corporation posters here harp continually on the fact that some environmentalists embrace the destruction of property as a legitimate tactic in defending threatened ecosystems. They think this is awful, and in return make vague threats on the lives of protesters who engage in such action. Any rational person would rather some of their property be destroyed than be killed, but hey, these are clearly not rational people. They think the two things, property destruction and killing people, are equivalent.

They also always, I repeat, always, stand on the side of massive timber corporations.

They claim to be concerned with timber worker's jobs. Never mind the fact that where I'm from, a massive timber company bought out the major timber operations in the area, clearcut as much as they could (bringing in temp workers from all over the country), then cut and ran. I know plenty of people who fought for the company then, and are out of a job now. They know it wasn't environmentalists who sold them out. They now see that the enviros were fighting for them, and for sustainable forestry. They have no one to fight now, though, because the company is long gone, off to exploit other natural resources and workers.

Back to property destruction. That company I just mentioned destroyed my whole fucking county. That's major fucking property destruction, you sniveling "wise use," "pro-timber," or whatever bullshit label you adopt, you're all scumbags and assholes to me.

There will be no jobs in the timber industry in my area for a long time to come because of that property destruction. They took all the saleable timber, with major negative side effects for the environment in general. It's a mess.

So, now, explain this to me - if it's ok for timber companies and their goons to kill people they believe are engaged in destruction of the equipment they use to destroy everything else, why isn't it ok for enviros and pissed off out of work loggers to kill the timber company CEOs and their flunkies who are busy destroying everything in woodland areas?

Or are your just bought-and-paid-for little hypocrites, who would say whatever your boss dropped into your brown-nosing, shit-eating mouth?

Set it off, fucker.

My comments about Coronado apply to you, too. YOU are the one making death threats and, despite what you say, nobody on this thread has been advocating killing people based on suspicion that they are destroying property. If you make death threats and engage in stalking and harrassment, you increase the suspicion that you intend to harm or kill someone and you greatly increase the realm of what is permissible as legitemate self-defense. If you alarm someone to the point that they feel harm is imminent and they in turn take action in their perceived self-defense that harms you, then you have brought that situation upon yourself. And if someone is looking for a self-defense alibi, you've just handed them a wonderful weapon, haven't you?
Your idea that laid-off woods workers might want to kill active woods workers is laughable.
You still haven't explained the difference between your position and that of the anti-abortion fanatics that firebomb clinics.
All your silly epithets that you sling around cannot help your weak arguments.
Anybody else notice how "anarchists" are the biggest totalitarians?

i don't see how one can equivicate the bombing of an abortion clinic with the destruction of a piece of machinery. although the means may appear similar the ends are obviously different and motivated by different emotions. the clinic bomber is most likely a religious fundamentalist who seeks to reverse social progress while the "eco-terrorist" acts to promote the preservation of OUR environment and finite natural resources. Left terrorists challenge the capitalist mantra of profit at any cost to human kind while Right terrorists merely do the dirty work for those in power. Maxxam is a huge, unnacountable corporation with plenty of insurance, they can survive a few attacks on their tools of production. But what if we burn the managers cars instead?

The motive is irrelevant. Only the act matters. The abortion clinic bombers are doing excactly the samething as the so-called "eco-terrorists," only when no one gets hurt. When the kill and injure people, that's a whole different thing.

free thinker,

having seen the video of the encounter at schitz's driveway, let me clarify, there was NO milk jug. it was a 1st amendmant protest. If shatz didn't want the protest, he shouldn't have told the woman he evicted that if she fell, him and his cronies were going to say she committed suicide. The protest was putting him on notice that the community will not tolerate another cover up of murder. And yes, ammons committed manslaughter on David Chain. Of the six pigs that responded to that scene at Schatz's place, only one of them did their job in diffusing the situation and I commend that officer. To bad the other pigs on scene where interjecting their own political beliefs and not doing their jobs. But then again, most of the Maxxam sherriff's choose to fail to complete their reports and are lackey's for the timber companies stealing from the humboldt community. These incomplete police reports result in one sided conjectures and gives the big timber PR for their liquidation practices.

la luchue sigue.....

So, what about this vague death threat, then, liar? This is not just a threat based on suspicion of property destruction, but also civil disobedience like locking to a logging truck, or trespassing.

"nonviolent ?
"by avarage guy Tuesday June 10, 2003 at 02:48 PM

"you so called forest defenders better be happy that we have NOT resorted to violence. I have been biding my time for ten years now becauce I was told that violence wont help. So PLEASE take this protest of yours to the next level, destroy equipment, tresspass on MY land. (I live in fortuna), lock down yourselves to my truck. after ten years i am more than ready. (so is everyone else)."

Um, just to point out, the rest of your post is bullshit, too, since I didn't threaten anyone. I asked for clarification of the "morality" or "logic" being put forward here by idiots like yourself. I didn't say out of work loggers would attack loggers with jobs, I asked why out of work loggers shouldn't attack the CEO's and management who destroyed their home counties then fired them.

Clearly you can't comprehend what you read, but just spew your bullshit. Go on spewing, and call me totalitarian. I'll take it as a compliment coming from someone with such an obviously warped disconnect from reality.

Yes, Free Thinker, freedom is slavery! 2+2=5! Ignorance is strength! War is peace!

And how could I have "still" not explained my "position" on burning abortion clinics when I never commented on this thread before?

Since you ask, though, idiot, I'll point out that the acts of burning equipment in the woods or burning an abortion clinic are virtually identical. What is your point?

The act of executing a murderer is essentially the same act as murdering someone on a whim - if motivations are irrelevant.

If all that matters is the similarity of one act to another, then we should stop people from renovating houses - we wouldn't let them do that in a house with occupants, would we?

The question is not whether burning a building or some equipment is "immoral," or even "illegal." The question is whether you support free access to abortion, or whether you defend the wilderness. That is where the difference between the two acts lie.

Or, if you worship law alone, you can take your place in history alongside the "good" germans and russians who obeyed the laws of Hitler and Stalin.

Burning a clinic is basically the same as burning logging equpiment is the same as illegal burning of trash. But they aren't the same, beyond the fact that soemthing is being burned illegally. Duh.

Go back to your beer, Homer.

Burning a clinic is basically the same as burning logging equpiment is the same as illegal burning of trash. But they aren't the same, beyond the fact that soemthing is being burned illegally. Duh.

WHAT A MORON

Any coward who advocates sitting back and doing nothing, driving his SUV/bigass pickup truck back and forth to work every day, watching TV, impregnating ignorant females and producing moronic offspring, etc etc is the real TERRORIST. You continue to destroy this planet as your progenitors have done and now it is time to face EXTINCTION. Bye bye.

So let me get this right. I f you had a button that would, upon being pressed, wipe out say fifty percent of the population, you would press it. More that fifty percent? Or would you settle for less? Would you wipe out the infrastructure? Or are you just talking out your ass. And whats with the give away your stuff and buy a piece of land? Wouldn't you prefer to just take it. I don't imagine you belive in property law and taxs anyway.

Dear "GROW UP,"

You have clearly and intelligently refuted my point, by quoting me and typing in all caps, "WHAT A MORON."

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm mocking you. You have in fact demonstrated your inability to type without the caps lock key, and you have done nothing to challenge my point. Go back to your beer swilling and "FOX Friends" pseudo-news fascist propaganda bullshit.

Unless, of course, you want to explain to me how it is that the illegal burning of logging equipment, health clinics, churches, trash, British tax collectors' houses (American Revolution), Dresden (WWII), and Iraq are all, in every respect, the "same act." You will have to provide some real argument to counter the fact that they are obviously not similar actions. Even legally they are not the same, as they are all treated by the US government quite differently: compare the convictions and penalties for these various actions.

This is obvious. You are the moron. Eat shit.

Sincerely,
anarchist

p.s. "biggist," who are you talking to?

Resorting to destruction, of property or lives, signals the failure of civilized thought. Were the greatest physical strength to choose right and wrong, this world would be at a loss for both beauty and freedom.

The difference between the dumping of tea into Boston Harbor and the burning of logging equipment is the end result. The target of the tea dump was to protest the taxes forced upon the colonists by the british government. The loss of the tea destroyed tax revenues for England while clearly illustrating a precedent for future such actions that would continue to cost the crown.
Burning a loader just temporarily puts people out of work. The costs to the larger company are insured and thus are considered a small cost of business. In essence, the only people harmed by vandalism to logging equipment are the small business owners who can't afford the down time and the employees who need to work to feed their families. The act is more synonymous with burning the small stores that sold tea than dumping tea into the harbor. Such acts only hurt and divide the local communities, while the intended targets go unharmed.

From reading all of this I have come to a conclusion: Eric Shatz is one hell of a good tree climber. You nuts should thank him for getting these idiots to the ground in one piece. The lumber co's would probably prefer that he just gave you a little shove from 150ft, but you are lucky to have Eric protecting you. If only he were up there when that dumb chick fell out of the tree last year...I know he could have saved her life.... .

I'm sure Eric was a little upset and red faced when you showed up at his house, but once again Eric practiced great restraint and got you out of there in one piece.

Eric is obviously a good man trying to take care of his family, I bet his tree business is booming, I'd hire him in a second. --Mike oxman too!! Keep up the good work Eric and Mike I love reading about your tree care. Keep removing the parasites from the trees.
Greg

Just checked back on this thread. Our "anarchist" friend is quite amusing for his (her) continual name-calling as a substitute for argumentation. I take that as a sign of logical bankruptcy. On the arson issue, the argument boils down to "the end justifies the means", so "our" arson and threats of violence are "good" while "their" arson and threats are "bad." Also, the contention that immediate personal threats are first amendment speech is ludicrous. The quote by "anarchist" from "regular guy" (which doesn't qualify as a death threat) makes my point in my original post: If someone is looking for a self-defense alibi, you've handed them a wonderful weapon, haven't you? If you don't want to give someone an excuse to harm you, don't engage in personally threatening behavior.

Thanks to Coffee drinker for making a coherent point. An incorrect one, but nonetheless reasonably intelligent (unlike Freedom Fries Thinker – I’ll get to that in a moment).

The resort to destruction of property or lives does not at all “signal the failure of civilized thought.” You refute that point yourself when you cite the Boston Tea Party as destroying tax revenue for England, certainly not contributing to the “greatest physical strength” (the Crown at the time), and recognizing the legitimacy of the act of property destruction in that case.

It is extremely valuable that you recognize the validity of property destruction at Boston Harbor, though sad that you don’t allow that recognition to prevent you from making the general statement against all acts of destruction.

Simply stated, there are times when destruction is necessary. Of property: when a house needs to be renovated, when sustainable logging is necessary for the construction of shelter, or when out of control economies and governments threaten our freedom and survival (as with the Crown, and with the US government and the capitalists it serves). Of lives: when defense of self, others, or liberty make it necessary.

As to your particular criticism of the act of destroying the equipment used to ravage forests, it is certainly something to consider. It certainly hurts the small, less capitalized and usually less insured small contractor more than it hurts the big company who is handing out the particular forest-raping job. However, the example I previously cited, you will note, was not the Boston Tea Party (which I could argue hurt the particular shipowner, local merchants, the shipper who actually owned the tea, etc. more than the British Crown), but arson committed against particular tax collectors. Surely, it’s unconscionable to destroy one individual’s private home for the actions of a government they are merely “doing their job” for? Not in the eyes of most Americans. However, the Boston Tea Party did “hurt and divide local communities,” like every action in the revolution. A third of the population supported the Crown while a third fought for independence.

The excuses of small operators working for big companies in the woods is even thinner than those of British tax collectors. They are using their equipment to destroy the forest, regardless of who hires them. If people don’t want their gear torched, they shouldn’t take controversial and ecologically destructive jobs. Let the big companies soak up the damage. Those are the risk vs. reward calculations any business person has to make, big or small.

The bigger companies are usually insured, but if enough of their gear gets destroyed, their insurance costs rise, then eventually no insurer will touch them. After that point, they have to absorb the damage themselves. Beyond a certain point, going after sensitive areas in unsustainable ways becomes cost prohibitive.

The real issue here, aside from these particulars, is whether you think forests are worth defending. If you don’t, then, like the colonists “loyal” to the British Crown, you will condemn any action taken against the institution you defend. If you do think forests are worth defending, then you will likely be happy to see people put a stop to rampant destruction by destroying the equipment used to carry it out.

If we were living in 1944, I would applaud anyone blowing up trains used to take people to death camps. I don’t care if the train is owned by the Nazi party, a big train company, or an “independent” small contractor. I don’t care how many SS troops, train engineers, and death camp guards such an act would put out of work.


Greg is obviously one of the “parasites” he wants removed from the trees. Parasites destroy or weaken their hosts. Forest activists protect the forest, while you and the other swine who threaten to paint their murder of activists as “suicide” or endorse such behavior as worthy of thanks are the real forest parasites.

Now we get to the “Conclusion” of “Free Thinker.”
Very nice. After calling me names without basis (“YOU are the one making death threats”) then refusing to respond to my calling you on this slander, you accuse me of “continual name-calling as a substitute for argumentation.”
You can take this as a sign of “logical bankruptcy” on your own part, asshole. I call names when names are being called, no apologies. Just as I advocate self-defense. I’m no pacifist.
I didn’t contend that “immediate personal threats are first amendment speech,” you’re confusing me with another person who posted on this thread, you drunk. Your argument isn’t just “weak,” it’s unintelligible.
If what “regular guy” wrote isn’t a death threat, then how the fuck can you accuse me of making death threats and thus “handing” someone (who?) a “self-defense alibi.” I have not “engaged in personally threatening behavior,” so start making sense. In fact, what “regular guy” wrote doesn’t “make your point,” it only threatens those who he suspects of engaging in one of the three types of behavior I noted previously.
“On the arson issue,” yes, I believe the arson and threats of Nazis like you should be opposed, and the arson and threats of violence against property in defense of the forest should be supported. You believe the same in reverse, as you evidence by downplaying the death threat of “regular guy,” while trying to claim some moral high ground as though you don’t.
Are you a pacifist? You don’t strike me as one, as you don’t make pacifist arguments. Yet, you act like I should be a pacifist.
I believe in freedom, ecological health, equality, and human survival. This is not something to sit back and have pretty daydreams about, but entails struggle. Yes, sometimes the ends (freedom, survival, construction of shelter, etc) require unpleasant means (armed self-defense, property destruction, fire, hanging drywall, etc). Yes, “our” overwhelming violence and destruction of Nazi Germany in WWII was “good,” and “their” war of world conquest was “bad.” Or don’t you get that?
By the way, you still haven’t explained your own “silly little epithet,” “how ‘anarchists’ are the biggest totalitarians.” Feel free any time, fascist.

There was no point at which I gave legitimacy to the destruction of property. The tools of any "machine" whether corporate or government are not really material, they are in thought and emotion. If you can overturn such tools, you can win your battle. Without such capitulation, there is no victory.
As for the tea dumpers, I was simply pointing out that they are not equal in act or ideals to those that damage logging equipement. The acts in the woods have no chance at reaching the objective. To analyze the effectiveness of methods is not to condone them.

to the....juvenile anarchist

I hope you feel good with the line of drivel you are spouting, and It may be some thing you might like to reflect on while you are doing your prison time you will get for your actions.

Congratulations anachist, quite the voluminous spew.

First thing:
< If we were living in 1944, I would applaud anyone blowing up trains used to take people to death camps. I don’t care if the train is owned by the Nazi party, a big train company, or an “independent” small contractor. I don’t care how many SS troops, train engineers, and death camp guards such an act would put out of work. >

I'm sorry, but people and trees are different, and everybody accepts that, except a minority of fruit cakes, so this line of logic falls apart.

<If people don’t want their gear torched, they shouldn’t take controversial and ecologically destructive jobs.>

Unt so now ve are choising who iz gut unt who iz evil? The damn Jews are evil! No, wait, Hitler is evil! Do you see where your brand of logic leads? It enables anyone to declare against anything they dislike the justification of their end by any means. Therefore it is fair to say that you are evil because your thoughts offend me, and I will be justified in stomping you out with extreme prejudice! Hey, you started it.

< The real issue here, aside from these particulars, is whether you think forests are worth defending.>

And big A, we do. That is why we adhere to strictest forest regulations in the world. What we have learned though is that the enviros always want more, and this is why most pro timber people are sick of compromise. What have you given up for me? I think you can, however, feel proud that you have played a part in bringing those restriction to bear through pressuring the various agencies involved in the HCP negotiations. You must admit that timber harvest is done with infinitely more responsibility and planning than ever before or you truly are clueless. Those changes are real. Tree sitting is a self instilled martyrship that your cult of personality endorses, yet it does NOTHING to change laws. And you wonder why we scoff at you.

OK Anarchist,
Here is the deal. A person who believes in equality should not be lambasting others with dehumanizing insults. But I suppose that is the beauty of anarchy, everything you say can contradict and not make sense.
The problem with your mode of thinking is that the battle over natural resources in the US is won in public perception. People enjoy seeing little cute girls in trees. No one wants to see another persons livelihood assaulted. While you may scoff at the opinions of the masses, a person who beleives in equallity should understand that their views are every bit as important and valid as yours. Thus, the actions of destruction and vandalism toward logging equipment hurt the cause of tree huggers everywhere.
You are not going to be able to defeat loggers by violence. And I trust you do comprehend that violence is not limited to living beings. Arson is violence.
By all means, stick to your guns. The more arson and vandalism that occurs in the woods, the more people will turn against those responsible(and those who associate with them).

The fact that you don't realize this already makes me wonder how much you have thought about the issue.

I think we've plowed this field pretty thoroughly, so I'm going to try to be as brief as possible then sign off from this thread.

It's amazing how "anarchist" continues to demonstrate the similarity of his beliefs to the fascists of the religeous right that bomb and threaten Planned Parenthood. They're mirror images of each other. Both are convinced that their own beliefs are so inherently pure that anyone who opposes them must be evil. Both use the Nazi analogy to justify violence. Both are driven by fundamentalist ideologies that are in essence totalitarian and fascist.

With regard to death threats: "anarchist" falsely implies that people are advocating killing "forest defenders" based on "the suspicion that they are destroying property" and uses that to justifiy the hypothetical killing of timberland managers "and their flunkies" (workers). That is a death threat. There is also the posting by "M" stating that woods workers should be harrassed at their homes and that they "must not be allowed to feel safe." Then there are the people watching the tree sitter extractions who try to encourage the sitters to cut the extractors' safety lines. That goes beyond a death threat. That is direct solicitation (not first amendment protected). The guy who got taken down hard in the tree after trying to mess with Oxman's safety line had it coming, but the enviro's leave that little detail out of their story. "Anarchist" has not stated that directly threatening behaviors atare wrong. Given all this, the response of "regular guy" is understandable: messing with somebody's home is a wonderful way to get your ass kicked, especially when they want to kick your ass ayway.

A lot of "anarchists" adopt that label because they accept no authority or civil principle that mediates or constrains how they deal with those with whom they disagree, as exemplified by our friend in these postings. It's a dictatorial mindset. Get a bunch of like-minded people coalescing around that idea and you have a fascist, totalitarian movement. Check out the earthliberationfront link on "anarchist"s last posting. Cute.

I think I'll enjoy some fine beer tonight. Sorry if that's too declasse for "anarchist".

Which one is the provocateur and which one is the propagandist?

I love you. I love Jews.

Hi y'all,

I know it's been awhile, but see, I live a real life which sometimes gets very busy. I don't work at a government desk job being paid to write messages on IMC eight hours a day like some of you. My apologies for the delay. I'm sure you couldn't wait for my response, seeing how you've kept coming back for more.


Coffee Drinker,

You say, "There was no point at which I gave legitimacy to the destruction of property." Yet, previously you wrote, "The target of the tea dump [at Boston harbor] was to protest the taxes forced upon the colonists by the british government. The loss of the tea destroyed tax revenues for England while clearly illustrating a precedent for future such actions that would continue to cost the crown."

Do you support the right of the British Crown to rule America? If not, what you wrote sounds like it gives legitimacy to the destruction of property, in that instance. If you refused to "condone" the actions at Boston harbor, you would be in support of the Crown, by default. All of this refutes your previous statement about how property destruction supposedly "signals the failure of civilized thought."

So, you have made several seriously contradictory statements, both for and against property destruction (unless you're a monarchist). Make up your mind.


at home in a box (appropriate nickname for you),

I hope you feel good advocating fascism. That's what you're doing, suggetsing that I should be imprisoned for my actions (writing my comments on SF indymedia). Reflect on your totalitarian convictions while millions of innocent human beings rot in your fascist jails. One day we will rise.


sinner,

<First thing:>
<< If we were living in 1944, I would applaud anyone blowing up trains used to take people to death camps. I don’t care if the train is owned by the Nazi party, a big train company, or an “independent” small contractor. I don’t care how many SS troops, train engineers, and death camp guards such an act would put out of work.>>

<I'm sorry, but people and trees are different, and everybody accepts that, except a minority of fruit cakes, so this line of logic falls apart.>

If you were actually making any attempt to follow my line of logic, you would not incorrectly suggest that I believe trees and people are the same, or that part of my argument rested on any similarity between the two.

In fact, I was pointing out that yes, like most people, I think that in certain cases "the ends justify the means." I was illustrating that, in the case of WWII (a different case from the forest issue, which is why it's useful as a comparison), I would support any number of impolite and destructive actions, like killing SS officers, blowing up trains, etc. This is not because I am universally for killing people or blowing up trains, in fact I am generally opposed to such actions. In this case, however, to stop genocide it would be regrettably necessary.

Similarly, if corporations (legal fictions) manage to take over our world and destroy the ecosystems we depend on for survival in the interest of short term profit, yes, any number of otherwise impolite and destructive actions may be called for. Not because people and trees are similar or identical, but because both (1) stopping active genocide and (2) stopping the destruction of ecosystems we depend on for survival are legitimate and worthwhile aims. Further, the more polite and less destructive channels (legal methods) were exhausted in both cases.

<Unt so now ve are choising who iz gut unt who iz evil? The damn Jews are evil! No, wait, Hitler is evil! Do you see where your brand of logic leads? It enables anyone to declare against anything they dislike the justification of their end by any means.>

Goofy German accents aside, my argument has nothing to do with "good" and "evil" (concepts you and my other debate opponents on here seem to be obsessed with, on the other hand). My argument that killing SS officers and blowing up trains that go to death camps has nothing to do with the "evil" of the trains or the officers. Nor is it my personal dislike for trains or SS uniforms that fuels this conviction.

My argument is this: if polite, legal means are exhausted, and you still feel that atrocities are being committed, or the survival of humanity, some segment of humanity, or the ecosystems on which people and other species depend for survival are still in peril... then impolite, destructive means are justified. Only the most extreme pacifist would disagree with the idea that at times, it is necessary (even if exclusively in clear cases of self-defense) to enagage in violent action. In fact, even most extreme pacifists would argue that property destruction is called for in such circumstances, even if they universally reject the taking of life.

Note, I did not mention "evil" or "good."

<What we have learned though is that the enviros always want more, and this is why most pro timber people are sick of compromise. What have you given up for me?>

This is the key. Your ideology boils down to "what's in it for me?" It is an ideology of greed, and using it you can justify any massive destructive act (like the decimation of forests) while professing outrage at relatively minor destructive acts (like the burning of a few pieces of equipment used to destroy forests). You are concerned with nothing greater than "what have you given up for me?"

We all require healthy forests, oceans, air, farmlands, and so on to survive. I don't have to give anything up for you, you have already taken far more than your share from the already damaged ecosystems we both require to survive.

<You must admit that timber harvest is done with infinitely more responsibility and planning than ever before or you truly are clueless. ... Tree sitting is a self instilled martyrship that your cult of personality endorses, yet it does NOTHING to change laws.>

Finally, two points on which we can agree.

Yes, timber harvest is currently done in the US more responsibly than before, thanks largely to the tireless and profitless efforts of "enviros." That does not mean that we are yet where we need to be to ensure our survival and the survival of future generations. We have come some distance, but we are not there.

Tree sitting is self imposed martyrdom. It is, in my opinion, usually an ineffective tactic. Don't call it my "cult of personality," because I loathe cults of personality, whether the one around George W Bush or around Julia "Butterfly."


Poison Oakie,

Thanks for your thoughtful and polite response. I have thought a great deal about these issues, and I disagree with everything you wrote. That is the real beauty of anarchy: the freedom to disagree.

I believe what I have written here makes sense and is not self-contradictory. I believe my opponents here are the ones failing to make sense and engaging in constant contradiction, and I have repeatedly pointed out how.

A person who believes in both equality and self defense, like myself, should (in my opinion) lambast others with dehumanizing insults when those others are already thus engaged. I am equally free to insult, in the same way that they are. I notice that my "juvenile" and pointed insults have brought the character of debate here nearer to a useful exchange of ideas (which has caused "Free Thinker" to jump ship in terror). I cannot argue rationally against things like "YUR A MORON DUDE." So, I'll respond in kind with insults until they decide semi-reasonable argument is worth a shot, because they won't intimidate me with bullshit insults.

This is a microcosm of direct action. If fascists are aware that we will not sit idly by while they round people up into death camps, that we will kill them, perhaps they will be amenable to reasonable discussion instead. If forest rapists recognize that they will face serious resistance when they try to destroy an ecosystem we all rely on for survival, perhaps they will be amenable to working out a way to sustainably harvest timber that allows for the continued survival of humanity and other species. Equality does not imply inaction - it implies equal opportunity for action.

Belief in the principle of equality is not the same as the delusion of believing that it exists right now. No, battles over resources are not won in the US in "public perception," they are lost or won when corporations rape our lands or are stopped.

Just as the views of others are as valid as mine, mine are as valid as theirs. This means I have just as much right to expression and action as they do. If other people are out to destroy the forest, and express views consistent with this end, I am free to defend the forest, and express views consistent with this end.

By your logic, the destruction of forests should hurt the cause of forest raping corporations everywhere. This is not the case. That is their goal.

Similarly, destruction of logging equipment being used to destroy a forest does not "hurt the cause of tree huggers everywhere," in fact, it is exactly what "tree huggers" want: sucessful prevention of forest destruction.

<By all means, stick to your guns.>

I intend to. I'm no pacifist.


Free Thinker,

Why do you respond to me as though I wasn't here? Whatever, you're a nutjob. I'll respond to you anyways.

It's amazing how you continue to obsess over the nonexistent similarity of my beliefs to anti-abortionists. In fact, I do not share their beliefs, I share their tactics - property destruction. So do you, in that you believe in the destruction of forests, so you must be fascist, too. By your reasoning, we are all fascists. Great, a wonderful little trope for your high school philosophy class, but totally ridiculous idiocy nonetheless.

You're right: I'm no Emma Goldman. She's dead. She also helped with the assassination attempt on Henry Clay Frick, and she helped defend the revolution in Spain from the fascist Franco. I admire her. She took action in defense of humanity. She would not support your bullshit sophistry, either.

With regard to death threats: you are too blinded by your own ideology, or just plain stupid, to see that the death threats on this thread have come from people like you. You continue to minimize this.

Moreover, you continue to refuse to see (after repeated clarifications) that I never made any death threats. I asked what is the difference between out of work loggers killing CEOs and management (who you continually, wrongly, refer to as workers - typical mistake for a desk job asshole like yourself, though) and angry pro-timber assholes like you killing tree sitters and David "Gypsy" Chain. You repeat your refusal to see that this is not a "death threat," but a question. A question is not a death threat. I didn't "justify" a "hypothetical" anything, I asked a question. You still haven't answered it, nor has anyone else. Because you haven't answered, apparently you're the one who thinks out of work loggers should kill people, and thus you're making death threats - by your bullshit logic.

You're right about one thing: I have not "stated that directly threatening behaviors are wrong." They are not always wrong. If someone is trying to kill you, by all means, threaten them if it will stop them. Injure or kill them if necessary. Funny thing, though, neither have you "stated that directly threatening behaviors are wrong." I have asked you if you're a pacifist, and you've refused to answer. You seem to be a robot incapable of anything but repeating the same faux-highbrow insults and fallacies. Desk job.

<There is also the posting by "M" stating that woods workers should be harrassed at their homes and that they "must not be allowed to feel safe." Then there are the people watching the tree sitter extractions who try to encourage the sitters to cut the extractors' safety lines.>

What does any of this have to do with me? Oh, right, nothing.

<A lot of "anarchists" adopt that label because they accept no authority or civil principle that mediates or constrains how they deal with those with whom they disagree, as exemplified by our friend in these postings. It's a dictatorial mindset. Get a bunch of like-minded people coalescing around that idea and you have a fascist, totalitarian movement.>

Ah, here's your finest line of bullshit yet. Thank you for this opportunity to respond to something more substantive than your usual repetition of misrepresentation.

It is true that anarchists do not accept arbitrary authority. Most commonly, the people we disagree with are in positions of power and authority, and if we accepted their right to rule us, we would be in quite the no-win situation.

Funny how you generalize "those with whom we [anarchists] disagree" (powerful corporations, police, politicians, etc), as though all social actors were equal in power, while simultaneously giving those with whom we disagree the power to dictate our actions ("authority," or "civil principle"), while giving us no such freedom to constrain their actions.

So, by your "logic," the anarchist refusal to be ruled by an arbitrary external power is "a dictatorial mindset." Further, if any anarchist chooses to act, it is automatically "fascist" because of that mindest.

Let's flip this for a second. How about this: your attempt to force everyone to play by your rules (and therefore to accept your outcomes) is in fact fascist and totalitarian. You refuse to accept that everyone is right to act on their own authority for what they see as the greatest good. This means that they must follow some externally imposed system of rules. This is classic fascism.

In fact, if anarchists coalesce around the idea that they should act in ways that they think are right, they usually come into conflict with a bureaucratic system of power. That is what actually happens, as opposed to your daydreams about how fascist anarchism could be due to your misrepresentation of our ideas.

The last time a lot of people coalesced around the anarchist idea (freedom, equality, mutual aid, refusal of arbitrary authority) was Spain in 1936. Was there a "fascist, totalitarian movement" there? No, the anarchists fought the first, heroic battle of World War II - against the fascist general Franco, who tried to take over Spain by a coup, with the support of Hitler and Mussolini. The anarchists did not impose their ideas on others - to a fault. They did, however, defend themselves and the Spanish people from Franco's fascist assault.

I'm sure you would have supported Franco, due to his allegiance to "authority" and the "civil principle that mediates or constrains." He killed a lot of dissidents in defense of this "principle."

Drink all the "fine beer" you want, you desk job drunk. It won't improve your reasoning abilities. I won't hold it against you for how it affects your social status, though - I couldn't care less. You're the sycophant.


just wondering,

I'm a provocateur like the dutch Provos, and a propagandist, too. Pathetically unpaid in both functions.


I love you,

I love you, too. I also love Jews.

Abraham" is Aryan Spammer posing as "jew"

that's right

<<and if I am, what of it.. <<

1. fake"jews" fabricated forgery "the Protocols" to defame the jews yet more, which provoced lots of pogroms and else
Now IMC aryan freaks continue this old pogromist's technique - to defame jewish minority and provoke yet more confrontation
If sf-imc staff support yer clear nazi provocation .´- they are hatemongers and pro-nazis.

2. that means u pointed our yer racist ideology
(anti-zionism) more than MLK ever could

<<<what do you have to say BOY<<

wow, u're not only aryan propagandist, but u're even a sexist. Not surprizing..
As u didn't know poster's gender u shouldn't call her a "boy". This is typical for right wing patriarchist
.'I'm a girl actually

If there were really as many anti-Zionists Jews in the world then Israel would be empty.
Aryan racists posing as Jews for propaganda purposes.

This is another good reason to avoid the personal attacks so favored by Abraham. On these pages, you may not know to whom you are speaking, so you should addresss what they are saying - not who is saying it.

Dave, if truth and justice is on your side, you wouldn't feel others criticize you personally. Let your conscience be free once again. Learn to think and act as a decent human being.

Of course, as soon as some real discussion gets going, these lunatics jump in.

What the fuck are you talking about? Wait a second... I don't care! This pro and anti "Abraham" (whoever the fuck that is, he hadn't posted ANYTHING on this discussion thread) bullshit is obnoxious.

To the original poster of "to fake jew abraham:" fuck off. Your incoherent tirade has nothing to do with the discussion taking place here.

To dave and abraham: Why respond to some bullshit like this, that clearly has nothing to do with the topic being discussed?

Please, all of you, fuck off unless you have something to say that is on the topic we are discussing here. Thanks.

Anarchist,
I will assume that you are fully aware that the deposition of tea into Boston Harbor did not end the British rule for the Colonies. It only worked to escalate tensions. Many lives were destroyed in the War to establish such separation. But that is aside from the point.
Simply because a method is effective, does not justify its use. Police brutality is effective at times, as is warfare, yet niether can be justified within my moral system. There is no contradiction in my statement. You are aware of that. I do not condone the method of violence or intimidation against people in any manner. Let the discussion end at this point. Your misinterpretations are niether well concieved nor insightful.

Excessive destruction of forests continues until the people have had enough. Once convinced of over harvesting, regulations tighten and land gets preserved in parks. Logging practices change at the ballot box and in legislation due to public outcry. Thus, public perception is the guiding influence over timber harvesting. To not understand this, is to misunderstand the nature of a democratic republc.
I am sure your misunderstandings will continue.
Secondly, there has been not one instance where the destruction of private property has successfully protected timber in the United States. You are justifying your means without a resultant end.
The destruction of such property intensifies the emotions of loggers and thus the conflict over natual resources become futher divided. The tactics you defend will only work to increase the destruction of our nation's forests. No Timber company will shy away at the insured loss of a machine, when shying away means not working at all.
But I beleive you are only argueing to argue. No one would stand on such transparent beleifs. At least I hope not.

Please notify us by email next time it happens.

Dear fellow on-topic commentators:

Coffee Drinker,

I am fully aware that the Boston Tea Party did not end British rule. Nor did any other single action. It was one action of many that built the revolutionary resistance. The revolutionary resistance, in turn, built the capacity for the colonists to fight a national independence struggle. Yes, that “escalated tensions.” Yes, many lives were destroyed in the war. It also ended British rule.

It is absolutely not aside from the point. It is deeply relevant. You are, it seems, an absolutist pacifist. I was not previously aware of this, so no, I was not aware of the lack of contradiction in your statement (as I said, unless you were a monarchist, more conceivable to me than absolutist pacifism).

What is police brutality “effective” for? You can never condone warfare… would you have supported a pacifist stance against Hitler, as Gandhi did? Would you have taken no side in the Spanish Civil War, against the fascist Franco, claiming that both sides were equivalent since both were using violence?

My “misinterpretations are niether well concieved nor insightful?” What misinterpretations? I’ve just been trying to understand your position, which you’ve been somewhat reluctant to make completely clear until now, and now you “let the discussion end.” OK, but it’s typical for absolutist pacifists to resist examining their dogma, which is a doctrine that actually results in greater violence. By refusing to resist tyranny, one encourages it.

All of this aside, the discussion at hand has been about whether property destruction is ever a legitimate tactic. You write, “I do not condone the method of violence or intimidation against people in any manner.” Yet, property destruction is not these things, unless they are specifically targeted to threaten a person’s life, like firebombing their home (which has been done, countless times, against dissidents in America both by police and police tolerated vigilantes like the KKK, yet is never decried as consistently or loudly as the sorts of actions we’re discussing). The destruction of tools used by corporations to destroy forests in fact and intention avoids harm or threat to people in any manner.

So what, exactly, is your point?


Poison Oakie,
Rich people, corporations, and their powerful lobby groups give campaign contributions. Those contributions make or break campaigns and political careers. People can be outraged all they like and it doesn’t matter. Their choices “at the ballot box” are in fact pre-selected through the corporate media by their campaign donors. Without the support of the ruling class, no electoral candidate or legislation stands a chance. Now, occasionally, the ruling class recognizes that the rabble may get out of control and require a few reforms to quiet them down.

For example, if you look at the history of public assistance (“welfare”) in the US, you will see that payments increase, not during times of greatest need, when poverty was highest, but in fact they are highest immediately following periods of social unrest. Similarly, it was a Republican anticommunist (Nixon) who ended the Vietnam war and normalized US-China relations. Not because he had any communist sympathies, but because he feared losing power in a revolution. He may well have overestimated the remnants of American revolutionary spirit, but his motivations have been made clear.

You may say I “misunderstand the nature of a democratic republc,” but I say that you misunderstand the realities of power. You have believed what you were taught in grade school – that the majority runs this country. It does not. The elite minority run this country, as they have done in all nations. This one simply has the slickest PR.

As for the “preservation” of land in parks, I would point out that a great deal of logging and mining goes on in public lands, much of it incredibly destructive. The government is in the pocket of big business, and everyone but academics, desk jobs, and other shut-ins are aware of this. I am sure that your failures to grasp reality run far deeper than these simple things, though…

As for the ineffectiveness of property destruction, there have in fact been times when it has been effective. The goal of such action is to make environmentally destructive practices unprofitable. This has worked against fur farms, which have been forced to close due to property destruction raids.

The US military is quite aware of how effective such sabotage can be, as they train a great number of soldiers in the science of effective property destruction against buildings, vehicles, and other such targets.

Boise Cascade was the target of both illegal property destruction tactics and legal boycotts, among other measures. They lost $35.5 million. They lashed out at the legal groups opposing them, and it was clear that they felt the pressure.

The road blockade at Warner Creek in Oregon which lasted 11 months involved extensive property destruction. It was successful in protecting the threatened area (which was one of those “parks” you mentioned… it was threatened under special exemptions, allowing the logging company to “salvage log” the forest after it was burned by arsonists).

I am certainly not “justifying your means without a resultant end.”

Again, the Boston Tea Party alone did not get the Brits out. However, it would be senseless to argue that it was totally ineffective. We will not repair all the world’s threatened ecosystems with sporadic acts of property destruction. However, to win against global corporate tyranny, we will have to fight back.

You’re a real master of doublethink, Oakie… The destruction of property used to ravage forests “will only work to increase the destruction of our nation's forests.” You base this baseless assertion on… what exactly?

No, timber companies won’t stop work just because of the loss of an insured machine or two. They will not stop destroying forests until such action is made unprofitable. However, any smart and sustained campaign can force a company to stop destructive forest practices, and property destruction can be one effective tool if used well, as can boycotts and other measures.

I am not arguing “just to argue.” I don’t see why you think my beliefs “transparent” (I don’t even know what you mean by that – is it supposed to be an insult?). I take your arguments at face value. I request the same level of respect for my own position. Of course, people used to arguing the dogma of the powerful seldom have the humility to respect oppositional viewpoints, and think it’s inconceivable that anyone could honestly think differently. Just as it was once inconceivable to think the earth isn’t flat, or the earth revolves around the sun, or that microorganisms, not devils, cause disease. Or, for that matter, that the Crown would not always rule the colonies.

Logging has been going on for hundreds of years and has helped with the evolution of many things. To name a few, many of the roads we all drive on were built for logging, what would we live in if we didnt use trees. Im sure the tree sitters and huggers homes are made of some type of wood. Id also be willing to bet that your cabniets and tables in your homes are either made from some type of partical board or a type of hard wood and if your reading this whats your monitor sitting on? Please dont be a hypacrite. Remember trees are a renewable resource.

What have they done right?
1. Incompetence - Can they do the job?
2. Maliciousness - waste and destruction.
3. Greed - they want it all.
4. Ingnorance - stupidity.

Valuable asset ----- worthless ----- High suction parasite.

What have they done right?
1. Incompetence - Can they do the job?
2. Maliciousness - waste and destruction.
3. Greed - they want it all.
4. Ingnorance - stupidity.

Valuable asset ----- worthless ----- High suction parasite.