Green Rage

I moved

2009-07-20T20:25:00.001-07:00

I plan on being more active and shit now that I moved my blog tooo

http://revolutionaryenvironmentalism.wordpress.com/

US House Passes Cap and Trade Bill

2009-07-01T11:29:00.000-07:00

Just last week the US congress passed through the American Clean Energy and Security Act, with 219 people (211of whom where democrats) voting for the act and 212 (168 of whom where republican) voted against the bill. The Bill, does many things- from increasing funding for "green energy developments", the expansion of "weatherization programs, and most controversially the implementation of a "cap-and-trade program." Not surprisingly the majority of Republicans and business groups are opposed to the law while most liberals support it. The liberal left will tell you that Cap and trade is a good first step towards substantive climate change. This sort of incrementalism, which is the mantra of the liberal left is meant to be a "first step" towards a more comprehensive climate policy and I mean, honestly, isn't something (no matter how small and inconsequential) better than nothing? Of course, left support for the law is not universal- for one GreenPeace has come about against the bil l, as they rightly see Cap and Trade as a "false solution" to climate change.

So what is wrong with Cap and Trade? Why should we as environmentalist, revolutionary ones at that, be opposed to such legislation?

Of course, the cap-and-trade program that the US congress is pushing for will do little, if anything, to address the impending climate crisis. At its best cap-and-trade will be nothing more than accounting magic- having no impact on limiting real carbon emission but making the world a better place on paper. In fact this might be the intended goal of cap-and-trade. Like most "market mechanism" attempts at policy, cap-and-trade intends to provide capitalist an incentive to cut carbon emissions efficiently and effectively while not "harming" the economy in any measurable way (unlike what Republican's claim- the odds are Cap and Trade will make a few people really rich, and have little impact on "consumers."). This of course does nothing to address the root sources of climate change- over consumption, dependence on cheap fossil fuels, and rampant global inequalities, i.e.., capitalism. In fact, instead of undermining capitalism, over consumption, etc, cap-and-trade commodifies the carbon emissions, making just another way for capitalists to profit from the destruction of the earth.

Instead of Cap-and-trade, what we need is a real climate proposal one that doesn't cut C02 by 5% in 10 years, if at all, but one that really does cut c02 by 80% by 2050. Anything less than that will be meaningless, and of course the longer we wait the more we have to cut immediately. Anything less than this will do nothing more than remove short-term liberal guilt about consumption and increase governmental control over the economy and regulation on every day life.

As anarchist's we need to really think through our politics and try to foment a way to address climate change, cut c02 but also weaken the power of the state. Right now all 'solutions" to climate change require the expansion of federal government power and the extension of world governmental authority. This is one of the critiques of the policy by "conservatives' (ala Glenn Beck) but their critique has more to do with regulation of the economic sphere, but they do have a point. Expanding the federal governments power to regulate the economy, might be a worthwhile goal to some, but as anarchists we need to be suspicious. Can we expand governmental powers in the name of confronting climate change? Is there a way to push the state towards its end by expanding its power?

The issue is expressed rather well in The Coming Insurrection. The anonomous author(s) write:

"Managing the phasing out of nuclear power, excess C02 in the atmosphere, melting glaciers, hurricanes, epidemics, global overpopulation, erosion of the soil, mass extinction of living species...this will be our burden. They tell us, "everyone must do their part," if we want to save our beautiful model of civilization. We have to consumer less to be able to keep consuming. We have to produce organically to keep producing. We have to control ourselves to go on controlling. This is the logic of a world straining to maintain itself while giving itself an air of historical rupture. This is how they would like to convince us to partipate in the great industrial challenges of this century. (pg. 78)"

New Issue of Green Threory and Praxis

2009-01-06T15:17:00.000-08:00

So, the newest issue of Green Theory and Praxis has come out. Its a great looking issue with articles from Greta Gaard, Samuel Fassbinde r , a book review from my friend Quin and me. I have an article on the ELF that I would love comments back from. So please let me know what you think of the article and please get a hold of me if you want to write a book review.

Notice of Publication:

Please be advised of the recent publication of Volume 4, No. 2 of Green Theory & Praxis: The Journal of Ecopedagogy (ISSN 1941-0948 / DOI: 10.3903/gtp). This peer-reviewed journal is dedicated to research at the transformative nexus of ecological politics and culture, critical theory and sustainability education. We are always looking for essays, reviews and other materials. Visit our homepage: http://greentheoryandpraxis.org/.

The current issue is online at:

http://greentheoryandpraxis.ecopedagogy.org/index.php/journal/issue/current

Table of Contents

Introduction
Richard Kahn pp. i-ii

Articles

Why the George Lakoff and Mark Johnson Theory of Metaphor is Inadequate for Addressing Cultural Issues Related to the Ecological Crises
C. A. Bowers pp. 1-10

Toward an Ecopedagogy of Children's Environmental Literature
Greta Gaard pp. 11-24

Just War and Warrior Activists
Lisa Kemmerer pp. 25-49

Understanding the Ideology of the Earth Liberation Front
Sean Parson pp. 50-66

Being Sentient and Sentient Being: The Animal Rights Movement and Interspecies Boundaries
John C. Alessio pp. 67-86

Capitalist Discipline and Ecological Discipline
Samuel Day Fassbinder pp. 87-101

Book Reviews

The Nature of Home: Taking Root in a Place, by Greta Gaard (2007)
quin aaron shakra pp. 102-105

Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need A Green Revoution, and How It Can Renew America, by Thomas L. Friedman (2008)
Samuel Day Fassbinder pp. 106-110

Rural Literacies, by Kim Donehower, Charlotte Hogg, Eileen E. Schell (2007)
Wanda Baxter pp. 111-114

Rural Voices: Place Conscious Education and the Teaching of Writing, edited by Robert E. Brooke (2003)
Fred Waage pp. 115-118

Ecology without Nature: Rethinking Environmental Aesthetics, by Timothy Morton (2007)
Antony Adolf pp. 119-120

Retrieving Nature: Education for a Post-Humanist Age, by Michael Bonnett (2004)
John Bruni pp. 121-123

Deliberative Environmental Politics: Democracy and Ecological Rationality, by Walter F. Baber and Robert V. Bartlett (2005)
Richard Besel pp. 124-126

Film Reviews

The Greening of Southie, by Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis, Dir. Ian Cheney (2008)
Brandon Tauscher pp. 127-132

Conference Reviews

ASLE 2008 (Association for the Study of Literature in the Environment), Edinburgh
Mary Been pp. 133-136

--------------------------
Richard Kahn, Ph.D. ( richard.kahn@und.edu )
Editor-in-Chief
Green Theory & Praxis: The Journal of Ecopedagogy

May the Greek state falll! More from the frontlines....

2008-12-11T14:52:00.000-08:00

The Greek anarchists are still at it- making today the fifth straight day of insurrection. I wanted to give a heads up to the best blog I have found regarding the Greek insurrection. Check it out. Its an amazing source of eye-witness sources. In addition, indymedia has a lot of great information about Greece as well.

Anyone have any ideas what folks outside of Greece can do to support the resistance? It seems that Greece consulates across the world are being protested or occupied. The only one on the west coast, that I know of, is in San Francisco. Anyone know if stuff is happening there? I have no idea what I can do from Eugene other then cheer them on. Also, anyone know any other good blogs to check out?

A Greek Uprising?

2008-12-08T08:28:00.000-08:00

Long time no post..... Oh well.

There are some really cool things going on in Greece lately. It seems that the anarchist youth there have started rioting and the rioting is reaching its third day. Fuck ya! I am not the biggest fan of a politics of pure destruction but destruction is a needed phase for any revolutionary politics. We have to destroy the old order in order for the new one to flourish.

I would love to find out more info about the grassroot, on the ground, anarchist activism going on in Greece. Anyone know about that stuff? I am sure that they have developed a strong inf0shop/social center scene, I am sure that they have a thriving squatter movement, etc. I wonder what they are doing differently though, because it appears that the Greek anarchists are currently the numerous, organized and really militant. I really just do not know much else about their politics. I would love to see this sort of development in the US.

For folks who want more info:

Greece rocked by Third day of Riots,
NY times link on the Third day of Riots
Greece Riots aren't ending anytime soon!

RIP George Carlin

2008-06-23T10:17:00.000-07:00

George Carlin, the greatest contemporary social critic, died last night. Instead of writing a bunch for him, I am going to let his own material cover all that. Below is a piece he wrote after his wife died in 1997. It is a great reminder of all that is important in life- something that only loss seems to bring up.

The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings but shorter tempers, wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints. We spend more, but have less, we buy more, but enjoy less. We have bigger houses and smaller families, more conveniences, but less time. We have more degrees but less sense, more knowledge, but less judgment, more experts, yet more problems, more medicine, but less wellness.

We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get too angry, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too little, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom. We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often.

We've learned how to make a living, but not a life. We've added years to life not life to years. We've been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet a new neighbour. We conquered outer space but not inner space. We've done larger things, but not better things. We've cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul. We've conquered the atom, but not our prejudice. We write more, but learn less. We plan more, but accomplish less. We've learned to rush, but not to wait. We build more computers to hold more information, to produce more copies than ever, but we communicate less and less.

These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion, big men and small character, steep profits and shallow relationships. These are the days of two incomes but more divorce, fancier houses, but broken homes. These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throwaway morality, one night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer, to quiet, to kill. It is a time when there is much in the showroom window and nothing in the stockroom. A time when technology can bring this letter to you, and a time when you can choose either to share this insight, or to just hit delete.

Remember, spend some time with your loved ones, because they are not going to be around forever. Remember, say a kind word to someone who looks up to you in awe, because that little person soon will grow up and leave your side. Remember, to give a warm hug to the one next to you, because that is the only treasure you can give with your heart and it doesn't cost a cent.

Remember, to say, "I love you" to your partner and your loved ones, but most of all mean it. A kiss and an embrace will mend hurt when it comes from deep inside of you. Remember to hold hands and cherish the moment for someday that person will not be there again. Give time to love, give time to speak, and give time to share the precious thoughts in your mind.

AND ALWAYS REMEMBER: Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away.

Well, remember George in a way that he would like- listen to his stuff, get angry, and do what you can to change this fucked up culture and world we live in. George, you will be greatly missed!

Comedy bits:
On location at USC (1977)
George Carlin: Again (1978)
Carlin at Carnegie (1982)
Carlin on Campus (1984)
Playin' With your Head (1986)
What am I doing in New Jersey (1988)
Doin' It Again (1990)
Jammin' in New York (1992)
Back in Town (1996)
You are all Diseased (1999)
Complaints and Greivances (2001)
Life is worth loosing (2005)
George Carlin: Narcotics Anonymous World (2005)

Madness, Consumption, and Civilization

2008-05-26T15:52:00.000-07:00

How is it that a culture that so proudly proclaims mental health a moral failing has so many people on depression, bi-polar, ADD/ADHD, erectile dysfunction, and other "mental health" medications? How can being "mentally ill"- depressed, bi-polar, schizophrenic, ETC- be considered abnormal if a majority, or at least a sizable plurality suffers these debilitating diseases? What are the foundations of these "illnesses?" Are they a natural part of human existence? Is the recent epidemic a bi-product of post-capitalist production and consumption (Delueze and Guattiari)? The result of a morally repressive culture (Sigmund Freud)? Or a constant state of PTSD that resulted from our splintering from the natural world (Chellis Glendenning)?

I have no answer for the causes of "mental illness", and it is very likely and probable that there are multiple causes.

I am going to try to work through my nascent understanding of mental health, depression, and American culture and claim that it has emerged as an epidemic from the destruction of community relations and the sense of loss and feelings of isolation that serve as foundational component of American culture and capitalism.

This thesis is nothing new and is built up from the theories of Deleuze and Guattari in Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia.

First off, the basis of western culture is the belief in a body/mind dualism- in which the two are separate and treated unequally. In this worldview, the mind serves the same role that a captain does on the ship. The mind is responsible for steering the ship, for deciding its course, and for keeping things together. The mind does not experience the world in the same way that the body does; the experiences of the material are mediated through your sense of touch, smell, sight, and hearing. For anyone who has lived in the real world it is obvious that these two are not separate and that what happens to your mind impacts your body and what impacts your body greatly affects your mental well-being.

Coming from this dualism though, illnesses of the body are given priority- they can be mended- while "disease" of the mind are the responsibility of the individual. We mend broken bones; we treat for cancers and other "life threatening" diseases; but we never examine mental health with the same concern and enthusiasm. For much of western history those with depression, bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, etc where seen as being the result of morally weakness and spiritual deficiencies.

American culture- a culture that emphasizes individualism, self-sufficiency, and pulling oneself up by the bootstraps (which is something that is physically impossible but that might say more about the American dream then does any sociological research agenda)- compounds the body mind dualism as does the culturally constructed gender roles and rampant consumerism that people are forced to live with. By isolating individuals into atomized selves, destroying the basis of community that has sustained human life for hundreds of thousands- if not millions- of years, and then creating normative definitions of success, masculinity, and happiness that are all rooted in financial and material success. American culture both looks down and marginalizes those who fail -mental, physical, but often financially- and diffuses any societal imperative to help. Forced into an artificial feeling of aloneness and believing that you are to blame for your feelings we all come to internalize our psychosis. If you are poor and unable to pay rent you feel depressed and pathetic. You have failed to meet societies assumptions for success- you are not wealthy. Likewise, if you are a wealthy CEO you still feel isolated and alone. You have everything that society claims is needed for happiness- money- but you still feel like slitting your wrists. How do you deal with the situation in either case? You consume. If its good for General Motors its good for you.

When you feel hollow inside, devoid of any sense of worth or joy, the simplest way to create a feeling of happiness in this culture is to consume, even if that happiness is fleeting. Why is that? There are many reasons but one important one is that consumptions and consumerism are the only way to feel apart of any greater community. If I get the cool shoes I will be a part of something, same if I see that new hit movie, or have a nice car. In America one of the only things we feel we all have in common are the material objects/commodities in our lives. The easiest way of removing the feeling of aloneness and to connect with others in this culture is to consume.

Maybe we realize that we are trading our labor (in the form of money) for some one else's labor. In this way, at least subconsciously, we have at some relationships- between producer and consumer, between costumer and consumer, between worker and work. At the same time, as a consumer, I have a relationship with all other consumers. I can talk about the newest video game with people and feel a sense of connection, or I can join a Hummer fan group discuss the awesomeness of my brand new H2.

In addition, we place in those objects a relationship that is unhealthy and unnatural; the commodity becomes a surrogate for interpersonal bonds. Anyone who has ever collected something- from comics, to stamps, to coke products- you will know the sense of accomplishment you feel when you expand or complete a collection. This relationship with material objects takes the place of interpersonal human relationships. I feel the same joy, if not more, when I get that latest comic, or complete my collection of 19th century French stamps, or buy a new car as I do when I hangout with my friends or make love with someone I cherish. These cheap consumer goods become a repository for my sense of yearning and desire for relationships.

Some of you might say, well I am not alone: I have a family who loves me, a wonderful committed partner, or a loving dog or cat. I ask you this in response? Does the addition of one more person remove this feeling of being alone? Does it replace the loss of a community (both animal and human) that has sustained human life for the vast majority of its existence? I contend that marriage, partnerships, families and even friendships do not replace this feeling of loss. These relationships instead become nothing more then another form of consumption. We cling to relationships and to individuals in much the same way that the stamp collector clings to his stamps. This is not universally true, but is commonly the case. Some people- both those in monogamous and in polyamorous relationships- have found a way to be happy but in most cases marriage, partnerships, and families do not free us from the unhealthy happiness of consumerism but instead exacerbate the problem. You often turn to buying ones love from another; fearing that without them you are alone, and that only material gifts will make them happy and stay with you. This is why even though proclaim our love for others from hilltops, in front of priests, and on state issued documents current conceptions of family and friends does nothing to replace the loss of community.

Finally, the medical answer to most mental healthy problems in the United States is through consumptions as well. Do you not sleep at night? Do you feel anxious? Do you sometimes have a hard time getting an erection? If so take this pill. It will remove your sense of longing, make you numb to your surroundings, and most importantly make the pharmaceutical and psychiatric industries wealthy and successful (therefore they are at least happy?). This does not mean that medication is not an important component to mental health for some people. There are millions for whom these pills have saved their lives and I would never tell someone who has improved their lives through chemistry to stop. Nor do I believe that therapists are evil, misinformed, or make bad choices. Therapists want to help their "patients" and these the fact is that these pills work; they allow an individual to function in society, live, and hopefully address some of their own core psychological problems and improve their life.

What they do not do is confront the root of the problem- a loss of community and a break down of human relationships with each other and the natural world. They do not question the foundational philosophy of capitalism, the state, or civilization, and as Gilles Delueze and Felix Guattari claim psychology does not attempt to free us from our existence as machines; consuming, producing, eating, and fucking machines. They do not try to re-create and re-imagine life, but assume that life is dead and the machine, or at least the cyborg, is all that exists.

One group that is at addressing mental health in a holistic, egalitarian, and radical way is the Icarus Project. They are attempting to "call for new space and freedom for extreme states of consciousness, and alternatives to the medical model and the traumatic legacy of psychiatric abuse" while embracing an openly anti-capitalist, anti-statist, anti-racist, feminist, and non-hierarchal foundation. Instead of calling for increased medicalization of mental health they call for a holistic community sense of healing. Instead of viewing those with bi-polar disorder or depression as being "mentally ill" they question the basic assumption and power dynamics that exist within that assertion. The do not consider anyone to be " essentially diseased, disordered, broken, faulty, [or] existing within the bounds of DSM-IV diagnosis." Finally, they embrace an empowering vision of health that includes individual realization and empowerment with a strong sense of community and friendship. The Icarus Project might not have "the" answer to mental health and there is no one answer to this problem. But they are treating people as people- not machines and not as defective humans- and realize that we are all, even those who do not realize it, suffering from life under capitalism and the state. In fact, in a world so fucked up- with colonization being called liberation, with ecocide called progress, and with our strongest emotional connections existing towards characters on TV, the only sane person is the schizophrenic; they are the only one seeing the world for what it is- confused, destructive, irrational, and fake.

Addressing the root problem, as I have laid it out, can never be done through medication, or therapy. The only way to address the root cause of "mental illness" is through the re-creation of communities, the abolition of capitalism and collapse of western civilization and our post-modern existence. It requires a radical re-articulation of what it means to be happy, free, and successful and requires us to re-connect with the natural world and to destroy the body/mind dualism that has plagued western thought since the Greeks. If we, as a species and a culture want to be free we need to address and confront the sources of domestic abuses, exploitative relationships, and interpersonal violence. To do so we need to confront the systemic reasons for depression, schizophrenia, and the general feelings of malaise and hopelessness that are ever present in society. This means more then just revolution, more then just the destruction of the current order- the end to capitalism, religion, and the state- though this is essential. It requires the creation of communities and healthy relationships.

Canaries in the Coal Mine

2008-03-08T16:16:00.000-08:00

So, I saw on the news a few days ago that there is a mysterious illness that is decimating the bat population in the northeast. The three dominant theories for why are: 1) Climate change is making bats hibernate later and they are too weak and starved to survive, 2) that the spraying to kill mosquitoes and stop the West-Nile virus is causing an illness that is killing them or 3) a fungus has developed due to agricultural toxins that is killing the bats.

This is very important and when you take this into account with the massive bee die off, and the horrible mutations and extinction of frogs. What we have are canaries dying left and right in the coalmine we call civilization. How many more signs to we, as a society, need to see before we start radically rethinking our policies, or politics, and our philosophies? The entire project of modernity is a failure; it needs to be abandoned and it needs to be abandoned ASAP. If we do not I fear that environmental collapse will become inevitable (if it is not already). I do not want this to happen. Every life is valuable, human and non-human, and any collapse will lead to a massive die off of possible 80-90% of the humans on this planet and countless other species.

At least there are more and more signs of resistance every day. The ELF action in Seattle, the bombing of the recruitment center (right on!), the fire-bombings in Greece and riots throughout Paris are all signs that people are having enough and are fighting back. Of course, for ever person who confronts society through active resistance countless others drink themselves to death, kill themselves, shoot up malls or schools, or release their frustration and anger on their children, partners, and friends. It is about time that we realize that the increased school shootings, the spread of mental health problems, and the epidemic of child/partner abuse are a direct result of our separation from the natural world and a direct result of civilizations culture of death. So, if you feel frustrated and depressed by the current world do not take it out on yourself, your children and family, or strangers, focus your rage at the source of the problem (the state, the market, and all components of social control) and look to the ELF, the recruitment bomber, the insurrectionary anarchists in Greece, and the Muslim underclass in Paris as inspirations.

The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire!

2008-03-03T07:44:00.000-08:00

"Built Green? Nope black! McMansions in RCDs r not green. ELF"- Sign at the Fire

So, I have been in the blogging doldrums but I feel that there is finally something worth bringing me out of it. As of early this morning a fire was set in some rich neighborhoods in Seattle. Authorities are claiming that it was set by ELF "activists." For more info check out Fox News, MSNBC, Local TV, and the Seattle Times. As more comes in, and as I get more time to drink coffee and wake up, I will add some commentary. All I can say now is I loose no tears for multi-million dollar sprawl developments. I hope they all burn down (with no one in them of course).

**update**
Bombs and Shield and Green is the New Red have both posted some info/commentary on the ELF action. I also heard that Fox News (the bastion of good reporting) had an hour long special on "Eco-terrrorism" did anyone see this or know a torrent or site that it is hosted on? I would like to see what they say about it and who they interview.

Once again..

2008-02-07T19:49:00.001-08:00

...George Carlin has expressed my views 100% times clearer then I could. So here is my overall opinion on the primary season and should give some evidence to how I am going to (not) vote on election day.

Climate Fraud, Carbon Profits

2008-01-28T00:11:00.000-08:00

Here is an amazingly well done analysis of the Carbon Trading program that folks like Gore seem to love so much by Uri Gordon. While you are at it, check out Uri's blog at AnarchyAlive! and by his new book Anarchy Alive!: Anti-authoritarian Politics from Practice to Theory (Pluto Press). The book is really good and Uri is easily one of the brightest people out there writing about anarchism.

--------------------

Climate fraud, carbon profits
By Uri Gordon

By the looks of it, environmentalists should be celebrating a great victory. For decades, their warnings about the devastating consequences of pumping billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year were met with a strange combination of arrogance, paralysis and denial. Now, everybody seems to finally recognize the gravity of the problem.

A recent BBC survey polled 22,000 people in 21 countries to find that an overwhelming 80 percent believe that human activity is a significant cause of climate change. And no less than 70 percent say they are willing to change their lifestyles - even in the U.S. and China, the world’s top emitters of greenhouse gases. Climate change is the hot new topic around dinner tables, young couples calculate their “carbon footprint,” and jetting around the world with a slideshow on the subject is enough to get you awarded a Nobel Prize.

But is this sudden rush to jump on the climate bandwagon really so encouraging? Not if you look at the bigger picture. One might have expected, for example, that the vindication of environmentalists’ warnings would also translate into more attention to the solutions they have been offering all along: reduced consumption, diversified and self-reliant local economies, and an end to our civilization’s obsession with economic growth at all costs.

But these options remain largely silenced and ignored. Instead, the new hype around climate change is being shaped almost exclusively by global political and business elites, and their interests seem unchanged: more power, more money.

Much has been made of the “success” of the recent climate conference in Bali, where U.S. negotiators finally succumbed to international pressure and ceased to stonewall progress toward a new climate treaty. But the real story remains the flawed content of the Kyoto Protocol and whatever succeeds it. In fact, the international framework on climate change merely strengthens the same global system of inequality and exploitation, whose logic of infinite growth is what landed us in this mess in the first place.

Its centerpiece is a new global market - the trade in carbon dioxide. Major polluters can now buy carbon credits that allow them to pay someone else to reduce emissions, instead of cutting their own pollution. Meanwhile, under the innocuously named Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), governments and corporations can generate new carbon credits out of thin air by financing renewable energy and/or “offsetting” projects that allegedly absorb greenhouse gases.

All this will certainly put more money into the global economy and generate new investment opportunities. Israel, for its part, managed to get itself defined as a “developing country” in the Kyoto Protocol and is not required to reduce emissions, at least until 2012. But it has already drawn undisclosed millions in CDM investments - including schemes for methane capture from the Hiriya landfill and Kibbutz Nirim’s pig farm. But whether turning the atmosphere into just another commodity does anything to effect climate change remains highly debatable.

Environmental-justice organizations like Carbon Trade Watch argue that the CDM system is highly flawed. With no regulatory framework to verify claimed reductions, hundreds of credit-generating projects are being realized under corporate self-monitoring, dangerously relying on the polluters’ own integrity. These potential conflicts of interest were at the heart of the Enron and Arthur Andersen scandals, both pioneers in emissions trading.

Moreover, a ham-fisted approach to ecological complexity guides the use of vast single-crop plantations to allegedly “sequester” carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, generating carbon credits for investors to use or sell on. There is only limited scientific understanding of the complex mechanisms of carbon exchange between forests, oceans and atmosphere, and the damage done by these projects may outweigh their benefit. The World Bank’s flagship CDM project in Brazil, started in 2002, involved planting 23,000 hectares of eucalyptus - displacing local communities, destroying biodiversity and the water table, and poisoning the soil with pesticides.

Still, entrepreneurs charge ahead with plantations. The incentive to develop the emerging offset industry takes precedence over any genuine concern for climate stability.

So much for profit. As for power, it takes only a small dose of cynicism to realize that the climate crisis is becoming a new weapon in our governments’ politics of fear-mongering. Our leaders no longer bother promising us welfare or peace - only protection from drummed-up menaces, ranging from terrorism to juvenile delinquency. As long as the alarmist talk is not backed up by any form of action that would jeopardize the existing structure of wealth and power, the climate is a convenient way to keep us scared and obedient.

What is frightening about economic decentralization and local self-reliance is not that they are difficult to achieve - social and ecological approaches to planning and productivity have been successfully tested for years, from England to Cuba to Japan. The real problem is the threat that self-reliant, resilient local economies might pose to the state-capitalist regime. If communities controlled their own food and energy sources, they might turn out to be a bit too independent, a bit too difficult to exploit and command.

And this prospect makes our leaders shake in their shoes.

Uri Gordon teaches environmental politics at the Arava Institute. His book “Anarchy Alive!” was recently published by Pluto Press.

I really like reframing things....really I do.

2008-01-17T21:49:00.000-08:00

So I am constantly reframing and rethinking about my prospectus and research project. Here is how I have it now. This is probably more useful to read then my long sections that I posted earlier. I need to rewrite and edit those. How does this question look? Is it still confusing?

------
Diss Q: What does the tension between anarchist movements and state agencies demonstrate about the relationship between the state and social movements more generally?

The relationship between social movements and governmental institutions is always one of regulation and control. This relationship is hidden when social scientist use pressure groups or any policy driven movement because these groups have already agreed to accept the confines that the state places on them. They accept these confines in an attempt to have access, or at least greater access, to agenda setters and the policy cycle. With some anarchist groups there is no agreement to accept the state's limitations on action. This is seen through the banner group Food Not Bombs, an anarchist group that distributes food without seeking permits or enacting a 501©3 non-profit status, as well as squatter communities, and the radical forest defense movement. These movements all attempt to have a political life outside the regulated and confining space that the state grants. In response to anarchist group's, government institutions attempt to maintain regulatory power over public space by recapturing the political spaces that anarchist movements have liberated and placing this groups within the regulatory space of the state. This can be done by attempts to integrate anarchist groups within traditional venues, by forcing them to accept permits or non-profit status, or by bringing the groups within the panoptical vision of the state through infiltration and surveillance.

Introduction section to Prospectus

2008-01-15T14:34:00.000-08:00

Since I have already posted a draft of my dissertation question, I feel that posting the introduction is important. In fact, I should have done the intro first, since it frames why the dissertation question is important. Enjoy the intro and let me know what you think of it. Did I miss something? Does my spelling suck? Should I start with the discussion about Seattle? Is something really awkward? Let me know!
--------------

"Anarchism is not a concept that can be locked up in a word like a gravestone. It is not a political theory. It is a way of conceiving life, and life...is not something final: it is a stake we must play day after day"- Alfredo M. Bonanno (Bonanno 1996)

For much of the 20th century, anarchism was "Marxism's poorer cousin, theoretically a bit flat-footed but making up for brains, perhaps, with passion and sincerity"(Graeber 2004). Though the anarchist movements had a few high points during the 20th century, such as Nestor Mahkno and the Ukrainian revolt (1916-1919), the uprising at Kronstadt (1921), the revolutionary actions of the Catalonian anarchists during the Spanish Civil War (1930-1936), and the Paris Uprising of '68, the presence of anarchism waned. Instead, following the success of the Bolshevik revolution, Marxist-Leninism became the dominant political ideology on the left. By the 1950s it seemed as though Anarchism was being relegated to the dustbin of history.

However, starting with the late 1960s, anarchist theories and tactics reemerged within the anti-war, women's, queer, and environmental movements. Anti-authoritarianism gave the New Left a way to revolt against parents, politicians, and orthodox Marxists. While at the same time, consensus decision-making, the affinity-group model, and the concept of direct action allowed the anti-nuclear and the environmental movements a way to put their beliefs into action (Epstein 1991). The widespread use of these tactics made many of the new social movements appear to be embracing a nascently anarchist politic(Melluci 1989). The connection between anarchism and the new social movements developed further throughout the 1970s and 80s with the anti-nuclear movement(Epstein 1991), the feminist movement(Ehrlich 2002; Hansen 2002), and the environmental movement(Abbey 1976; Manes 1990; Bookchin 1991; Hansen 2002), all garnering a vocal and active anarchist wing. The relationship between new social movements and anarchism was not one sided; anarchism was also radically altered by politics of the 1960s and 70s (Day 2005). For example, class interests lost their standing as being the essential component of politics while race, gender, sexual orientation, and environmental conditions took its place.

During the 1990s the United States saw an increase in anarchist activism. One of the most widespread anarchist entities that thrived during the 1990s was Food Not Bombs. Food Not Bombs is banner group that distributes free vegetarian meals as a means of practicing mutual aid, a central concept within Kropotkins' theory of anarchism. A handful of Clamshell Alliance activists originally formed Food Not Bombs in 1981 and former Abalone Alliance members, in 1988, started up the second chapter of the group in Berkeley, California. Food Not Bombs is now one of the most popular anarchist entities with over 200 chapters in the United States and 400, recognized chapters, existing on five continents. During the 1990s anarchist "organizations" (Love and Rage, Anti-Racist Action, Anarchist Black Cross, Crimethinc ex-Workers Collective, Direct Action Network), journals (Fifth Estate, Anarchy: A Journal of desire Armed, Earth First! Journal), squats (ABC No Rio, C-Squat), and infoshop/autonomous spaces (Arise, The Lucy Parsons Project) flourished. During this time period, Uri Gordon has argued that anarchism started to redefine itself and became "a recognizable social movement in its own right, with a scale, unity and diversity unseen since the 1930s" (Gordon 2005).

Even though anarchism appeared to be a growing political movement it received little attention by academics, media elite, politicians, or mainstream culture at all. In fact, most Americans first saw "an anarchist" in protest images from the World Trade Organization protest in Seattle. Discussing the anarchist presence in Seattle, Time Magazine on December 13, 1999 stated in a headline "Anarchists lead Seattle into Chaos." The article, which spent pages trying to understand the beliefs of the anarchist protests, ended up dismissing the entire movement as consisting of "thousands of mostly young activists populating hundreds of mostly tiny splinter groups espousing dozens of mostly socialist critiques of the capitalist machine." This small movement, according to Time and the rest of the mainstream press, was hypocritical, overly violent, and fringe. Yet, Time had to ask, "Is Anarchism the face of 21st century activism?" Not surprisingly their answer was "no."

It is important to state that the anarchism did not emerge out of the Seattle protests but that the anarchist presence in Seattle represented over a decade of grassroots organizing by anarchist activists throughout the country. The result of their organizing is the backbone of the contemporary anarchist movements; the 200 known chapters of Food Not Bombs in the United States; the countless community info-shops and collectively run squats; and the extensive direct action networks that now exist within most major US cities. What Seattle represented was the hard work, dedication, and advances that occurred among the anarchist milieu; it showed that anarchists could organize and radically disrupt politics as usual.

Though anarchist politics have been an important component of contemporary radical politics, academics have paid little attention to it. Confronting the lack of academic work on anarchist politics, David Graeber in his New Left Review, "The New Anarchists", states that, "It's hard to think of another time when there has been such a gulf between intellectuals and activists; between theorists of revolution and its practitioners" (Graeber 2002). In recent years a handful of academics, including Graeber himself, have narrowed this gulf.

Since 2001 a handful of academic articles (Day 2004; Smith 2007; Williams 2007), a few unpublished PhD dissertations (Gordon 2005; Robertson 2007), and a slew of books (Hardt and Negri 2000; Newman 2001; Call 2002; Graeber 2004; Olson 2004; Wark 2004; Carter 2005; Day 2005; Hardt and Negri 2005; Sepulveda 2005; Best and Nocella 2006; Sitrin 2006; Graeber 2007; Graeber 2008) have delved into questions central to contemporary anarchism. These activist/academics comprise what I call the "new anarchist academics."

One of the results from this new research on anarchism is the claim that the new anarchist movements are radically different from earlier conceptions of anarchism. According to Uri Gordon,

The contemporary anarchist movement is 'new' in the key sense that it does not form a continuity between the workers' and peasant' anarchists movements of the nineteenth and early twentieth century...rather it represents the revival o anarchists politics over the past decade in the intersection of several other movements, including radical ecology, feminism, black and indigenous liberation, anti-nuclear movements and, most recently, resistance to neoliberal capitalism and the 'global permanent war"(Gordon 2005).

In other words, anarchist academics are claiming that a new unique form of anarchism has come to fruition in the 1990s, one that combines the lessons from new social movements with a strong commitment to resist domination, hierarchy, and illegitimate authority. According to the new anarchist academics, the new varieties of anarchisms reject class as being central to their politics (Day 2005) and instead embrace the categories popularized by the new social movements (NSM)- gender, race, and sexual orientation (Day 2005; Gordon 2005). Most importantly, the new anarchist movements do not wait for a global social revolution but instead engage in pre-figurative politics by creating new institutions within the vestige of the current system.

Next, I will discuss the pressing questions that the dissertation will address, followed by a discussion of pertinent previous research, and a discussion of research methodology. The final section will provide a short time-line for the completion of the dissertation.

What I have been doing

2008-01-10T23:41:00.000-08:00

So I have been very busy writing my prospectus and neglecting my blog. In a way of working on both I am going to paste my "dissertation question". Let me know what you think? In about 2 days I will put the next section. This way I can get my whole damned thing up and maybe get a comment or two about it (anything is welcome). Also, if you want to read or give me some more detailed feedback email me and I can, and would really like to send you my prospectus.
_______________________

Dissertation Question:

"The term new social movements is rapidly approaching its sell-by-date"(Crossley 2003).

For this dissertation I have two central questions that I want to answer. First, how has anarchism been able to reemerge as a political force during the 1990s and 2000s? In doing so, I will first have to address, empirically, whether anarchism has reemerged and if it has, whether the new anarchisms are in fact unique. This research will provide much needed empirical evidence, if it exists, for the "new anarchist academics" claims. This is especially pressing since the majority of their work has tended to be either theoretical or based off their personal activist accounts. The one exception is the forthcoming book by David Graeber's Direct Action: An Ethnography, which details the authors' experience working with and organizing the anarchist resistance to the IMF in Quebec, Canada.

Secondly, and more important, what does the relationship between the anarchist movements and state agencies tell us about these relationship, more generally? The relationship between state institutions and political social movements has became a pressing question for the political science side of social movement theory (Banaszak 1996; Costain and McFarland 1998; Rhomberg 2004; Morgan 2007) and there is currently no consensus on the process. Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that the current empirical research examines the relationship between pressure groups, that are actively trying to get a seat at the table, and state agencies, which want to limit their political influence. The anarchist movements I will look into provide a unique perspective on this debate; since the new anarchist movements do not want a spot at the decision-making table and claim to exist outside, or counter to, the State. Because of their standing, this allows for a unique glimpse into power relationships.

Of course, it is naive to believe that these groups can exist fully removed from the envelope of the state, especially in the modern era of surveillance and regulation. But, these groups' attempts to remain independent often force the state agencies to over react; which illustrates the importance of "inclusion" that city governments and state agencies place on social movement actors. Overall, the relationships and interactions between anarchist movements and state institutions is uniquely complex and highlights tensions and relationships that always exist but are generally over looked.

As empirical case studies for the second question, I will examine two new anarchist political movements and their relationships with state agencies: the militant forest defense movement and Food Not Bombs. The first case study provides an example of how a new anarchist movement attempts to subvert and disrupt the current institutions, will providing an open space of new institutions to thrive, such as the concept of the free-state which is modeled as a temporary autonomous zone in the woods. The actions of the forest defense movement are not removed from the political process. Instead a complex relationship exists between the radical forest defense activists, with their open hostility towards the state, and state agencies (Forest Service, BLM, Police Agencies, the FBI) attempts to co-opt, include, or eradicate the movement.

The second example, Food Not Bombs illustrates the pre-figurative politics that have became central to the new anarchist movements. In addition, Food Not Bombs rejects city funding support and also does not have the 501(c)3 non-profit standing. In the words of one Food Not Bombs activist,

People often ask if we are a non-profit, tax exempt corporation. Generally, we are not interested in the bureaucracy needed to maintain such an organization. Sometimes, you might use an "umbrella" to assist in arranging a particular donation of money that specifically needs to be given to a non-profit, tax-exempt group. This is fine and it is usually not too difficult to find a tax-exempt organization to do this for you. Specifically, do not seek permission from any government agency to engage in the work you do. Once a group becomes a tax-exempt organization, the I.R.S. has the right to oversee all aspects of its operation and limits much of what it can do. Rather than try to hide from them, we prefer to ignore them (Ewald).

Thus, unlike other hunger relief agencies, Food Not Bombs actively rejects government support and non-profit standing in an attempt to remain independent from state control. This is a requirement if Food Not Bombs wants to complete its stated goal of creating an alternative institution for distributing food outside the confines of the state. Historically though, city governments have not been willing to accept Food Not Bombs rejection of state control. Most Food Not Bombs chapters in the United States have experienced police harassment, fines (for distributing food without a license), or overt government surveillance (ACLU website, Food Not Bombs website). Because of the hostile tension between Food Not Bombs chapters and city agencies, it becomes an interesting case study for understanding how city governments integrate or suppress social movements, and how groups attempt to remain politically independent of state regulation and control.

News: Lakota Free State

2007-12-24T16:33:00.000-08:00

I have not had the time to update lately, as I have been busy engaging in debaucheries activity here in Vegas. That and there is not free Internet anywhere in this damned town. To make up for that, I wanted to put up a recent news article that I have not heard too much about in the presses.

Sometime last week, a small group of Lakota Sioux Indians withdrew from all treaties and declared their land an independent autonomous zone. The actor, libertarian politicians, and Indian rights activist Russell Means stated that, "we are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us." The newly free Sioux country plans on printing its own currency, passports, and driver licenses all while remaining tax-free for all who renounce their United States Citizenship for the newly created Sioux Nations.

Though the actions of Russell Means, a libertarian who has ran on the Republican ticket for Vice-President, and the small group of Sioux appears to be more of a media action than an actual threat to US power but it does bring up the importance of Dual Power in radical activism.

Dual Power, is a Leninist phrase that is the revolutionary creation of counter-institutions within a state. The goal of duel power is to provide alternative institutions that undermine the state by questioning the states sovereignty over police and welfare actions. The anarchist federation, Love and Rage, first incorporated dual power into American anarchist politics during the early 1990s. The group, attempted to posit dual power as being the central component of a revolutionary politics; taking from the Zapatista's the lesson that dual power organizing can threaten the state while revolutionaries engage in a protracted war against the state.

What does this mean in relation to the Lakota Sioux? In my opinion, the Sioux action has the potential to invigorate the importance of dual power within the Anarchist milieu for the first time since Love and Rage and also provides the first opportunity, since the height of the AIM movement in the 1970s, to provide the indigenous community of the US with community control. I personally see dual power to be an important part of Anarchist politics as it provides a much-needed space to create revolution spaces and allows for experimentation. As activists we can try different programs and engage in different tactics and see what works. It also allows for us, as a community, to set up community run programs organized to provide mutual aid, all while weakening the dependence of people on the state and empowering people to take their lives into their own hands. I personally, hold very little hope for this action. It is not because the Sioux cannot take care of themselves, it is more along the line that I do not trust Russell Means to provide any radical or revolutionary inspiration for the movement. This, if anything, appears to be a more legitimate and inspirational version of the Patriot Movement throughout the West. I hope that I am wrong and that the newly freed spaces do more for the people who live there and do more for the radical movement in the US more generally, I just do not see that happening. So Sioux nation prove me wrong!

Why the Police are not Your Friend: Part 1

2007-12-13T12:48:00.000-08:00

One of the biggest reasons people give for rejecting anarchism is their fear of what will happen in a world without police protecting them. To deal with this issue I want to look into two myths surrounding the police (with more to come later): first, that not all cops are bad, and secondly that they have a dangerous job.

Sometime in the next week or two, I will attempt to dispel two other myths: 1) that the cops are there to protect you and 2) the cops deter crime.

Myth 1: "Not all cops are bad"

The Chicago Tribune today published an expose that looked into the 200+ incidents of police shootings going back for 10 years. The report noted that a person is shot by the police once ever 10 days in Chicago and that in less than 1% of the around 250 incidents the police officers are found at fault. In the other 99ish% the police officers get off, often even before the autopsy is completed and before testimony from witness is recorded. In many instances, the police oversight review board did not even interview one witness nor look at any of the forensic or autopsy reports.

The Chicago Tribune reports also claims that at least 12 of the people killed where shot in the back, often from very close range. In one of this instance Cornelious Ware, was shot to death by 5 plain clothes police officers who claimed they saw him wave a gun. His 15 and 13 year old siblings claimed otherwise. The forensics evidence came back and showed that the gun found at the scene had no blood on it, even though Ware was shot in the hand that was theoretically holding the gun.

Of course, the police officers where found to be free of all charges and let to go back to work. The civil courts found otherwise, as early this year a Chicago jury sided with the Wares and before the verdict came out the police department gave the family nearly 6 million dollars to keep quiet. The civil court found that the police officers shot and killed Ware and then placed a gun to cover their asses. They originally got off because the oversight board refused to interview people, miss quoted the witnesses (removing the fact that he was unarmed), and refused to look at the autopsy evidence. In addition, the protocol in the Chicago police department is to let the officers meet together before writing an incident report. This allows all the officers to get their stories straight and to fabricate what needs to be fabricated.

What we have here is systemic police misconduct, abuses of power, and departmental cover-ups. It might not be earth shattering information for most people to hear this but it helps dispel the myth that "not all cops are bad." Why is this? Because, this expose shows that there is an institutional framework set-up within the Chicago police department (and ever other major cities) that obfuscates and distorts truth in order to defend police misconduct. This not-so-thin blue line has to go all the way up to the Chief of police and the politicians in the windy city. It also has to include almost the entire police department. It even implicates those theoretical "good cops" who for some reason or another decided to remain silent while hundreds of their fellow cops murdered, raped, and terrorized the mostly black neighborhoods of Chicago. These theoretical good cops, who had to know about the misconduct, could have told the news reporters and made a stand against this gross abuse of power, instead they remained quiet. To quote Edmund Burke (who I rarely quote), "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." In this instance, the "good men" did nothing, and because of it the "bad men" killed well over 200 people. My question is how good could those "good cops" have been? Maybe they where just following orders or did not fully know what was going on? But it seems I have heard that argument before elsewhere…

What also comes out of this story is how horrible a job police oversight boards do. These boards are always just rubber stamps for police decisions. Instead of looking into misconduct and attempting they instead just provide a legal cover-up for the police. The CopWatch program is a much better and more successful way of addressing and stopping police misconduct.

Myth 2: "Cops have a tough and dangerous job"

The other argument in defense of the police is that "they have a tough and dangerous job." This argument is also fallacious. If you look at the statistics there are 676,000 police officers in this country and last year and 147 died on duty (this includes all who died from heart attacks, car accidents, etc). This brings the death rate for police officers to be 21 per 100,000 putting them below carpenters, electricians, coal miners, convenience store workers, and about 30-40 other professions. This number is actually only slightly higher then the death rate in child-birth last year (which was 17 out of 100,000). So if you think the cops have a dangerous job what about the soon to be mothers who are putting their life on the line (nearly as on the line as the police are) in order to have a child? Or the roofer who is always one bad step from killing himself should be allowed the right to kill or maim people.

Lets get ready to welcome the RNC...or Not!

2007-12-09T22:03:00.000-08:00

The RNC this year this election cycle is going to have its convention in the wonderful city of Minneapolis. BIG MISTAKE! For those who do not know about Minneapolis, it has a long radical and anarchist history. In recent years, Minneapolis has been the starting point for such important radical organizations as Anti-Racist Action, Love and Rage Anarchist Federation, the revolutionary anarchist bowling league, and Profane Existence. The city has a great radical book stores (Arise! and Mayday Books), vegan restaurants (Sewards Coop and Hard Times Cafe) and radical activists. There must be something in the cold weather and cheap beer because in general the midwest is tons angrier and more militant then the folks here out west.

To get people pumped up for the event the folks at the RNC Welcoming Committee are coordinating a roadshow and there will hopefully be one in Eugene. The welcoming committee plan to make the event enormous and want to try and shut down the convention. Being that there are countless groups planning on attending from throughout the country I would believe its a possibility. Let me know if anyone wants to help organize some events in Eugene in support of this. Everyone should try to attend! Minneapolis is a great town and easily one of the best cities in this country!

For your enjoyment here is a video from the RNC Welcoming folks. Try to notice all the neat Minneapolis historic spots.

Stolen from Another Site: Animal Enterprise Terrorism 101

2007-12-05T12:45:00.000-08:00

I do not normally like doing this but Will Potter, from green is the new red, has written an account of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (2006) that is being published in Herbivore magazine. This law has eroded what few civil liberties animal and environmental activists have - do any activists actually have any legitimate civil rights protections? Look at the police responses to anti-globalization protests and the illegal infiltration and spying on peace groups - and has became a legal way to infiltrate, spy, and imprison, non-violent activist. It is amazing that the Congress had not done anything, to my knowledge, that extended police powers and weakened civil liberties in order to destroy the white power, patriot, or anti-choice movements. Also, it should surprise no one that the democratic leadership walked in lock-step with the conservatives in the passing of this bill. It was even co-sponsored by Dianne Feinstein who worked with her good buddy James Inhofe, the most anti-environmental senator, to get this bill passed without a recorded vote.
---------------------------------------
Animal Enterprise Terrorism 101
By Will Potter

About this time last year, corporations and the politicians that represent them were steamrolling the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act through Congress with little discussion or debate.

The mainstream press barely batted an eye. And national animal protection groups didn’t either, until the bill passed the Senate and it looked like it might actually become law.

Most people still don’t know about the law, and Project Censored has gone so far as to name it one of the most important, yet underreported, news stories of the year.

Activist communities have been talking about it, though. And, of course, with talk comes plenty of speculation and misinformation. So with the hopes of clearing up some confusion, and educating animal folks so they can spread the word to others, here’s a rundown of some of the basics, kind of an “Animal Enterprise Terrorism” 101.

What is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act?

It’s a federal law that was passed in late 2006, expanding a previous law called the “Animal Enterprise Protection Act,” and expanding the definition of “animal enterprise terrorism.”

But wait, isn’t that what put the SHAC 7 behind bars?

The SHAC 7 were convicted of “animal enterprise terrorism” under the original law (not the new one) for running a controversial website [link: http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/newred/] that posted news of both legal and illegal actions against an animal testing company, and adamantly supported all of it with plenty of snotty, fiery rhetoric.

They weren’t accused of actually doing the illegal things they posted on their website (breaking windows, or rescuing animals from labs), but the government said that through their website and their words they were guilty of “conspiracy.” So they were convicted of “conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act,” “conspiracy to stalk,” and “conspiracy to harass using a telecommunications device.”

So how is this different than the original law?

Supporters say the biggest difference is that the new law expands the definition to include so-called “tertiary targeting.” So, the terrorism law not only protects a factory farm, for instance, but now it officially protects any business that does business with the factory farm. (That’s kind of how the anti-apartheid movement worked, too).

To say this is “new,” though, is B.S. The SHAC 7 were convicted of doing exactly that. They didn’t directly target Huntingdon Life Sciences: they targeted the businesses that did business with Huntingdon Life Sciences. AETA may make the “tertiary targeting” language official, but it’s not a new power.

A more significant difference, though, is that politicians took a law that was already vague and overly broad and made it even more vague and even more broad. It expands the law to punish actions that instill a “reasonable fear” in employees of an animal enterprise, or their families. The problem is that corporations have taken out full-page ads in the New York Times [link: http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/2006/05/12/washpost-ad/] and launched PR campaigns to label activists as “terrorists,” and make the unreasonable seem reasonable.

The biggest change, though, is perhaps one of the most minute. Labeling the law the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was a calculated decision. It’s meant to send a very clear and chilling message to animal advocates, and make lawful, everyday folks afraid of being labeled a “terrorist” in post-9/11 America. That’s what this law is all about.

(A blow by blow look at the law is available at GreenIsTheNewRed.com).

Has anyone been prosecuted under this new law?

No. Ricardo Solano, one of the prosecutors in the SHAC 7 case, has been touting the passage of the AETA and promising industry groups that if animal activists “cross the line, the federal government will not stand idly by.” But so far, the government has not tried to use this new law.

And the previous law, which had been on the books since 1992, was only used twice. Once in the case of Justin Samuel and Peter Young, two activists who released mink from fur farms. And the other in the case of the SHAC 7.

Will I be labeled a terrorist for protesting or leafleting?

I doubt it, for a few reasons. And I should be clear, that’s not because of the language in the law “exempting” First Amendment activity. Anyone with any experience covering Congress or working on the Hill knows that’s hogwash. No law can blatantly outlaw First Amendment activity. Saying, “Trust us! It’s Constitutional!” doesn’t make it so.

Still, I don’t think people should be overly concerned of being rounded up as terrorists for doing something like leafleting outside a KFC. First, there’s limited law enforcement and “anti-terrorism” resources. I think this country is going down a very dangerous path, in terms of rolling back civil liberties, but things aren’t quite that bad (yet).

Second, corporations put a lot of money and resources into pushing this law, and I think they realize that using it to go after something like leafleting or protesting would immediately put it in jeopardy.

What about if I [insert legal or illegal tactic here]?

I don’t mean this is a cop-out, because it is important to question the scope of the law. But, in many ways, when you start asking this question, the law has already done its damage. When you start altering your legal actions and scaling back your nonviolent activism because you’re afraid of this legislation, then the law has already accomplished what its supporters intended.

Who was behind this?

Supporters include the usual suspects Herbivore readers know and love: National Association for Biomedical Research, Fur Commission USA, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Wyeth, United Egg Producers, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and many more. Even the University of California joined the scare-mongering, along with some prominent Democrats.

How the hell did this pass?

It passed the Senate by unanimous consent, with the support of key Democrats including Senator Diane Feinstein: it was rushed through in the middle of the night just hours before Congressional recess for November elections.

It passed the House on the very first day back from the elections, by an obscure procedure called “suspension of the rules” that is meant for non-controversial legislation (like, on the same day, renaming a bridge after the man who created the Roth IRA). Only half a dozen lawmakers were in the room.

Wasn’t Dennis Kucinich the only one to vote against it?

No. Dennis Kucinich spoke against the bill. However, no lawmakers present on the floor of the House, including Kucinich, called for a roll call vote, which would have shown that there weren’t enough members of Congress in the room for a legitimate vote.

So what do we do?

I never quite know how to respond to this. I created GreenIsTheNewRed.com as a clearinghouse for news and analysis of the Green Scare: what to do with this information is up to you. So, I’ll turn the tables here. What needs to be done to successfully fight the “Green Scare”? What’s the appropriate response to legislation labeling activists as “terrorists”? How should activists deal with the chilling effect of this “eco-terrorist” scare-mongering?

Defending basic civil liberties in this ever-growing “War on Terrorism” will mean reaching out to other animal activists, other social movements, and the general public to try to answer these questions.

For more ways to raise awareness about the Green Scare, check here.

ALF advicate Peter Young is going to give a talk at the U of O this Thursday at 6

2007-12-03T19:50:00.001-08:00

From Portland Indymedia:

Former animal liberation prisioner Peter Young speaks about his time in prison, going underground for animal liberation and more.

There will also be a free vegan meal provided by Food Not Bombs and the presentation of the documentary about the ALF, "all my heroes wear masks" www.uncagedfilms.com.

where? University of Oregon, PLC 180 eugene, or

when? thursday december 6 @ 6pm

admission is free, and there will be a distro and more info about animal rights campaigns

www.supportpeter.com

Babylon and Beyond: The Economics of Anti-capitalist, Anti-Globalization and Radical Green Movements by Derek Wall

2007-12-03T13:07:00.000-08:00

First my first book review on this site, I will be reviewing Derek Wall's new book. Derek Wall is a major player in the English Greens and is currently serving as the Principal Speaker of the Greens in England. He also teaches classes on economics and is the author of Earth First! and the Anti-Roads Movement: Radical Environmentalism and Comparative Social Movements (2002). He has three blogs: Another green world, Ecosocialists, and Babylon and Beyond all of which are good sources for red-green folks.

His new book Babylon and Beyond is an attempt to map out the current anti-globalization folks and provide a primer on their economic beliefs. He looks at: liberal criticism (George Soros and Joseph Stiglitz ), the greens, different strands of 21st century Marxism, and Anarchista and Autonomists. The book does a wonderful overview of the mainstream major players (Soros, Klein, Hardt and Negri) but is very weak when it comes to any of the anarchist or "third world" strands of anti-globalization. The section on Soros and Stiglitz was the one I knew the least about and provided useful commentary on these die-hard wealthy liberals who have come to reject neo-liberal globalization. Both of these individuals are supports and early followers of philosopher Karl Popper. Popper was a philosopher and professor at the London School of Economics and became well known as a rationalist, an empiricist and as a positivist. Popper's most famous book, The Open Society and It's Enemies is a philosophical attack against state-communism and authoritarian regimes and a defense of liberal open societies.

Soros is a billionaire who made the majority of his fortune in the futures market, often buying and selling currencies. Since became a billionaire Soros has become the largest contributor to left-leaning liberal organizations, such as move on and the Daily Kos. Soros took from Popper the concern over an open society and created his philanthropic organization, the Open Society Institute, and turned his attention away from communist (though still attacked them) to unrestrained neo-liberal capitalism.

My main problem with Walls account of this section is his willingness to see these two figures as real critics to the current order and overstating their radical stances. He quotes Stiglitz as saying "For decades, people in the developing world have rioted when the austerity programs imposed on their countries proved to be too harsh…what is new is the wave of protest in developed countries" (quoted in Wall, 25). In response to this quote, which appears to be nothing more than descriptive and provides no normative opinions from Stiglitz, Wall states, "Stiglitz comes closer to endorsing violence against economic repression than any other commentator outside of autonomist anarchism" (Wall, 25). This sort of language permeates this section, with Wall constantly quoting and over-analyzing the statements of Soros and Stiglitz, making them more radical and more of a threat to the neo-liberalism then they are. Though Wall does question their radicalism, he does so by just positing that their policies might be a way for capitalism to save face in an uncertain time (just like the New Deal programs in the 1930s).

In addition, Wall contends that Popper and Karl Polanyi have influenced all the strands of the anti-globalization movement, if intentional or not. I find this very hard to believe, especially with the position of the autonomists and anarchists (especially green anarchists) who reject market systems and the conception of rational actors.

The other major section, for me and probably the people who read this blog, was the chapter on Autonomists and Anarchists. As a quick background, autonomists are followers (in a very loose sense of the word) of autonomists Marxist theories that became popular throughout Italy in the 1970s. The most well known autonomist theorist is Antonio Negri, who with Michael Hardt, wrote the seminal book Empire. The autonomists generally rejected the workerism of the communist parties, traditional Marxism, electoral politics, and rejected the Marxist belief that the worker is the revolutionary agent. To them almost anyone could be included as revolutionary agents, including intellectuals, feminists, queer-rights activists, squatters, workers, etc. Their expansion of the revolutionary category, combined with their rejection of legislative politics and political organization, makes them close allies with anarchists (and it is often impossible to tell the difference). The Autonomists became incredibly influential throughout Europe during the 1980s as black-clad squatters in Germany, Holland, and Denmark all started engaging in street fights and uprisings against neo-Nazi and police agencies (See George Katsiaficas The Subversion of Politics: European Autonomous Social Movements And the Decolonization of Everyday Life.

The lasting, tactical, legacy from this theory is the concept of the black-block. In the black bloc people dress entirely in black - originally black was chosen since that was the color most squatters had - with bandanas, baklavas, or gas masks covering their face. The outfit makes it impossible for the authorities to tell people apart and limits their ability to identify those involved. The goal of the black bloc is to "break the spell" and through acts of violence, often against property (can you be violent against property?) lull people out of the complacency of everyday life. Their tactics are meant to demystify the power of the state, the sanctity of private property and empower individuals to take action into their own hands.

In this chapter, Wall spends the vast majority discussing the Autonomists and Hardt and Negri's Empire. Wall seems rather sympathetic with this work, and though he disagrees with the tactic of property damages, seems to be a fellow traveler with them. What Wall show is his contempt for eco-anarchism, especially neo-primitivism by stating that,

The most extreme green anarchists, who reject civilization and see a society rooted in the primitive, draw heavily upon the work of John Zerzan. Zerzan, originally an autonomist, has argued that even such institutions as written language and agriculture function as instruments of social control (Zerzan 1999). The great refusal demands that we re-create a primitive society. Although suchtheorizing appears insanely extreme, primitivists point to studies such as Marshal Sahlin's The original Affluent Society (1972)" (Wall 135)

In this quote, Wall, first off compares all anti-civilizational anarchists with John Zerzan, something I am sure that Dave Watson and the fifth-estate folks would disagree with, and also creates a shallow argument/Strawman for Zerzan. He does not go into detail and explain why Zerzan opposes civilization or modern technology. Though I disagree with Zerzan on many issues, most importantly the issue of language, I feel that Wall did not give much credence to Zerzan and simply glossed over the primitivist argument without any reason.

From here Wall uses the works of Bookchin and other, more traditional anarchists, to criticize Zerzan and seems to be more willing to accept Bookchin or Goldman's rationalist approaches to anarchism then the more openly "irrational" and individualistic.

Either way, the section on Anarchism is very short and other then the small criticism of Zerzan and anti-civilizational anarchism, he spends no time talking about of anarchists activists in popularizing and motivating the anti-globalization movement. He does give some respect to the Spanish anarchists in the 1930s and their use of affinity groups (and its importance on modern day social movements) but at no point supported their perspective. He even failed to mention the selling out of anarchists by Marxists - Leninist, Stalinists, or Maoist- that happened throughout the 20th century.

Overall, Walls book is a decent overview of different strands of globalization and does a good job discussing the green movement and 20th century Marxist theories. His big weakness comes in discussing the Anarchist influences in the globalization movement and his unquestioned support for the red-green activists (he gives a glowing review of Foster's book Marx's Ecology and almost every other eco-socialist out there). He also appears to have a profound support for Zen Buddhism and believes that by combining Zen teaching with green-socialist perspectives that you can provide a theory that is both local and universal.

I give this book 2 power fists out of 5. I would use it for a class as an intro to anti-globalization beliefs but but I feel that it does not provide much depth at all and tries to cover too much in a short space (less than 200 pages). I would recommend Walls book on Earth First and the Anti-Roads movement over this one any day.

First post in a while.

2007-11-21T23:40:00.000-08:00

It has been a while since I have updated my blog. The last week has been very busy and its not like anything important came out in the news or happened in the world. Hopefully over the weekend, since its Thanksgivings weekend and I should finally have some free time I can catch up on some of the news floating around.

For tonight, I want to write about the new IPCC report that came out a few days ago. I have not had time to read it all, being that its well over 1,000 pages, and I probably never will. What I have found out is…that all our previous contentions about the cataclysmic effects of global climate changer were actually wrong and its actually much, much, worse then we thought.

According to leading scientists global climate change is occurring three times quicker than they had originally speculated. This is directly the result of human CO2 emission increasing three fold from the 1990 figures. The big difference between the 1990s and today is the rise of China and other mal-developing nations and their increasing dependence on the black crude heroin.

What this means is that we, as a species, need to find a way to drastically, and I do mean drastically, reduce our C02 emission stat. The vast majority of American’s will probably place the blame on China and other developing nations, neglecting the fact that the United States has been the leading source of CO2 emissions for around a hundred years and because of this has a responsibility to act. Others will probably look to new shiny technologies to fix the problem. Sort of like Popular Sciences number 1 green technology of the last year, nanosolar. Of course, nanosolar seems like a vast improvement over coal, natural gas, and nuclear power, and it is. But, this is not a long-term solution to any problem. Fixing nanosolar to every building will lower the amount of coal and oil that needs to be burned for electricity but it does nothing to stop our dependence on the automobile (think how far the average tomato travels, that traveling has to create CO2). I am sure that it also has many negative consequences that we are not yet aware of. For one, I am sure that their nano-particle ink has some sever environmental problems in either its extraction phase (it has to come from somewhere, at least until we invent magic) or in the recycling phase (it has to go somewhere as well).

So, for now nanosolar and other technologies might help the situation but they are band-aid solutions that do not address the root source of the problem. That root source is our belief in never ending economic growth and the centralization of government agencies. These are the real things we need to confront. We need to, first off, reject capitalism and move towards a locally produced, sustainable existence, which will necessarily require a radical reduction and/or abolition of government, as we know it. On top of this, we will see the end of major cities (cities are at their very heart unsustainable places to live) and a mass migration from the cities back towards the local village. By rejecting the gospel of growth and radically decentralizing, or abolishing, governmental institutions we can localize our life. This is the only long-term way to even come close to addressing global climate change.

I do not even know what to say...

2007-11-13T19:51:00.000-08:00

It appears that The Onion has taken over the job as Paris Hilton's publicist. According to an associate press report, she has decided to fight elephant alcoholism in India. That is right, Paris Hilton is fighting to stop elephants from binge drinking. It appears that Elephants are getting drunk of off a home-brewed rice beer and destroying electrical poles and other property.

Because I just cannot explain this any better I will let Paris speak about her newfound cause:

"The elephants get drunk all the time. It is becoming really dangerous. We need to stop making alcohol available to them... There would have been more casualties if the villagers hadn't chased them away. And four elephants died in a similar way three years ago. It is just so sad."

Not surprisingly drunken or destructive elephants are controversial issue in many areas of rural India. To some the animals are sacred and should be protect while others see their increasingly destructive behavior as a cause for concern. A local activist Sangeeta Goswami, head of animal rights group People for Animals, discussed Paris's comments and stated: "I am indeed happy Hilton has taken note of recent incidents of wild elephants in northeast India going berserk after drinking homemade rice beer and getting killed....As part of her global elephant campaign, Hilton should, in fact, think of visiting this region literally infested with elephants."

At least one person in the article understood why the animals are getting drunk. Soumyadeep Dutta, who heads Nature's Beckon, said that "Elephants appear on human settlements ... because they have no habitat left due to wanton destruction of forests."

Overall, this story made me think of an article in the book Igniting a Revolution: Voices in Defense of the Earth (published by AK Press) that argues that elephants that destroy powerlines, monkeys that ravage government buildings, ect... are an expression of non-human direct action against environmentally destructive development. Because of this, we should treat them as political prisoners or martyrs in the eco-war.

News of the Week Part 1: Who is at fault for the recent Oil Spill?

2007-11-12T12:33:00.000-08:00

A recent oil spill off the coast of California (note: there was also an oil spill in the Black Sea Sunday that is probably more damaging then this one in California), according to government authorities, appears to be the result of human error. Of course, in this case the authorities pin the fault on the captain and not the suicidal desire for oil. Its amazing how "accidents" like this and the Exxon Valdez are seen as huge environmental catastrophes while the oil leaking out of pipelines and gas tanks throughout the world, and the catastrophic co2 pollution that results from the burning of oil, is seen as essential for our current human existence. This even though the every day actions of industrial society is significantly more damaging then any oil spill or chemical leak. If you ask me, the error is that we have created an economy that requires oil. With this lust for oil we get - global climate change, lose of biodiversity, and increased rates of cancer and obesity, ect. If you ask me it is not worth it. At least it is becoming increasingly clear that the era of oil is nearing its end.

News of the Week Part 3: The Research Lab at the End of the Universe

2007-11-09T15:25:00.000-08:00

In the next issue of Nature there is going to be study discussing the ways in which smell triggers fear. In this study, Hitoshi Sakano, a neuroscientist at the University of Tokyo, genetically engineered mice to not have "olfactory neurons in their dorsal epithelium." Thus the mice did not fear leopard urine though they smelt it. They found that the mice could be taught to fear a certain smell (I do not want to know how they taught them this) showing the ways in which certain scents and emotions are intimately tied together both genetically and learned.

This study also shows the controlling power of genetic research. These mice are able to have certain fears removed at a genetic level. This is a sign of the next stage of domestication; genetically removing certain traits that are not beneficial for domestic animals such as fear, rage, depression, ect. This story made me think of Douglas Adams Restaurant at the End of the Universe and the genetically engineered cattle that not only wanted you to eat them but also expressed it vocally. How long is it before we have little white mouse expressing their desire to catch cancer and bunnies that love burning chemicals in their eyes?

News of the Week Part 2: Signs of the coming apocalypse?

2007-11-07T09:55:00.000-08:00

If things do not change and rain does not fall, or rivers are not diverted, the industries and people of Georgia will be without potable water. As of October 19th the city of Atlanta had only a 90 days supply of water and they had yet to think of any back up plan to address the issue. The Gov. of Georgia, Sonny Purdue (R) has pinned all his hopes on 1) forcing water conservation and 2) finding a way to stop water drainage from the lakes and rivers of Georgia. It appears that the governor is sick and tired of those no good neighboring states of Florida and Alabama getting all the water.

Of course, these half-brained attempts are not nearly enough. At least one person in Georgia realizes the problem: "It's amazing that things have come to this," said Ray Weidman, owner of an Atlanta landscaper business. "Everybody knew the growth was coming. We haven't had a plan for all the people coming here?" Yep, the problem for Georgia is they have had increased growth, increased development, and increased agro-business all with no attempt to conserve or preserve what few water sources the state has. in fact, the biggest source of drinking water, Lake Lanier is already less than three months from being dry.

To be fair to Georgia this not a problem that only they are facing. Many cities, and regions, throughout the United States and the world are coming to realize that water is not an infinite resource. One can only assume that as weather patterns become more erratic and temperatures increase that droughts will only increase throughout the world (as will floods). The cosmic irony of all this is that as water sources in George, and Western United States (Southern California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico) are all drying up the ocean waters will probably rise (and in fact about 1/10th of the worlds population will either be flooded or refugees or about 643 million people) and other areas will be under constant barrage from hurricanes and rainstorm.

News of the Week Part 1: Dr. Zaius what is your opinion?

2007-11-07T09:35:00.000-08:00

From the New York Times Science Section- It seems that researchers at Yale's Psychological Studies department have written a paper discussing the ability of capuchin monkeys to rationalize their decisions. In their study they found that the monkeys rationalized choices in a way similar to 4 year-olds. Of course when the Yale researchers had to choose between stating that "monkeys and children have 'richer motivational complexity' than we realize" or that the scientific "ways of dealing with cognitive dissonance are 'mechanistically simpler than previously thought" they of course choose the later. It appears that the scientists refused to accept that monkeys are more complex and "human-like" then they currently think and instead just lowered the value of rationalizing. Obviously it cannot be that important if monkeys, underdeveloped children, and amnesiacs can do it. No matter what they claim, this does question how separate and unique humans are from other animals. If rationalizing and cognitive dissonance isn't what makes humans "unique" and "superior" to other animals what does?

Poor SUVs

2007-11-06T15:14:00.000-08:00

It appears that vandals have targeted SUVs in a suburb of Las Vegas. Around 40 of the SUVs had windows damaged. Of course, the local authorities fear the worst and have contacted homeland security and the FBI in fear that this might be "eco-terrorism." Lets get this straight. So if I vandalize an SUV because I am concerned with climate change I am a terrorist. If I do it because I hate yuppies I a vandal.

In the Ruins of the New World...

2007-11-06T11:04:00.000-08:00

The human created world that surrounds us is in constant need of maintenance and support. This is an obvious statement to any one that has spent time walking through the woods and come across an old junk car or an old railroad spike . These human-made objects are at most 50 years old, and are already over come with rust and degradation. The few objects that have survived for hundreds, if not thousands of years, have either had constant upkeep, where made of fine and treated material (not the disposable products of the last 50 plus years of human existence) or where fossilized and preserved through random dumb luck. What this means is the artificial, human world, that surrounds us - the houses, the roads, the high-speed internet cables, the subways, ect- that make our current lives "easier," "more manageable" and "privileged" is incredible fragile, as can be seen in this photo gallery. Without constant upkeep, without reproducing and manufacturing new products, the vestiges of human civilization will have a short lived existence. How long do we give our current, cookie cutter, homes before the cement foundation and floor is broken open by roots, till water destroys the roof and warps and rots the wood, until the entire home and neighborhood is reclaimed by natural forces? One year? A decade?

This topic has been brought up by the author Alan Weisman in The World Without Us. In this book, Weisman argues that the vast majority of the human artificial world would degrade and be overcome by natural forces within a few years. The New York City subways, for example, will be flooded by sea water the second the massive water pumps stop beating, and the current houses and streets will crumble within years, if they are not already. The legacy we will leave is not the great skyscrapers, the cavernous subways, or the colossal sports stadiums; it’s the plastics, the nuclear waste and the artificial chemicals and poisons we have dumped and spread throughout the world. This is human-beings real legacy; a poisoned, ravaged and toxic environment.

This does not mean that life, either human or otherwise, will not flourish on the Earth. Many environmentalists, radical or not, seem to believe that we are killing the world; that the Earth itself is in danger of destruction. The comedian George Carlin put it best on The View when he said:

GEORGE CARLIN: The planet is fine. The people are fucked. Because everyone is trying to save the planet. The planet doesn’t need that. The planet will take care of itself. People are selfish. And that's what they're doing is trying to save the planet for themselves to have a nicer place to live. They don't care about the planet in theory. They just care about having a comfortable place. And these people with the fires and the floods and everything, they overbuild, they put nature to the test and they get what's coming to them. That's what I say….There are places that are going to go away. The map is going to change and that's because -- people think nature is outside of them. They don't take into them the idea that we are part of it. They say, "oh, we're going for a nature walk. We're going to the country because we like nature." Nature is in here. And if you're in tune with it, like the Indians, the Hopis, especially, the balance of life, the balance, the harmony of nature, if you understand that, you don't overbuild. You don’t do all this moron stuff. There are too many people-

George is right. The planet will take care of itself. When humans stop laboring to reproduce and maintain the artificial environment surrounding us, it will fall apart, degrade, and slowly compost away. Everything but the toxic waste, CO2 emissions, and nuclear byproducts of current human systems. What we can be certain of is that life will continue on this planet. My only hope is that we, as a species, will be part of that life.

Some good Links

2007-11-05T09:02:00.000-08:00

Well, I need to work on a first post and I feel that the best use of this space is to provide a bunch of links for those interested in the topic. Please check out these other sites. They all have great information and are a resource for anyone trying to learn about this topic. Hopefully over the next week or so I will spend some time coming up with a glossary of terms and maybe a brief history of revolutionary and radical environmentalism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green is the New Red- http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog
This is a very well done blog that covers the government war against radical and revolutionary environmentalists. This is the best source for up-to-date news regarding the green scare and federal prosecution of environmental activists

Green Scare - http://www.greenscare.org
Speaking of the green scare. This is the site to get any and all information regarding those who are being persecuted or are incarcerated for suspected environmental and animal liberation activities. This is a great source for the history of the green scare and Operation Biteback, and for biographical and support information for environmental political prisoners.

Earth First Journal- http://earthfirstjournal.org/
This is the website for Earth First! which is a loose collection of environmental groups that share a biocentric world view, support non-violent direct action/civil disobedience, and promote a no-compromise perspective. The group has been going strong since 1980 and has undergone many different shifts and stages.

Earth Liberation Front - http://earthliberationfront.com/
Here is the website for the ELF. It is a shell of what it used to be when Craig Rosenbaugh and Leslie James Pickering ran the North American Earth Liberation Front Press Office from 1996 to 2001ish. The new site has some updates on actions and some information on green scare but is mostly now a way to find out about cheap Viagra. Overall the biggest problem with the site is its layout; it is incredibly hard to find anything on the site.

Biteback- http://www.directaction.info
Biteback is, in my opinion, the best resource for animal liberation actions. The journal, and the website, has a quick link to actions that have happened and has articles and interviews with important members of the Animal Liberation movement. Want to know more about Animal Lib. go here.

Animal Liberation Front Press Office- http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/
This is the official link for the Animal Liberation Front press office. It is am alright source for information and has most of the released communiqués on file. It is also a decent source for news and background on the ALF. I find biteback to be better, if you order the journal.

Green Anarchy Journal- http://www.greenanarchy.org/
This is the most well known and most influential anti-civilizational journal in the United States (and possible the world?) and it is published here in Eugene, OR. The journal's best section is the news section. It covers a large number of anarchist, anti-capitalist, indigenous and earth liberation news throughout the world. Overall the journal is supposed to be about "Theory "and "Action" but by far the dominant component of the journal is theory- which is fine with me because I love political theory and philosophy- which is often poorly done. It is definitely worth a look, especially if you know nothing about green anarchism, and it is a great source for a lot of John Zerzan articles.

Fifth Estate- http://www.fifthestate.org
This is the longest running anarchist periodical in the United States and since about the mid 1980s has been one of the preeminent sources for anti-civilizational anarchism. Some of its best work is from "Dave Watson" who's collected volume Against the Megamachine is a great pick up for anyone interested in environmental politics or anarchist theory.

Green Theory and Praxis- http://greentheoryandpraxis.csufresno.edu/main.asp
This is an exciting academic journal started by Mark Somma, who is a professors of Political Science from Cal. State Fresno. They come out with a new issue biyearly and so far every issue, though small, has been incredibly interesting. The last issue, August 2007, has a movie called "Testify: Ecodefense and Political Violence" that I recommend. The best article, in my humble opinion, is the August 2006 one by Anthony Nocella and Steven Best titled "Revolutionary Environmentalism: An Emerging New Struggle for Liberation." This article is a great overview of revolutionary environmentalism both philosophically and historically. There is a shorter variant of it in the book Igniting a Revolution: Voices in Defense of the Earth published by AK Press.