Another Grist commenter rejects nonviolence

September 8, 2010

Following up on yesterday’s post about greens urging violence now that they’re are losing politically on cap-and-trade, here’s another commenter’s suggestion:

I think Karl Marx might be more relevant than Gandhi or MLK. This is essentially a PROPERTY issue. GCC isn’t really about oppression and prejudice; its ultimately about wealth and material things.

We don’t want to hurt people, or be hurt ourselves. But there are ways to target property that could make a statement.

Here’s an example: What if we start by throwing green paint on parked Hummers and similarly offensive vehicles? These vehicles are, in and of themselves, a statement. And the public roadway is a public forum vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment.

Why not make the potential buyer of a high-end SUV consider the fact that their vehicle might be targeted for this kind of political expression?

We could make it a liability to own these vehicles. It already IS a liability for all of us, and our society.

All it would take is 1000 people and one night to begin the campaign.

Are you scared of what this might lead to? Me, too. But at this point, I’m even more scared we’re going to waste our time on feel-good bulb replacement drives and peaceful marches that merely confirm what most people laready [sic] know: GCC is a major, immediate threat to our planet.

I think we’re past that point, friends.

4 Responses to “Another Grist commenter rejects nonviolence”

  1. […] are ‘getting mad as hell‘, but only need to read the calls to violence and vandalism hosted at Grist to know that the movement is the last refuge of unhinged malcontents. They are like […]

  2. […] as it happens, McKibben might be busy corralling his rather violent troops. Tough new planet […]

  3. […] It is also worth reading Steve’s update Another Grist commenter rejects non violence […]

  4. johnnylucid Says:

    The professional enviros are so clueless. They try so hard to have it both ways.

    They embark on fighting “AGW” as the dawn of an era of clean energy and green jobs, basically arguing that we can have economic and ecological success and do it by seeking legislation to enlarge the powers of leviathan federal government – and they had an ample number of rentseeking major companies with direct interest in the energy sector helping them, to boot. All that as an alternative to their usual direct action tactics.

    Well they lost, and now that they’re faced with the fact that the “working within the system” approach didn’t work, they are ready to go back to their silly direct action shtick.

    Are they delusional, hopeless romantics and/or babyboomers nostalgic for their Sixties (and Seventies) salad days? Methinks a bit of both.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: