The Indypendent
DONATE NOW - URGENT FALL 2009 FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN
Search All Articles
Get The Indy by Email




Facebook Twitter

Donate

Subscribe

The IndyShop

RSS Available

Why we love The Indy






Sarah Stuteville
Journalism Workshops

Indykids

Posters!

A Threat to Peace
Artwork by The Indypendent Staff

A Threat to Peace - Artwork by The Indypendent

Buy Now! »


Army of None
Artwork by David Hollenbach

Army of None - Artwork by David Hollenbach

Buy Now! »


Community Resources

Why Green Makes the Right See Red

By Jessica Lee
From the September 17, 2007 issue | Posted in National | Email this article
trees
trees
Is green the new red? As the federal government continues its crack down on environmental activists, comparisons between the current “green scare” and the 1950s Red Scare are becoming eerily apparent. Will Potter, the leading journalist covering the “green scare” and host of the website, “Green is the New Red,” explains that the Red Scare was about more than the fear of communists infiltrating the U.S. government. “It was about the cultural threat,” he said. “People were against the entire system of capitalism, which so many felt was the very principle that the country was based on.”

Corporations and research programs that find themselves the targets of environmental and animal rights campaigns are turning to the government for help, says Potter, not only to prosecute people for criminal damages, but also to discredit their beliefs. “The War on Terrorism is merely a tactic to fight an ideological war against those who challenge the notion that humans have the right to subjugate the environment or animals to their own selfish interests,” Potter said.

And this challenge has been fierce. According to FBI estimates, at least 1,100 acts of graffiti and property destruction, resulting in more than $110 million in damages, have been claimed by radical environmental and animal rights in the past 30 years. These actions have provoked a reaction from industry and rightwing ideologues that, at first glance, seems disproportionate to the damage inflicted.

“We must fight not only against particular environmental terrorists but also against the ideology that inspires them,” wrote Dr. Onkar Ghate, a senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, Jan. 30, 2006. Bron Taylor, a University of Florida professor and expert in the study of religion and radical environmentalism, has documented this ideology. In his research, he found that many people in the movement adhere to a philosophy based on a nature-centered spirituality mixed with components of the world’s major religions. “Radical environmentalism is best understood as a new religious movement that views environmental degradation as an assault on a sacred, natural world,” Taylor wrote in 1998.

And this degradation of the environment, they believe, is rooted industrial capitalism’s incessant conversion of natural resources into property and profit. In several of his books including A Culture of Make Believe and Endgame, popular author and environmental activist Derrick Jensen has meticulously compiled arguments to suggest that American society is a “culture of death.” “We’ve evolved this way of living — industrial capitalism — and it is killing the planet … The religion of this culture is economic production and nothing can go against that,” he said.

When public advocacy fails to protect animals and the environment, radical environmentalists take it upon themselves to directly intervene. “The Earth is not dying, it is being killed … and you can’t just sit back and watch it,” details the Church of Deep Ecology’s website. “Direct action is vital to stopping environmental destruction … direct action is a form of worship.” The trenches on the cultural war battlefield have been dug deep and the U.S. Justice Department claims to have the upper hand, putting 10 environmental activists behind bars this year in Operation Backfire. Several related cases are pending and the government is threatening to convene another grand jury in the Midwest. “They don’t just want to destroy underground activists,” said Potter. “They want to destroy the entire movement, because that is what is a threat to values of civilization.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Sphinn
  • Mixx
For nine years, The Indypendent has printed truth in the face of power. With political and economic systems faltering, there is an opportunity for real change from the bottom up. But this means having a vibrant independent media. Consider supporting The Indypendent as a monthly sustainer, donating as little as $5 a month. Please visit indypendent.org/donate.

Subscribe to the Indypendent!

3 Responses to “Why Green Makes the Right See Red”

Grant Says:

Green makes the Right see red because, essentially, the Greens of today and the Reds of yesteryear are united by the same basic ethical principle. Unlike Leonardo Da Vinci - one of the perennial fathers of the Enlightenment, civilization, and human happiness - who believed that “man is the measure of all things” Greens and Reds share a different standard.

While Greens and Reds may differ in what they would subjugate actual, individual, human happiness and well-being to - in one case mother nature and in the other society at large - both groups share a deeply held commitment to subjugation and self-sacrifice.

That the prevailing criticisms of capitalism have moved from complaints about social injustice or economic inefficiency to frantic pronouncements of the inherent destructiveness of production reveals the true intentions of boths Reds and Greens. Just as, underneath all of the pretense to the contrary, socialism was never an attempt at social progress, but a complex jeering of actual social progress, so is environmentalism, at root, a desire not to see the environment flourish, but rather to see humans suffer.

Scotty Says:

It is ironic that you use Leonardo Da Vinci as an example since he was vegetarian for ethical reasons who would surely denounce modern society’s voracious fulfillment of human desire at the expense of other life, just as he did the more primitive society of his time.

Regarding your main point, I don’t see mainstream society doing anything significant to alleviate human suffering–not for the abject poor who comprise most of the world’s population. With all its power and money, the rich countries could indeed change that, but, as you say, it’s main concern is human happiness and all the consumption of forests, animals, and Earth that can provide that happiness. Carry on.

Gunnar Sharp Says:

It’s about the environment, stupid!

The previous commentor, Grant, uses the pretense of cutting through pretenses to try and tell us what the E movement is “really” about. This is kind of thing is common with E movement opponents.

Is it possible that some people really just aren’t concerned that about the loss of wilderness, the extinction of megafauna and the ever-increasing numbers of people causing it?

Of course it is. But I expect those people still have enough imagination to understand why others are upset. It really isn’t hard to understand.

But you wouldn’t know that to listen to the Grant’s of the world. They talk about secret communist plots, as if they can’t believe that all this fuss is really about a bunch of trees and animals.

But it is. It’s not about communism, social injustice, misanthropy, etc. It really is about a bunch of trees and some animals.

Shocking news, huh?

Leave a Reply