The history of the animal rights and environmental movements has been poorly documented by the mainstream press. The stories of these movements have overwhelmingly been ignored, and when they’ve been reported by newspapers or television networks, it has been through the lens of corporate and government officials. The best, and sometimes only, documentation of these movements has come from activists themselves.

Zines, leaflets and newspapers are fragile by nature, though, and activist turnover (combined with FBI raids) has made them increasingly rare. Josh Harper and the crew of ConflictGypsy.com have set out to create an online archive of these publications, preserving the history of protest movements for animal rights and environmentalism.

I was thrilled to be asked to write a guest blog post about a classic publication, Ecotage. It was published in 1971, when many of the tactics now considered “eco-terrorism” were merely considered pranks or “ecotage.” In this post I discuss how corporations orchestrated a change in government policy by wielding the power of language. However:

Ecotage should serve as a reminder that there is nothing inevitable about this. The FBI labels “eco-terrorism” the “number one domestic terrorism threat,” but public support is not, and has never been, with the corporations destroying the environment; it’s with those trying to stop them.

Head over to ConflictGypsy and read the full post, then check out the rest of the archives. As a warning, though, the massive amount of cool stuff on that site will suck you in before you know it.

While I was on book tour, I stopped by the studio of KEXP in Seattle for “Mind Over Matters.” KEXP created a video of the interview, which focused on the specific tactics that corporations and industry groups have used to create the idea of “eco-terrorism.

Thanks to Mike and the folks at KEXP for having me on the show! (Video after the jump)

I was on The Alyona Show on Earth Day talking about my new book, and the corporate-led campaigns to target environmentalists as terrorists. We talked a bit about how Earth Day has been co-opted (a good example of this is the 10+ emails I received from PR agencies pitching new “green” products that weren’t green at all).

We also talked a bit about how these campaigns against animal rights and environmental activist are about more than money. They are about a war of values, and the ideological threat that posed by these growing movements.

Check it out here, and let me know what you think!

Spokespersons for Sarah Palin and Tea Party groups have bristled at the suggestion that their violent rhetoric may have contributed to the recent shooting in Arizona that left six people dead and Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in critical condition. The topic is, for the most part, being treated with kid gloves in the press, and the “terrorist” label is conspicuously absent from the discussion.

However, animal rights and environmental activists have been labeled as “terrorists,” and sent to prison, for much, much less.

The murder attempt of Gabrielle Giffords needs to be put in a political context: Sarah Palin’s PAC used this map with gun targets on lawmakers, including Giffords; Palin has repeatedly used the rallying cry “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!”; Tea Partiers have carried assault rifles to political rallies; and militia members have urged followers to vandalize the offices of politicians (including Giffords), which they have done.

As I have reported here many times previously, none of this is being labeled terrorism by the government. Meanwhile, the animal rights and environmental movements are labeled the “number one domestic terrorism threat.”

To draw an even more specific comparison: the SHAC 7 were convicted of “animal enterprise terrorism” for running a website which posted the names and addresses of individuals tied to the animal testing lab Huntingdon Life Sciences. They were not charged with any act of property destruction, they were charged with “conspiracy” on the grounds that they should be held accountable for the actions of others in the same movement.

To be clear, I am not arguing that Sarah Palin should be accused of terrorism. However, such a stark hypocrisy needs to be addressed.

Simply put:

If Sarah Palin cannot be held responsible for the actions of those who visit her website, neither can animal rights activists.

And if animal rights activists are terrorists for running a website listing “targets,” then Tea Partiers and Sarah Palin, who have gone much further, must be labeled terrorists as well.

UPDATE: Well, it was only a matter of time. At least one person is proposing prosecuting Palin as a terrorist and using the SHAC 7 case as justification. It’s this type of sweeping application that SHAC 7 attorneys have been warning about for years.

Wikileaks is a threat. We’ve heard it incessantly, from Democrats and Republicans, the State Department and Paypal.  Some have gone so far as to call the open-publishing project a “terrorist organization.”

It’s true. Wikileaks is a threat. But it is not for any of the flimsy reasons we’ve been hearing.

The true threat of Wikileaks, and the reason it is being labeled a terrorist organization by both politicians and, disturbingly, some journalists, is not the content of its documents but the premise of its work.

Wikileaks is a “threat” because it challenges the secrecy, control and power upon which all mainstream media outlets and authoritarian regimes depend.

To understand the threat of Wikileaks, we need to step back and look at the changing media landscape. There has much hyperbolic talk about the “internet revolution” and blogs. Turn on CNN or go to any major media outlet, and they are frantically trying to find out what “The Bloggers” are doing. There is truth to some of this buzz—blogs represent a democratization of publishing, and although the most popular are about funny kittens and celebrities, there is potential here.

A limitation to this potential, though, is the fact that bloggers primarily rely on other people’s reporting. Bloggers may skewer mainstream media, but they are bound to it. They hyperlink to it. For the few that are able to blog fulltime, they (mostly) still lack the time, resources, or training to break national stories. The vast majority are not calling sources, following leads, or tracking down documents: they are talking about what traditional media outlets are doing.

Meanwhile, newspapers are dwindling. Papers are downsizing. Bureaus are closing. News outlets are relying more heavily on wire content and fluff. Even top-tier dinosaur publications are struggling to create a news business model for a digital age. And as they are focused on staying alive, they are not focusing on investigative reporting.

Enter Wikileaks.

What’s truly radical about Wikileaks is that it is a completely new model of journalism. It uses the web not to distribute content, but to distribute sources.

It’s to say: Here are documents. Read them. Link to them. Write whatever you want. You don’t have to be a White House correspondent. You don’t have to have a “Deep Throat” or other high profile source. You don’t have to be a so-called “real” journalist. You can be a blogger, an activist, a student, they are all equal.

To the mainstream press, this is a threat to a career which has increasingly become more about cozying up to politicians than speaking truth to power.

To the government, this is a threat to secrecy and control.

Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, has threatened to release a “poison pill” of documents if he is arrested or assassinated.

In many ways, the government and even some journalists have already swallowed that pill before he had the chance; politicians labeling Wikileaks a “terrorist organization,” and reporters sickeningly labeling Wikileaks “subversion,” are crystal clear indications of the power of this journalism model, and the potential it holds for holding both government and the fourth estate accountable.

UPDATE: Today the State Department proudly announced in a press release, “U.S. to Host World Press Freedom Day in 2011.” Not even The Onion could have written a more Orwellian, perfectly-timed press release.

Now I understand why the group that fought the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act in Missouri had the backing of the Tea Party: They’re both out of their minds.

The Daily show had a great segment with Anita Andrew of the Alliance for Truth.

Among the gems of wisdom from Andrews:

“Proposition B is very similar to Obamacare. They’re expecting all the breeders to sit there and pay exorbitant amounts of care that are not needed. Like adequate food, adequate water, adequate space…”

Andrews responding to the ASPCA: “When people get free puppies they don’t value their puppies as much as they should.”

“Proposition B is one more step to making us a communist socialist society.”

This is the same group that called the Humane Society “radical” and “extremist.”

I posted this because it’s a great example of how industry groups take any meme that has been proven to work, and apply it to their own special interests. This is how “eco-terrorist” rhetoric became so popular; corporations and industry groups saw how effective “terrorism” language can in demonizing and persecuting entire groups of people. This is the same strategy, taken to even more absurd lengths. “Obamacare” misinformation helped derail modest health care reforms in Congress, and Andrews is applying the same buzzwords to groups like the Humane Society.

Of course, none of this makes any sense. But it doesn’t need to. I think it’s a great example of how, in the eyes of these people, facts matter much less than the latest guilt-by-association buzzword.

Thanks to Erik Marcus for the tip.

I believe Eco-Terrorist Kitteh was behind this.

Happy Friday.

(Payoff is at 1:09)

Thanks to Mongo for the video.

Industry groups and right-wing opportunists have rapidly mobilized to label James Lee a “radical environmentalist” in order to push their political agenda. Absent from this media frenzy, though, is any rational look at the difference between a “radical environmentalist” who uses extreme tactics, and someone struggling with serious mental illnesses who latches on to environmental issues.

For James Lee, the Discovery Channel was a personal obsession. It consumed him, and came to be the focus of all things wrong in the world. It was a personal campaign led by he alone. While some commentators have been quick to point out merits to the concerns Lee raised about overpopulation, Lee’s “manifesto” was not grounded in reality. For instance, he demands that the Discovery Channel “keep out the fraudulent peace movements.” He says, “They are liars and fakes and had no real intention of ending the wars. ALL OF THEM ARE FAKE! On one hand, they claim they want the wars to end, on the other, they are demanding the human population increase.”

He also makes racist comments about “stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth.” However, Lee served time in prison for smuggling immigrants from Mexico. As psychologists and psychiatrists have told ABC News, these are the words and actions of an individual in need of help, possibly suffering from paranoid schizophrenia; there is no rational explanation for such a mental disconnect between words and actions.

Talking heads have been name-dropping “The Unabomber” and drawing comparisons to James Lee. That’s a comparison worth exploring. Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, killed three people and injured twenty-three in his twenty years of bombings. As his crimes continued, the usual suspects were labeling him an “eco-terrorist” and trying to connect him to the mainstream environmental movement (which is happening now, as well, and I’ll be writing about that in a future post).

However, today Kaczynski is absent from nearly every chronology of the radical animal rights and environmental movements, including those created by industry groups and the government. Kaczynski was the target of the most intensive manhunt in the FBI’s history, but the bureau’s “Chronological Summary of Terrorist Incidents in the United States 1980-2005” does not mention him once; in Congressional testimony and FBI news releases on “eco-terrorism,” the bureau has said “these terrorists haven’t taken lives.” In Congressional hearings, government documents, think tank reports, and terrorism timelines, Kaczynski is always absent.

While his manifesto argued for the dismantling of industrial civilization, he made clear he did not consider himself part of any social movement. In a journal entry he wrote, “I believe in nothing… I don’t believe in the cult of nature worshipers or wilderness-worshipers.”

All but the most extreme industry advocates have treated him as a serial killer or an individual in need of mental help. During his trial, Kaczynski fired his attorneys because they argued that he was insane. It was later revealed that Kaczynski was a volunteer in mind-control experiments sponsored by the CIA.

Michael Mello, author of the recently published book, “The United States of America vs. Theodore John Kaczynski,” notes that at some point in his Harvard years–1958 to 1962–Kaczynski agreed to be the subject of “a psychological experiment”. Mello identifies the chief researcher for these only as a lieutenant colonel in World War II, working for the CIA’s predecessor organization, the Office of Strategic Services. In fact, the man experimenting on the young Kaczynski was Dr. Henry Murray, who died in 1988.

Lee’s sister-in-law described how his mental health deteriorated after the death of two people he loved, and that he was incapable of having a healthy relationship with his family or others. In a letter written when in prison for trafficking immigrants, Lee was already thinking of his own end:

“When I get out of prison, I undoubtedly will have the same personality traits as I had before. I wish I could point a finger at someone or something and magically be someone else…. I don’t know if my life will end with a happy ending, but all I ask is for an ending that is not in prison.”

There has been buzz on various websites and email lists, animal rights and environmental activists who do not agree with what James Lee did, but are not sure how to speak about these events because “there was a little truth in what he said.” I think it’s important to be honest and forthright about this. Recognizing that there may be some seeds of true in the hysteria of people like James Lee, or even the Unabomber, does not mean ignoring their sicknesses or supporting, in any way, the strange fruits they produced.

A hostage crisis at the Discovery Channel building has ended with the attacker shot dead, and pundits and reporters are rushing to label him a “radical environmentalist,” “eco-terrorist,” and “environmental activist.” Some are even saying “eco-fascist.” And others are pointing to the Earth Liberation Front. For talking heads, it is a good soundbite for pushing their political agenda, and for the press is makes a sexier headline, but the label just doesn’t make any sense.

James Lee’s “radical environmentalism” is a one-man campaign against the Discovery Channel, which airs programs such as Whale Wars… programs that the Japanese have attacked as supporting “eco-terrorists.” Lee spent thousands of dollars out of his own pockets advertising his protests, and paid homeless people to attend. His “manifesto,” as some are beginning to call it, rails against “parasitic human infants,” including “immigration pollution and anchor baby filth.”

I have been covering the radical environmental movements for over 10 years, and I’m flat-out confused by all of this. Here’s why. Lee’s “radical environmentalism” is directed at a company that is not the ire of any other animal rights and environmental activists. The Discovery Channel has actually been attacked as promoting radical environmentalism. Lee seems to have had no involvement with any environmental groups (aboveground or underground) except his one-man show. Nothing like this has ever happened in the history of the environmental movement. None of it adds up. Yet the mainstream press has been clamoring to say this was a “radical environmentalist” or “eco-terrorist.”

Is “radical environmentalist” a more acceptable rush judgment than saying someone was insane? Because that’s the first, and only, thing that has come to mind in this case.

James Lee has written:

“The Discovery Channel is a big part of the problem, not the solution. Instead of showing successful solutions, their broadcast programs seem to be doing the opposite. Shows like ‘Cash Cab’ and ‘Dirty Jobs’ serve as diversions to keep the focus off what is really important, which is Global Warming and Animal Extinction. Why do they broadcast a show like “Future Weapons” that only promise to destroy the planet even more? And their new lineup “Planet Green” is all about more products and other substandard solutions.”

I’ve read countless communiques and justifications by radical groups about their actions, and whether or not you agree with them, you can at least follow some string of reasoning. The target has some connection to the radical beliefs they espouse. In this case? It seems to be the result of personal obsession divorced from reality.

Even with far-right extremists murdering abortion-providers, shooting up mosques, bombing black churches, there is some line of reasoning, however thin, that can be threaded between them and their targets. When a white supremacist stormed the Holocaust museum, one can connect the actions to a long line of holocaust denialism in those groups. When an anti-abortion bomber murders doctors, the link is much more direct. When Joe Stack flew a plane into the IRS building in Austin, there was a network of people supporting his actions and decrying the tyranny of taxation. Some call him a hero.

So could some of the right-wingers and mainstream reporters covering this please make the same connection in this case? Is there a movement against the Discovery Channel I am unaware of? Are there other eco-terrorists outraged by “Dirty Jobs” and “Future Weapons”? I do not intend to make light of this situation or the fear instilled in those hostages. However, as this issues spirals out of control, could one of these talking heads please stop and help me connect Lee to something, ANYTHING, except the local homeless shelter?

[Update: For more, see "James Lee, the Unabomber, and Mental Illness vs. Terrorism"]

Last week a Philadelphia appellate court announced (after months of silence) that it would not revisit the conviction of animal rights activists on terrorism charges. The SHAC 7 were convicted of conspiring to commit animal enterprise terrorism by running a controversial website that posted news of both legal and illegal actions, along with personal information of people connected to the notorious animal testing lab Huntingdon Life Sciences. Their campaign had brought the multinational corporation near bankruptcy.

A three-judge panel of the court had previously upheld the conviction, and the defendants had asked that the full court review it. Now, the only option is to request that the Supreme Court of the United States review the case. There has been no official word about this yet, but multiple defendants have expressed their interest and having this landmark First Amendment case heard by the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the lead prosecutor who helped secure this “victory in the War on Terrorism” has– surprise, surprise– been promoted. Charles McKenna is now the head of the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness.

He was quoted a few days ago about his hopes for using new “anti-terrorism technology” in his new job.

“We are particularly interested in computer profiling, which is much more sophisticated, and quicker, than traditional racial profiling,” he said.

The targets of this new profiling technology?

“Jihad, Crips, extreme animal-rights activists, it’s all the same: people trying damage the system,” added McKenna.“We need every trick in the book to avert disaster.”

As you can see in this photo, the SHAC 7 are quite gangsta. But no reasonable person could argue that they are the “same” as violent street gangs and Islamic terrorists.

Such absurd scare-mongering rhetoric has become normal for corporations, industry groups, and the politicians who represent them. When it is adopted by government officials who are in charge of keeping us safe, though, it has frightening implications.

There are limited anti-terrorism and law enforcement resources. When people like McKenna let shameless political opportunism shape security priorities (and make no mistake, this is nothing but political opportunism–he has already been rewarded for defending the “system” from activists), it puts everyone at risk.