Ranjeet Online Typing

SET Time 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Auto Scroll

Font Size:

Paragraph Words: XXX

Losing momentum as it became just another Eco-protest group (one with much more radical theories, sometimes referred to as Deep Ecology) in practice, Earth First! with the approval of its new set of Nonviolence leaders, entered into alliances with groups using law suits to defend the environment. That is not bad strategy, in some ways, but it's a bizarre application of Nonviolence, if you think about it. (But then Nonviolence requires a great deal of Nonthinking.) What are courts, police, and government but instruments of violence? Consider a victory, any of a number of cases in which a judge has ruled in environmentalist's favor and issued an injunction against timber harvesting. What does an injunction mean? It means that you do what the judge says, or the armed might of the government will force you to do it, using means that cannot possibly be rationalized as not-violent, much less Nonviolent. The only way out of this conundrum for the Nonviolence apostles is to pretend that government is not violent. And it usually is not violent to the bourgeois gentlewomen who make up the ruling class. These men and women are realists, they aren't going to shoot it out with the government. If the rare honest judge enforces the Endangered Species Act, these men can wait until their money can buy elections and representatives and judges to gut the Act. I don't object to winning a stay for the forests through litigation; I object to Nonviolence activists labeling sabotage as violence and court orders as Nonviolence. But then Gandhi was a lawyer, and what rational person can fathom a system created by a Jansenist lawyer? A system that says that if the forests must suffer to end the cycle of violence, so be it? The ideology of Nonviolence is not merely mistaken in attempting to apply one solution to fix all problems. It is an ideology used by our police state to make opposition to the violent policies of our government ineffective. The police use Nonviolence as a method of controlling potentially troublesome social change groups. Many of the Nonviolence advocates that float around the social change movements are on police payrolls or should be. Many have been trained by public relations agencies, which spotted the tactic as a very productive one for their corporate clients. Their tactics are revealing, but simplistic. They accuse anyone they disagree with of being violent. They scare their followers with stories of the terrible fates in store for anyone who brings down the wrath of the police or the middle-class voters on their precious Nonviolent affinity groups or their cause. They hold secret meetings among themselves to reach a consensus for "Nonviolence Codes" that would be more accurately called "Do Nothing," codes. Then they declare an issue to be their turf and declare that anyone joining in on the issue must accept their dictatorial "consensus" decisions. They confuse and manipulate people with a bizarre mechanics of consensus. The key rule is that one person may block consensus, that is, if even one person in the group objects to an action, then that action cannot be done. This rule is extremely loaded in the direction of no action at all. Then again, just try to block the pre-determined consensus in favor of Nonviolence. Explain that you understand that the ideology and practice of Nonviolence is in fact a violent ideology because it encourages State and Corporate violence. Watch the claws and fangs pop out of the Nonviolence folk. They have a lot of pent-up anger, and they would much rather take it out on an honest activist than on the people who are actually destroying the earth and murdering its peasant stewards. Be careful, they'll probably report you to the police. They probably are the police.