By Jason Miller
"The thing worse than rebellion is the thing that causes rebellion."
-Frederick Douglass
In an eerily ironic twist of fate, less than a month after I wrote a satirical interview with a despicable, fictitious proponent of our anthropocentric and ecocidal American Way of Life[1], an avaricious and bellicose way of life that is definitely a "thing that causes rebellion," I found myself engaged in an email exchange with a rabid and very real mouth-piece for our capitalist culture of death and domination. But before I get into the emails themselves though, let me establish the basis for our fascinating "dialogue."
To maintain its hegemony, the ruling class of the dominant culture has to rally the masses against an existential threat in order to justify the existence of a police state apparatus in our so-called "liberal democracy," or as my "email friend" semi-accurately pointed out, constitutional republic (more on that later). Fortunately for them, the crypto-fascist corporate-state complex has tens of thousands of propaganda-dispensing foot-soldiers, ranging from inculcated "patriotic" citizen journalists to well-compensated sycophantic pundits in the corporate media.
Unswerving devotion to God, capitalism, and country was epidemic in the US until the Soviet Union collapsed and caused the haunting specter of evil "Communists lurking around every corner" to vanish more quickly than a child's fears of the bogeyman once mom has looked under the bed and given the "all clear." But cunning as they are, the US ruling elite contrived a replacement ideological adversary. Potentially ubiquitous and infinitely malevolent, Terrorism, the new enemy against which the dutiful are manning the bulwarks, has stoked the dying embers of patriarchal Calvinism; "free" markets and rampant consumerism; and pathological nationalism. Terrorism is a beautiful thing for those with a vested interested in sustaining the prevailing paradigm. Anyone, anywhere, anytime could be a terrorist, so long as they communicate thoughts or act in ways that pose a real challenge to the status quo.
'Terrorism' is a word people use to refer to armed struggles they don't like.
--John Burdick, Syracuse University
Burdick makes an excellent point, but the blatant abuse of the word 'terrorism' has gone far beyond demonizing those engaged in armed struggles that clash with our greed-driven, imperialist, nature-dominating system. Aside from brown-skinned denizens of the Middle East and Central and South America with the audacity to oppose the Washington Consensus militarily with their "terrorism," our corporatist government has determined that we are plagued by a host of "domestic terrorists." The primary threats, according to the FBI, are the "sinister" nonhuman animal and Earth defenders whom the feds have labeled as "eco-terrorists."
While many people recognize that we are in the midst of a global ecocrisis, including climate change, food shortages, rampant deforestation, the Sixth Extinction, human overpopulation, the rapidly decreasing availability of potable water, imperialist resource wars, and more, the rotten-to-the-core status quo still has a core constituency of die-hards who are so blind, hard-hearted, indoctrinated, or highly paid that they vigorously support a system that is destroying the very planet which sustains us.
And few exemplify the abhorrent ecocide-enabling champions of capitalist "democracy"[2] better than the craven and ill-educated person (or people) who are behind an Internet entity which calls itself "Target of Opportunity," which can be found at http://www.targetofopportunity...
Whilst exploring their site, I was surprised to note the extremely provocative and stunningly benighted nature of their content. Target of Opportunity's (ToO's) "Hit List," which comes up when one clicks on the link labeled "enemy targets," consists of an odd montage of people and groups which ToO has determined are "radical Marxist liberals," including Cindy Sheehan, the ALF, the Berkeley City Council, Code Pink, National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee, Paul Watson, Progressive Democrats of America, and three of my associates in the animal liberation movement, Jerry Vlasak, Camille Hankins and Steve Best.
Curiosity piqued, I decided to contact ToO at the email address the site provides,
top@targetofopportunity.com
. Here is the intriguing back and forth I had with the twisted and pusillanimous soul(s) who would only identify as "The Men and Women of TargetOfOpportunity.com Located Throughout the United States of America":
3/30/09:
Jason S. Miller wrote:
Hello,
Steve Best brought your site to my attention and I wanted to introduce myself.
It is good to hear that Steven Best has seen this website. We are not surprised to see that he has not taken the time to dispute a single fact presented on this website. It seems we got the information right.
I'm an anarcho-vegan straight edge who is a close friend and ally of Steve Best. I have co-written several essays with him and my provocative, radical, and controversial polemics are scattered all about the Internet on many different sites-most of which would be described as "liberal" in your vernacular or "jargon."
Here's some reading material for you. This is the tip if the iceberg. I plucked most of these links from ALF.com and NAALPO, but there's plenty more if you Google for them:
http://www.animalliberationfro...
http://www.animalliberationfro...
http://www.animalliberationfro...
http://www.raisethefist.com/ne...
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories...
http://www.animalliberationpre...
http://www.animalliberationpre...
http://news.infoshop.org/artic...
http://thomaspainescorner.word...
I publish a well-known (you folks would probably call it "notorious" or perhaps even "terrorist") blog called Thomas Paine's Corner. TPC has a strong and consistent base of animal liberationist and anarchist readers, writers and supporters. Steve Best is a member of our editorial collective.
You can see for yourself(ves) here:
http://thomaspainescorner.word...
http://thomaspainescorner.word...
I have strong and deep ties to the abolitionist/animal liberation movement, maintain a large grass-roots communications network of like-minded people, and support militant direct action groups such as the ALF, SHAC, Sea Shepherd, the ELF, the Justice Department, and the Animal Brigade. I recently started simulposting (with NAALPO and Jerry Vlasak) the anonymous communiqués from some of these groups. All of my activities are legal, of course.
Militant Direct Action... How do you not see that as acts of terrorism? Are you familiar with Linda's Fashions of Geistown, PA. Your comrade Jerry Vlasak was kind enough to blame the store for the attack.
You probably feel that attacking law abiding citizens and destroying their property is acceptable. You probably would not feel that way if it was done to your property. You probably even feel that you should be allowed to implement any direct action without any recrimination. Anything you do should be considered above the law and accepted as proper action against anyone you feel is deserving of your attention and attacks. How is that any different than the Brown Shirts of the 1930's taking direct action against the Jews? That is easy to answer... it is not any different. You can sugar coat it however you like, but there it is.
I see that you have targeted Best, Paul Watson, NAALPO, and another ally of mine, Camille Hankins.
Tsk, tsk. You should leave people of good conscience alone!
Best regards,
Jason Miller
Founder and Senior Editor of Thomas Paine's Corner
How exactly did we target these people? Did we threaten them? No. Did we attack them? No. Did we destroy any of their property? No. Did we support anyone that did carry out a direct action against any of them? No.
We are sorry you believe that we have targeted Steven Best, paul Watson, the NAALPO, and Camille Hankins. We have not. All we have done is to record and maintain for the historical record the actions of these people. We just give credit where credit is due. Sorry you do not like the truth. We notice you have not disputed a single fact.
So you consider supporting the destructive actions against Linda's Fashions to be of people of good conscience. That is pretty much what we suspected.
-
Sincerely,
The Men and Women of
TargetOfOpportunity.com
Located Throughout the
United States of America
-- Original Message --
From: TOP
To: Jason S. Miller
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: Introduction by way of Steve Best
Jason S. Miller wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for your prompt reply.
I read through your responses and a few things came to mind:
1. There's at least one aspect of your site which I'm certain Steve would dispute. Your caption of the Best, Coronado, and Yourofsky photo has Coronado and Yourofsky labeled backwards.
A typo that has been corrected. Thanks for the correction.
2. Why do you value property over sentient beings?
Why do you value your beliefs over the law and other peoples lives whereby it is acceptable to destroy what is not yours to destroy?
Why do you believe that you have the authority to enforce your beliefs on others by destroying their property?
Why do you see attacks on others as being acceptable methods of enforcing your ideals?
How does your strategy of direct action differ from the tactics of the Brown Shirts attacking and destroying the property of the Jews in Germany during the 1930s?
Why did you not address the question we presented about Linda's Fashions?
3. Who are the Men and Women of Target of Opportunity.com? This cloak and dagger approach you have has piqued my curiosity. I understand your reticence to identify yourselves, but try to see it from my side. Curiosity aside, corresponding with a nameless, faceless person is rather creepy and Kafkaesque.
Best regards,
Jason
We are perplexed on why it has piqued your curiosity. We would think that you would understand this tactic of having an identity that is somewhat of an enigma.
-
Sincerely,
The Men and Women of
TargetOfOpportunity.com
Located Throughout the
United States of America
From: Jason S. Miller
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 5:10 PM
To: TOP
Subject: Re: Introduction by way of Steve Best
Hello again,
I've been pretty busy today, so rather than crafting a lengthy response and delaying the continuation of this stimulating dialogue, I'm sending you a link to one of Best's pieces that I just republished on Thomas Paine's Corner. It's a nice encapsulation of a worldview (with respect to the question of valuing life over property) that closely parallels my own. I had already formed my own philosophies before I met Steve and we don't agree on every little nuance, but we are eerily similar in our viewpoints. After reading this essay, you'll have the answers to your questions you asked of me.
http://thomaspainescorner.word...
With respect to maintaining anonymity, I fully appreciate and understand why these nonhuman animal defenders (see the link below) remain underground and conceal their identities from our murderous capitalist "democracy"
http://thomaspainescorner.word...
However, if one is working aboveground and within the bounds of the law, like I am and like you have stated that you are, I see no reason to remain anonymous.
I'm not hiding. Why are you? I find that to be quite perplexing.
And why is it that you value property over life?
"So Midas, king of Lydia, swelled at first with pride when he found he could transform everything he touched to gold; but when he beheld his food grow rigid and his drink harden into golden ice then he understood that this gift was a bane and in his loathing for gold, cursed his prayer"
Best regards,
Jason
4/1/09:
Jason S. Miller wrote:
Hello again,
snip snip snip
Let's just get to the meat of this e-mail.
However, if one is working aboveground and within the bounds of the law, like I am and like you have stated that you are, I see no reason to remain anonymous.
I'm not hiding. Why are you? I find that to be quite perplexing.
With the violent attitude of those that work underground as you have mentioned and we have written about and the fact that several of us have received death threats over the years, we felt that it best if we kept a low profile. We believe that this keeps everyone much safer because we do have the ability to defend ourselves with extraordinary measures. This aside, the fact that you place so much importance on the issue of who we are, tells us that you would love to stop us from saying what we have to say and keeping a record of what others do.
And why is it that you value property over life?
It is not that we value property over life, it is just that we value someone else's property as someone else's property and it is not ours to destroy.
Why is it that no one ever targets exterminators considering their motive is nothing more than killing rats and other such creatures with backbones, social structure, and whatever other attributes are commonly used to defend your position that it is acceptable to destroy other peoples property?
-
Sincerely,
The Men and Women of
TargetOfOpportunity.com
Located Throughout the
United States of America
4/3/09
Jason S. Miller wrote:
Good evening,
Thanks for writing back. You made some interesting points.
Hmmmm! Now you've got me thinking......
There are plenty of violent people who are of your sociopolitical persuasion as well. And I HAVE received death threats over the years (like you). Perhaps I will need to employ extraordinary measures to protect myself because I reveal my identity, photo, and general location. I have a couple of riot guns, a .38, and one of my three companion dogs is a pit bull. (I almost sound like a red-neck, don't I? And you didn't think us "liberals" believed in the 2nd Amendment) Think any of your allies will come calling? Once they cross the thresh-hold of my home, they're fair game, you know. I hate the thought of all that blood splattered about my house....
We all know Liberals oppose the 2nd Amendment. They just usually like to exclude themselves from the laws they write. But it obvious that you see the error of gun control laws. They do not do anything but prevent law abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves until the police can get there and that does not take into account the deterrence that comes the knowledge that a gun might live in that house.
If you do not value property over life, then why do you value property enough to refrain from destroying someone else's property, yet (and please correct me if you are vegans) you do not value life enough to refrain from destroying lives that belong to other sentient beings?
Because in a civilized society, it is wrong to destroy someone else's property. Why this has to be explained to what appears to be a well-educated person is beyond us. Here is a quote you might like.
"In the natural world, every living thing, be it plant or animal, exploits every other living thing that exists on the planet in order to survive just one more day regardless of the degree of separation. Like it or not, that is nature."
How does what you say fit into nature? There are creatures all over the world, lions, tigers, and bears, etc... that take the lives of other creatures. Why is man any different?
With respect to exterminators, personally, I've never liked them. Particularly after I discovered that extermination was Tom DeLay's former profession. Yes, thanks to DeLay, the smidgeon of goodwill exterminators had left with me went right out the proverbial window.
Best regards,
Jason
If you believe that it is acceptable to destroy property belonging to people that are "destroying lives that belong to other sentient beings," why do you not encourage destroying the property of exterminating companies like Orkin or Teminix? Why not burn down slaughterhouses rather than attack and destroy and terrorize researchers that you know cannot defend themselves? Wait, we might have just answered our own question.
-
Sincerely,
The Men and Women of
TargetOfOpportunity.com
Located Throughout the
United States of America
4/4/09
Jason S. Miller wrote:
Hello,
Great to hear back from you!
While it's true that living necessarily entails causing the deaths of other sentient beings (one can even take that to the level of absurdity and think in terms of the insects that we unwittingly step upon as we walk or the microbes that our immune system eradicates), and it's true that there are predatory nonhuman animals, nonhuman animals don't willfully and intentionally inflict widespread, unnecessary suffering upon other sentient beings the way we human animals do. We vegans realize that it is impossible to function in the world without killing other sentient beings (i.e. insects and microbes or in self defense or extensional self defense). However, we embrace an ethical commitment to come as close as we possibly can to eliminating nonhuman animal exploitation of any sort. Personally, I loved eating "meat," but I realized how cruel it was for a human animal, who does not HAVE to eat "meat" to live, to consume the flesh of another sentient being when there are so many alternative foods. Thus I became a vegan and animal liberationist. The four baselines here are sentience, intent, necessity, and unavoidability.
It is no more cruel or unnatural for a human to eat meat than it is for a lion to eat meat. Man has been eating meat for 200,000+ years. You being a Vegan is a choice you made for yourself. If you really believe that it is cruel to eat the flesh of another animal, then why do you not attack consumers that buy meat. The demand for meat is the reason that there is a supply. If it is wrong for a slaughterhouse to exist, then it is wrong for any of the consumption after the product leaves the slaughterhouse. Why not target consumers? Are they not a suitable target. You should destroy their homes and cars and other personal property, that is if you really believe your convictions. They would certainly be fair targets by your own reasoning.
Getting back to the issue of property. Since you're so committed to your principle that the property of others is sacrosanct, to be ethically consistent you would have to be vehemently opposed to the ongoing US war crime in Iraq, (and wars of aggression in general for that matter), as our illegal invasion has decimated and plundered billions of dollars worth of property belonging to Iraqi citizens. Where do you stand on the Nuremberg crimes of the 21st century?
You have never addressed the question of what if it was your property that was being targeted and destroyed? Would that be an acceptable tactic to someone that disagreed with the vegetables you decided to eat?
If you want to get into the question of the Iraq war, this is quite a shift from Steven Best and his support of direct action. In order for you to claim that this war is illegal, you first must ignore the terms of the Ceasefire from Gulf War I. It was not an illegal invasion. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but anyone that claims that this is an illegal war does not understand that if Saddam had lived up to the terms of the Ceasefire, he and his sons would still be alive and in power to kill as many of their citizens as they felt like killing.
I support virtually any form of militant direct action that destroys equipment, facilities, machinery, laboratories, stores, tools, or other infrastructure or implements used in the exploitation, torture, and/or murder of nonhuman animals.
Slaughterhouses, much to my delight, have actually been targeted by direct action:
March 25, 2003 - Petaluma, California
Anonymous
Rancho Veal Slaughterhouse set ablaze causing $10,000 in damages. Graffiti left behind read "stop the killing".
http://earthliberation.org/old...
As has the US Navy (a group which I would hope would be capable of defending itself, as opposed to the poor, defenseless vivisectors about whom you expressed your concern):
March 28, 2003 - Montgomery, Alabama
Earth Liberation Front
Vehicles at Navy Recruiting Headquarters in Montgomery attacked. Damages included messages spraypainted on three Navy sedans and two Navy vans, and one large two-panel truck was set on fire.
http://earthliberation.org/old...
If you support them so hardly, why do you not be true to your heart and engage in such activities yourself. If you believe they are wrong, you sit on the side lines and allow someone else to commit the crimes you know is ethically and morally wrong. If you refuse to participate in your heartfelt beliefs, why do you even bother to have them or support them?
(Just two of many examples I could provide).
Enjoy your weekend!
Best regards,
Jason
-
Sincerely,
The Men and Women of
TargetOfOpportunity.com
Located Throughout the
United States of America
4/5/09
Jason S. Miller wrote:
Top of the morning to you!
I'm going to do a little dissection of your responses and then I've got some additional points to make.
You wrote:
It is no more cruel or unnatural for a human to eat meat than it is for a lion to eat meat.
Sure, I'll concede that point, but only on the condition that we agree that all "meat" is fair game, including human flesh and everyone's cats and dogs. As they say, "meat's meat, so let's eat."
People do eat dogs and cats in certain parts of the world. As far as eating human flesh, it does not surprise us that you might suggest that. The lack of respect for other peoples property clearly shows the lack respect for many aspects of humans in general.
Man has been eating meat for 200,000+ years.
Ok, I'll grant you that one too, but only so long as we agree that if we're going to condone flesh consumption based on tradition, we also must agree that human slavery and abortion are socially acceptable, ethical practices because "Man" (you are indeed a patriarchal anthropocentric speciesist, aren't you?) has been enslaving and aborting for thousands of years.
We never said anything about tradition. The same could be said for eating vegetables. Man has dieted on veggies for that long too. And please, do not try to change the subject of bringing in the subjects of slavery and abortion.
You wrote:
If you really believe that it is cruel to eat the flesh of another animal, then why do you not attack consumers that buy meat. The demand for meat is the reason that there is a supply. If it is wrong for a slaughterhouse to exist, then it is wrong for any of the consumption after the product leaves the slaughterhouse. Why not target consumers? Are they not a suitable target. You should destroy their homes and cars and other personal property, that is if you really believe your convictions. They would certainly be fair targets by your own reasoning.
If you really believe that those you have labeled as "terrorists" on your site are such a threat to "America," why don't you attack them yourself instead of goading the violent members of your sociopolitical persuasion into doing it?
To answer your question, beyond answering it with another question (as you have done with almost every one of my queries of you), as an abolitionist with an understanding of history and complex social dynamics, I recognize how asinine it would be for vegans and animal liberationists to begin attacking every person who purchases or consumes meat. Successful social movements (i.e. the abolition of human slavery and women's suffrage) were long and arduous struggles involving multiple tactics on multiple fronts carried out by people of varying temperaments, capacities, ages, geographical locations, resources, races, educations, sexes, degrees of courage, etc. Every abolitionist and suffragist didn't practice violence, but some did. And they certainly weren't idiotic enough to run around attacking every individual who supported slavery or opposed a woman's right to vote. When they engaged in violence, they attacked the system and those in power.
If it is wrong for the meat packers and slaughterhouses to exist, then it is wrong for the consumers of the product they produce. That is like saying that it is wrong to sell humans into slavery, but it is acceptable to own slaves.
Like those who have waged the battles for liberation throughout history, those of us comprising the animal liberation movement, collectively speaking, employ many strategies, two of which are germane to our little dialogue here.
Our strategy at the individual level is to educate and inspire "meat" eaters to become vegan, as we were once educated and inspired to do so ourselves. Despite my misgivings about our species, I have not lost faith in the human animal's capacity to empathize with other sentient beings to the extent that eventually we'll abandon the malevolent "tradition" of exploiting, torturing, murdering, and eating them.
But you have no right to punish or attack people that have not broken any laws. You do not have the authority do to so. If you want the law to change, there are legal ways to go about it. Maybe you get a change in the law, maybe you do not, but you do not have the right to commit direct actions because you are emotionally charged. Again, what if someone did that to you, would that be acceptable?
However, the greedy and cynical individuals and corporate entities wielding the power to enslave, torture, and murder billions of nonhuman animals every year for profit are incorrigible and irredeemable. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying (or bribing would be a more apt term) our "representatives" in our capitalist "democracy" and mind-fucking the populace with Madison Avenue mendacities.
Are you saying that all Liberal lobbyist should be stopped? Or does it just depend on whether or not the lobbying effort coincides with your view? Everyone has a chance to be heard. That is what Lobbyist do. The represent groups of people that want something from their representatives. Your opposition to the capitalist system and democracy is about what we expected. Of course, we do not live in a democracy, we live in a Republic. We practice democracy when we vote. This is a common mistake that most people make thinking that our government is a democracy.
These actions perpetuate the insane and sociopathic practice of exploiting sentient beings (that means that they feel pain, just like you and I) so that people will continue to eat their flesh, wear their skin, drink the milk of their babies, and more because it is "normal and healthy." Therefore, as we (again speaking collectively) struggle for animal liberation, it is moral, just and necessary to impede and assail the murder machine by any means necessary.
It took the Civil War to end that "peculiar institution" of human slavery. Perhaps history will repeat itself.
You wrote:
If you want to get into the question of the Iraq war, this is quite a shift from Steven Best and his support of direct action. In order for you to claim that this war is illegal, you first must ignore the terms of the Ceasefire from Gulf War I. It was not an illegal invasion. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but anyone that claims that this is an illegal war does not understand that if Saddam had lived up to the terms of the Ceasefire, he and his sons would still be alive and in power to kill as many of their citizens as they felt like killing.
Setting aside the debate as to whether or not the invasion was "legal" or not, there is no sane argument demonstrating that the hundreds of thousands (a conservative estimate relative to numbers cited by a number of sources) of dead Iraqis, four million displaced Iraqis and those Iraqis living in a decimated, depleted uranium laden environment under the rule of a US puppet government are better off now that Saddam is gone. Funny how Saddam the torturer was an ally when it was in "America's" interest. He was A-OK with the Red, White and Blue to the extent that we supplied him with the means to kill a million Iranians and tens of thousands of Kurds back in the days when Reagan sent "Rummy" to suck his cock, figuratively speaking of course. So we enabled Saddam to kill as many of his citizens as he felt like killing when he was our ally, once his strategic value evaporated we let our puppets try him in a kangaroo court and lynch him in a fashion that would have made the Klan beam with pride, and then we took over where he left off, using 150,000 of our troops to kill as many of his citizens as we felt like killing. (Actually, past tense is not accurate-it's present and future as well; our troops are still slaughtering away!)
He was the leader of a foreign country. We did not agree with his government, but it was a sovereign country and all we can do is to either befriend him or make him an enemy. He was more of a friend until he decided to invade Kuwait. But it is good to know that you think that American troops are targeting civilians at will. In your opinion, it would seem, we never really had any military targets, just civilians to kill randomly and as we saw fit. We think you are wrong, but I am sure the troops over there appreciate your support.
Besides, where was "America's" benevolent concern for victims of ruthless tyrants in the many instances in which we installed and supported them?
For example:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler....
Which brings me to another important point. Your strong tendency to fetishize laws puts you in direct opposition to justice in many instances, as history (and the present too for that matter) is rife with examples of legal mechanisms supporting and perpetuating abject injustice. Two such historical examples, if you are true to the image that your site projects, would be highly applicable to you. Christ railed against the Pharisees for their legalistic ways. Are you not a Christian? The Boston Tea Party, one of the catalyzing acts of the American Revolution, involved destruction of property. And the Revolutionary War itself involved a tad of violence too. Are you not a patriot?
Every person that commits a direct action compares themselves to the Boston Tea Party. Are you trying to say that the Boston Tea Party was the reason for the Revolutionary War? We here are all patriots. We believe in the ideals of the founding fathers and we do not dismiss their contribution for establishing this country. We do not refer to them as White slave owning males that did not want to pay their taxes as so many in your corner do. So please do not insult my intelligence when you would be the first to condemn the founding fathers.
You wrote:
If you support them so hardly, why do you not be true to your heart and engage in such activities yourself. If you believe they are wrong, you sit on the side lines and allow someone else to commit the crimes you know is ethically and morally wrong. If you refuse to participate in your heartfelt beliefs, why do you even bother to have them or support them?
(Wow! Sorry if this sounds demeaning, but responding to this nonsense is starting to make my head spin).
Nice try, but I'll not give you the satisfaction of either confessing to acts of compassion the murder machine has criminalized or acknowledging that I lack the courage of my convictions.
You never have answered the question, if it were you as the target of someone else destroying your property, would it be acceptable based on their view of the world and what you had done to damage the world in their eyes?
Also, I know that direct action against those who exploit nonhuman animals is ethically and morally RIGHT.
Is direct action against those that vandalize property, terrorise families, and/or place Molotov cocktails at the homes of elderly women acceptable and morally right?[4]
Their refusal to allow "minor details" like evidence, specifics, or complexity stand in their way; their consistent overgeneralizations; their obsession with false dichotomies; their absurd conflation of highly diverse philosophies, groups, and persons into one entity which they grossly mischaracterize as "liberal;" and their morally repugnant enshrinement of the "American Way of Death" aside, whomever is slithering about behind their shroud of anonymity at ToO has created a "hit list," included addresses and phone numbers for those on the list, and published this "call to action" which appears under the link "Our Mission:"
This is a call to action! These anti-American Liberals are dangerous people that can no longer be ignored! One person can make a big difference!
There are those that read about history.
There are those that make history.
Which one do you want to be?
It is time to get involved...
These people and organizations are Enemies of Freedom, the American people, and the American way of life!!! Each and every one should be considered a "Target of Opportunity"
Since many of the "terrorists" on ToO's "hit list" happen to be animal defenders, it's worth noting that the state terrorists in DC whom ToO so ardently supports have slaughtered millions upon millions of people to advance corporate interests and to attempt to maintain US world hegemony. Meanwhile, the activists fighting the abject exploitation of nonhuman animals have killed exactly zero humans and have followed in the footsteps of "terrorists" such as those who fought our own American Revolution, John Brown, Nelson Mandela, and the Jewish Resistance to Nazi Genocide by taking a militant approach and engaging in direct action against injustice.
In a soon-to-be-published essay detailing how and why he was banned from the UK by its increasingly Orwellian police state, here is Steve Best, who appears on ToO's "hit list," with a number of thoughts that are relevant to the ridiculous way in which ToO bandies the word "terrorist" about so freely and recklessly:
"I came out in favor of the ALF because after careful study of their history, arguments, and results, I concluded that their actions are effective, necessary, and just. Governments, animal exploitation industries, and most mass media characterize the ALF as violent terrorists, but I see them as freedom fighters and counter-terrorists. The ALF is a new justice movement defending innocent beings under attack and fighting the real terrorists who torture and kill animals without justification."
More:
"Breaking and entering locked buildings, smashing fur store windows, torching delivery trucks - it all sounds nothing short of vandalism or even terrorism. But I believe ALF actions are defensible because (1) what happens to animals is wrong, and (2) legal channels to stop it are blocked by speciesism and corrupt governments that support the property rights of industries over the moral rights of animals.
I believe that no door, no law, no cop, no government, and no profit margin should stand in the way between an animal and its freedom. I wish that legal methods of animal liberation were adequate to free animals from their oppressors, but they are not. Governments are corrupt and speciesist and serve their corporate masters. Animals are too important a resource and commodity for corporations to voluntarily free them, and so animal liberation requires militant tactics such as raids to rescue animals and property destruction to weaken, cripple, or eliminate oppressors."
I do not believe that social change comes about through moral persuasion or legislative initiatives, but rather through one kind of force and pressure or another. No human liberation movement has every won its cause except by using threats, force, confrontational tactics, and violence, why should it be any different for the animal liberation movement?"
And:
"It is a strange kind of terrorist who has never injured a single person, who is compassionate toward the suffering of others, and who risks his or her own freedom to save another from harm, violence, and death. It is not the ALF who are violent terrorists, but rather the British state, vivisectionists, and all facets of the animal exploitation industry. They are terrorists on the grounds that they intentionally harm and kill innocent living beings for ideological, political, and economic goals."
And finally this profound explanation of the militant attitude and actions of many in the animal liberation movement:
"When there are compassionate people in a society, a disturbance in the animal world will inevitably bring a disturbance in the human world."
If the rhetoric spewed by the nameless, faceless, spineless entity behind ToO were not so incitive and representative of the worldview of ultra-nationalist, unapologetically speciesist, militaristic, ultra-capitalist, dyed in the wool uber-patriots who were hard-core supporters of McCain and Palin[3], one could readily file it under nonsense and dismiss it. But in a socioeconomic environment in which the line between the state and corporations has become increasingly blurred; the legal system has become almost exclusively devoted to protecting and serving the ruling elite, corporate entities, profit, and property; and the word "terrorist" is pinned upon nearly anyone uttering words or committing deeds contrary to God, capitalism, and country, the increasing numbers of us who recognize that the "American Way of Life" is wreaking havoc on the planet, need to take ToO's cartoonish portrayal of "America's enemies" and calls to "target" those on their "hit list" seriously.
Members of the SHAC 7, dedicated defenders of nonhuman animals who took on a malevolent exploitative corporation, weren't protected by Brandenburg vs. Ohio and now sit in prison-this despite the fact that they didn't tell specific individuals to commit specific and imminent acts of violence. To ensure that the First Amendment applies equally to all, regardless of our sociopolitical persuasion, we need to demand the release of the SHAC 7 and the reactivation of the Nuremberg Files anti-abortion site or an immediate deactivation of the Target of Opportunity website.
Meanwhile, a prayer for the dying is inevitable. Question is, will it be a prayer of thanks for the demise of dominionism and capitalism, the things that are worse than the rebellion they cause, or one of mourning for the Earth and its sentient inhabitants?
NOTES:
1][2 a sociopolitical system which is neither a democracy or a republic but a corporatist state ruled by the rapacious and cynical members of society that preeminent sociologist C. Wright Mills identified and analyzed so well in 1956 in his book, The Power Elite.
[3] This is no endorsement of Obama or the Democrats. I am an anarchovegan and loathe establishment politics in the US. McCain and Palin are simply overtly malevolent people, while Obama and Biden are "evil lite."
[4] To finally answer ToO's anonymous webmaster's burning question (which I intentionally ignored several times in our email "chat" because they only addressed a small fraction of what I wrote), of course I am morally opposed to militant direct action against families, elderly women, and anyone (including me) who is not directly involved in human or nonhuman animal oppression or exploitation.
Jason Miller is a relentless anti-capitalist, vegan straight edge, and animal liberationist. He is also the senior editor and founder of Thomas Paine's Corner.
Thomas Paine's Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type "TPC subscription" in the subject line and send your email to
willpowerful@hotmail.com
If you have a Facebook account, don't forget to look up Thomas Paine's Corner's Facebook page via the "search" feature and become a fan.
And if you have a MySpace account, don't forget to friend Thomas Paine's Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan.
Share-Bookmark this Article
Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, wrote an incredibly bizarre 
Pornography is no longer a poison creeping into the crevices of our popular culture. It is part of the very fabric. One sensation at a recent Apple conference for new and developing applications in San Francisco was the "i-Porn bikini girls" advertising free X-rated films for your i-Phone. It sounds like a whole new reason to fear people using their mobile phone while they drive. 
after all.
JAKARTA: Indian Saina Nehwal beat China’s world number three Wang Lin to become the first Indian to win a super series badminton tournament with victory in the Indonesian Open Sunday.
NAUDERO: President Asif Ali Zardari has reiterated that the government would continue its fight against militancy and terrorism claiming that the military enjoys heavy public mandate and endorsement of the parliament.
