Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Earth First!
#1
I'd like to start a discussion on the Earth First! group and its history.

Founded after a long campaign of climate action in the `60s and `70s, which was perceived as going mainstream, EF!s first leaders were Ed Abbey (author of The Monkeywrench Gang and Hayduke Lives!), Dave Foreman, and a few others.

Abbey has an interesting story. WWII veteran, later conscientious objector (which landed him on the FBI watchlist for the duration of his life) and deep green anarchist. Dave Foreman is similar, but I haven't paid enough attention to know the specificities.

They were both alienated at times for "racism". I'm not completely sure where this comes from, besides both of them being European-Americans and opposing immigration to North America, both legal and otherwise, on the basis it was good for the climate. Abbey's sexual politics were quite bad as well, similar to people like Derrick Jensen and Lierre Kieth today. Ed Abbey wasn't quite anti-civ by his own measures, but was accused of being so by the American press. Here are his own words on the subject:

Quote:“I was accused of being against civilization, against science, against humanity. Naturally, I was flattered and at the same time...how, I replied, being myself a member of humanity (albeit involuntarily, without prior consultation), could I be against humanity without being against myself, whom I love - though not very much...” (Desert Solitaire)

So you can see he's in a slightly different realm than us. But anyway.

I'm making this post to hopefully begin a comprehensive critique, which I might submit to the EF! journal at a later point. I have spent about six months of this year participating in Earth First! events, and other related stuff. I know how it works quite well. Since I no longer want to participate, I hope to figure out why, to communicate the problems surrounding this organization and its logic.

The EF! slogan, "No compromise in defense of Mother Earth!", is something I think about almost daily. It really sounded great when I first heard it. But it really bothers me know. For one thing, the anthropomorphism of the phrase "Mother" Earth is something I can't get behind. "No compromise in defense of nature!" is better. But what really bothers me about it is that everyone apart of the network absolutely compromises in defense of nature all the time.

In the `90s, a group of EF!ers splintered to form the ELF. They did property damage. Lots of it. They also catalyzed an FBI crackdown, which is referred to colloquially in the US as "The Green Scare", and it still has operational and tactical influence over the resistance movement.

US government officials and the press have referenced to the US climate change resistance as terroristic on numerous occasions. Terrorism to me is such a bullshit concept. Abbey’s own words can shed some light on this, stating ‘The most common form of terrorism in the U.S.A. is that carried on by bulldozers and chain saws.”

I think this a dumb position to take. Here’s why: what one person calls a terrorist is anothers freedom warrior. Ed Abbey himself had used both bulldozers and chainsaws in actions against the industrial monster.

At this point I think we should just own what I think is a sound tactic: violence. Earth First! considers itself a non-violent organization, as did ALF and ELF. I don’t know where this comes from. The idea is that human life is sacred (C’mon...really?), but also to avoid the repression of the State. Well, that didn’t work. So what’s the deal? Is it a moral argument? Fuck civilization!

Here’s another way anti-violence kicks us in the ass and defangs us: dealing with state security and provocateurs. Their modus operandi since at least the `70s has been to send it lone wolfs who want more extreme action. Sometimes this gets people on the side of wild nature wrapped up in conspiracy charges. But it also ends up alienating the lone militant, searching for comrades, action, and support.

I propose these groups start considering how to use violence effectively, as to not alienate searching elements, while also avoiding state security infiltration and repression. For some reason, Americans see this as impossible, and I find that ignorant and cowardly. The Jewish people, during active pogroms and persecutions, including the Nazi Holocaust, went from being scattered all over the world, to land occupations, to forming defense organizations, an army, and a state, in less than a half century. Three years after the holocaust was perpetrated, Israel was founded. Consider again our possibilities. Consider the operational history of groups like MEND and Hezbollah. Do people avoid "terror' at the behest of the state and for no other reason than fear of imprisonment, injury, and death? Cowardice! What happened to "No compromise!"?

I think a discussion of the film "Night Moves" (a reference to what Abbey called his nighttime sabotaging operations) would be a good place to start.
Reply
#2
Jacobi posted about this, recently, although I'm just seeing it: https://www.wildwill.net/blog/2018/11/27...rth-first/
Reply
#3
(Tue, 11 Dec 2018 21:18:12 +0000, 09:18 PM)@demon Wrote: I'd like to start a discussion on the Earth First! group and its history.

Founded after a long campaign of climate action in the `60s and `70s, which was perceived as going mainstream, EF!s first leaders were Ed Abbey (author of The Monkeywrench Gang and Hayduke Lives!), Dave Foreman, and a few others.

Abbey has an interesting story. WWII veteran, later conscientious objector (which landed him on the FBI watchlist for the duration of his life) and deep green anarchist. Dave Foreman is similar, but I haven't paid enough attention to know the specificities.

They were both alienated at times for "racism". I'm not completely sure where this comes from, besides both of them being European-Americans and opposing immigration to North America, both legal and otherwise, on the basis it was good for the climate. Abbey's sexual politics were quite bad as well, similar to people like Derrick Jensen and Lierre Kieth today. Ed Abbey wasn't quite anti-civ by his own measures, but was accused of being so by the American press. Here are his own words on the subject:

Quote:“I was accused of being against civilization, against science, against humanity. Naturally, I was flattered and at the same time...how, I replied, being myself a member of humanity (albeit involuntarily, without prior consultation), could I be against humanity without being against myself, whom I love - though not very much...” (Desert Solitaire)

So you can see he's in a slightly different realm than us. But anyway.

I'm making this post to hopefully begin a comprehensive critique, which I might submit to the EF! journal at a later point. I have spent about six months of this year participating in Earth First! events, and other related stuff. I know how it works quite well. Since I no longer want to participate, I hope to figure out why, to communicate the problems surrounding this organization and its logic.

The EF! slogan, "No compromise in defense of Mother Earth!", is something I think about almost daily. It really sounded great when I first heard it. But it really bothers me know. For one thing, the anthropomorphism of the phrase "Mother" Earth is something I can't get behind. "No compromise in defense of nature!" is better. But what really bothers me about it is that everyone apart of the network absolutely compromises in defense of nature all the time.

In the `90s, a group of EF!ers splintered to form the ELF. They did property damage. Lots of it. They also catalyzed an FBI crackdown, which is referred to colloquially in the US as "The Green Scare", and it still has operational and tactical influence over the resistance movement.

US government officials and the press have referenced to the US climate change resistance as terroristic on numerous occasions. Terrorism to me is such a bullshit concept. Abbey’s own words can shed some light on this, stating ‘The most common form of terrorism in the U.S.A. is that carried on by bulldozers and chain saws.”

I think this a dumb position to take. Here’s why: what one person calls a terrorist is anothers freedom warrior. Ed Abbey himself had used both bulldozers and chainsaws in actions against the industrial monster.

At this point I think we should just own what I think is a sound tactic: violence. Earth First! considers itself a non-violent organization, as did ALF and ELF. I don’t know where this comes from. The idea is that human life is sacred (C’mon...really?), but also to avoid the repression of the State. Well, that didn’t work. So what’s the deal? Is it a moral argument? Fuck civilization!

Here’s another way anti-violence kicks us in the ass and defangs us: dealing with state security and provocateurs. Their modus operandi since at least the `70s has been to send it lone wolfs who want more extreme action. Sometimes this gets people on the side of wild nature wrapped up in conspiracy charges. But it also ends up alienating the lone militant, searching for comrades, action, and support.

I propose these groups start considering how to use violence effectively, as to not alienate searching elements, while also avoiding state security infiltration and repression. For some reason, Americans see this as impossible, and I find that ignorant and cowardly. The Jewish people, during active pogroms and persecutions, including the Nazi Holocaust, went from being scattered all over the world, to land occupations, to forming defense organizations, an army, and a state, in less than a half century. Three years after the holocaust was perpetrated, Israel was founded. Consider again our possibilities. Consider the operational history of groups like MEND and Hezbollah. Do people avoid "terror' at the behest of the state and for no other reason than fear of imprisonment, injury, and death? Cowardice! What happened to "No compromise!"?

I think a discussion of the film "Night Moves" (a reference to what Abbey called his nighttime sabotaging operations) would be a good place to start.
[quote pid='2007' dateline='1544563092']
I liked this write up. It brings up something I'd like to mention: Infiltration. Just an example and a theory of mine is that some of the founders and leading organizers of the "Free State Project" and the "Shire Society" in NH may actually be young gov't plants. Part of their tactics may be pushing pacifism and useless/frivolous activism, along with useless political activism to those in/and looking to join the "freedom" movements there. For the intellect displayed by these people they aren't doing anything or promoting any real fight for freedom. They sure as fuck don't care much about nature. Mostly computer geeks and Bitcoin morons. For what it's worth,     Hoot
[/quote]
Reply
#4
(Sat, 15 Dec 2018 01:05:47 +0000, 01:05 AM)Hoot: Hi Demon,  Great write up you put together !  Pacifism is being used as an excuse to not counter being controlled. I say that being controlled ,or nature being controlled is as bad as being assaulted. Too many would-be fighters are waiting around to be "attacked" before acting. Problem is, the system doesn\t nessecarily want to attack us or nature, it just wants to CONTROL all.           Thanks,Hoot Wrote:
(Tue, 11 Dec 2018 21:18:12 +0000, 09:18 PM)@demon Wrote: I'd like to start a discussion on the Earth First! group and its history.

Founded after a long campaign of climate action in the `60s and `70s, which was perceived as going mainstream, EF!s first leaders were Ed Abbey (author of The Monkeywrench Gang and Hayduke Lives!), Dave Foreman, and a few others.

Abbey has an interesting story. WWII veteran, later conscientious objector (which landed him on the FBI watchlist for the duration of his life) and deep green anarchist. Dave Foreman is similar, but I haven't paid enough attention to know the specificities.

They were both alienated at times for "racism". I'm not completely sure where this comes from, besides both of them being European-Americans and opposing immigration to North America, both legal and otherwise, on the basis it was good for the climate. Abbey's sexual politics were quite bad as well, similar to people like Derrick Jensen and Lierre Kieth today. Ed Abbey wasn't quite anti-civ by his own measures, but was accused of being so by the American press. Here are his own words on the subject:

Quote:“I was accused of being against civilization, against science, against humanity. Naturally, I was flattered and at the same time...how, I replied, being myself a member of humanity (albeit involuntarily, without prior consultation), could I be against humanity without being against myself, whom I love - though not very much...” (Desert Solitaire)

So you can see he's in a slightly different realm than us. But anyway.

I'm making this post to hopefully begin a comprehensive critique, which I might submit to the EF! journal at a later point. I have spent about six months of this year participating in Earth First! events, and other related stuff. I know how it works quite well. Since I no longer want to participate, I hope to figure out why, to communicate the problems surrounding this organization and its logic.

The EF! slogan, "No compromise in defense of Mother Earth!", is something I think about almost daily. It really sounded great when I first heard it. But it really bothers me know. For one thing, the anthropomorphism of the phrase "Mother" Earth is something I can't get behind. "No compromise in defense of nature!" is better. But what really bothers me about it is that everyone apart of the network absolutely compromises in defense of nature all the time.

In the `90s, a group of EF!ers splintered to form the ELF. They did property damage. Lots of it. They also catalyzed an FBI crackdown, which is referred to colloquially in the US as "The Green Scare", and it still has operational and tactical influence over the resistance movement.

US government officials and the press have referenced to the US climate change resistance as terroristic on numerous occasions. Terrorism to me is such a bullshit concept. Abbey’s own words can shed some light on this, stating ‘The most common form of terrorism in the U.S.A. is that carried on by bulldozers and chain saws.”

I think this a dumb position to take. Here’s why: what one person calls a terrorist is anothers freedom warrior. Ed Abbey himself had used both bulldozers and chainsaws in actions against the industrial monster.

At this point I think we should just own what I think is a sound tactic: violence. Earth First! considers itself a non-violent organization, as did ALF and ELF. I don’t know where this comes from. The idea is that human life is sacred (C’mon...really?), but also to avoid the repression of the State. Well, that didn’t work. So what’s the deal? Is it a moral argument? Fuck civilization!

Here’s another way anti-violence kicks us in the ass and defangs us: dealing with state security and provocateurs. Their modus operandi since at least the `70s has been to send it lone wolfs who want more extreme action. Sometimes this gets people on the side of wild nature wrapped up in conspiracy charges. But it also ends up alienating the lone militant, searching for comrades, action, and support.

I propose these groups start considering how to use violence effectively, as to not alienate searching elements, while also avoiding state security infiltration and repression. For some reason, Americans see this as impossible, and I find that ignorant and cowardly. The Jewish people, during active pogroms and persecutions, including the Nazi Holocaust, went from being scattered all over the world, to land occupations, to forming defense organizations, an army, and a state, in less than a half century. Three years after the holocaust was perpetrated, Israel was founded. Consider again our possibilities. Consider the operational history of groups like MEND and Hezbollah. Do people avoid "terror' at the behest of the state and for no other reason than fear of imprisonment, injury, and death? Cowardice! What happened to "No compromise!"?

I think a discussion of the film "Night Moves" (a reference to what Abbey called his nighttime sabotaging operations) would be a good place to start.
[quote pid='2007' dateline='1544563092']
I liked this write up. It brings up something I'd like to mention: Infiltration. Just an example and a theory of mine is that some of the founders and leading organizers of the "Free State Project" and the "Shire Society" in NH may actually be young gov't plants. Part of their tactics may be pushing pacifism and useless/frivolous activism, along with useless political activism to those in/and looking to join the "freedom" movements there. For the intellect displayed by these people they aren't doing anything or promoting any real fight for freedom. They sure as fuck don't care much about nature. Mostly computer geeks and Bitcoin morons. For what it's worth,     Hoot

[/quote]
Reply
#5
The early Jewish "defense" groups in early-mid 20th century Palestine dealt with infiltration with everything from secretive oaths on one end of the spectrum, to assassinations on the other. Offense can often be the best defense.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)