Activist Accused of “Advocating Literature and Materials Which Advocate Anarchy”

Every school year I dump at least a 100$ or so into Microcosm’s catalogue to catch up on all the must read ‘zines, DIY guides, and radical literature. I can’t imagine how many of these little paperbound “enemies of the state” my parents unknowingly have at this very moment.

My friend gave me a recipe a while back for her “Smash the State Chocolate Cake”. I put it in with the rest in my cookbook. Does that mean I could be “observed advocating literature and materials which advocate anarchy, property destruction and violence” as well as delicious desserts and tasty treats?

This seems to be a common tactic by prosecutors. The same thing was done to me (AETA4 case) at my first bail hearing. The prosecutor argued that I “possessed information on other bio-medical researchers” upon my arrest. This was not only not true, as my pockets were completely empty when I was arrested, but was used to argue that I am a flight risk and/or danger to the community, which is what all bail hearings are about. I didn’t expect the judge to go for the U.S. Attorneys arguments, but it worked and I was remanded to a halfway house for a month. I’ve been on house arrest ever since.

Also, in evidence reports and now in FBI possession, there’s a memoir entitled Direct Action which the authorities allege that I possessed.

Anyway, Will, always a great site with excellent points.

Joseph

Lin, Thank you for your post. To this Rice guy, give me a f-ing break! This country is so messed up, in that it places property on such a high plane, over the value of life, yes, including animal life. I don’t and never have seen property destruction in the name of animal rights as a “violent” act. What happens to these poor animal victims is violent. Rice, I would suggest you educate yourself on the animal and environmental rights movements. Green is the New Red is a good place for you to start:)

Johnson, I was actually thinking about this recently and here’s what I came up with. In its original context I was considering sexual freedom and what that phrase means. I decided that it was all well and good when one is discussing masturbation, because no one else is involved. But when one speaks of sexual freedom in the context of involving at least one other person, it’s different. I would say we have the right to sexual freedom when it involves ourselves only. Sexual freedom involving anyone else is a privilege which that other person may revoke at any time. To say otherwise is to deny that person’s bodily integrity and violate their human rights.

Now. Extend this to property ownership. You can trot out all the pretty-sounding phrases you want, but ownership is only a right if it only affects you. Where ownership of property affects someone else negatively (and here I include other-than-human animals as well as human beings; I’m a meat eater, but I have standards), it becomes a privilege and may be revoked.

It’s not enough to say stealing or vandalism is wrong. It’s not enough to invoke the Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers owned *slaves.* The Founding Fathers denied property ownership AND political activity to women. They clearly could not see through their own class privilege well enough to understand the ramifications of what they advocated and how they advocated it.

Clearly you can’t either.

Let’s discuss mink farms for a sec. I’m a meat-eater. Thus, I have no problem with the concept of using non-edible animal parts for other purposes IF the animal in question was also used for food. So if someone eats a rabbit and wants to wear its fur, go for it! The animal has no further use for it and you are giving it more respect than simply throwing it away. And I daresay it’s a sight more eco-friendly than that damn pleather vegans are always on about. (I come from a state suffering massive pollution from the production of vinyl so I kind of take that personally. Is human cancer an acceptable price to pay for not wearing leather?) But when you’re just using an animal for its fur and you waste the rest of it? No. I draw the line at that. And as far as I’m concerned nobody has the right to own that “property.” So if an activist wants to destroy a facility like that? Go for it.

“[Property] is that part of nature that you turn to valuable use.” That right there speaks volumes about your values. You’re ALREADY getting valuable use from nature, homeboy, whether or not you personally own it.

If you don’t believe me, stop breathing.

Fuck…I can’t go too deeply into this because I’m at work and have other stuff to do…But just a quick thing about fur/leather being “eco-friendly”, and vegan options being environmentally destructive.
Leather and fur are skin. I’m not saying that to be an “animal rights asshole”…it’s just a point I have to get on the table to make my next point. Just like dead human skin, rabbit and cow skin starts the process of decaying immediately after death. The only way to stop this process is to use toxic (carcinogenic) chemicals to “tan” the hides. These chemicals leach into the soil and eventually into the ground water. How is that “eco-friendly”?

Also, to play more off of Lin in addressing “yeah OK”, I find it hilarious that people say “as long as the whole animal is used” as a defense for eating meat or wearing leather… as if the massive suffering, pollution, commodification of the Earth and animals, and so on is all trivial. People often act as if they are taking lessons from the natives or something when they express this sentiment (while ignoring every other part of the equation).

To Johnson Rice
Thats an interesting (not to mention wrong) view on property from an anarchists standpoint. These companies are taking this land, destroying, and then selling us the products from this destroted. Not only do we not need much of these things they impress upon us, but we could use the land much more. Isn’t taking away land that not only non-humans live on, but that this land could also be used for humans. More children must live on the streets while highways are being built so more people can drive their cars, polluting the environment even more, and destroying the world that we need to survive. That sounds more like taking away freedom then not letting corporations have land that doesn’t even belong to them. “Monopolizing the accumulated efforts of man, property has robbed him of his birthright, and has turned him loose a pauper and an outcast….the only demand that property recognizes is its own gluttonous appetite for greater wealth, because wealth means power; the power to subdue, to crush, to exploit, the power to enslave, to outrage, to degrade.” Was Emma Goldman wrong? I think not.

What if I own the Bible, History books, and the “anarchist” lit?

Should I kill an abortion doctor or shoot people at a holocaust museum to balance out my terrorist/non-terrorist ratio?

Now I’m just being catty.

Other good terrrirriisst books to have:

“How Nonviolence Protects the State” by Peter Gelderloos
“Assata” by Assata Shakur
“The ABC of Anarchism” by Alexander Berkman
“Combat Without Weapons” by Captain E. Leather, RCA (seriously)

I know I’m forgetting some, but I’m not in front of my personal library right now. Let me get back to you!

Anyone who protects the value of property over human rights and liberty probably shouldn’t be calling themselves an anarchist. Then again, anarcho-capitalists shouldn’t call themselves anarchists either.

… Yeah, cuz as if I was being tortured, slaughtered, and skinned alive, I’m pretty sure my last thought would be “Well, these bastards just better not let any of me go to waste!”

[The fact that prosecutors see these books as a threat is all the more reason to get yourself a copy or two. If you order them, please do so through the GreenIsTheNewRed.com Amazon account, below, and support this site at the same time! ]

Careful there Will, I think you just committed an act of terra-ism!

“And I daresay it’s a sight more eco-friendly than that damn pleather vegans are always on about.”

Yeah OK, you assume all vegans wear pleather. Alot of vegans, including myself, do not. Even if we did, it would still be more eco-friendly than the skin of a dead non-human. (Think of the tanning chemicals, plus all of the land, water, resources, pesticides, and hormones it took to raise that cow.)

And don’t even get me started on your “standards” for your meat and other animal products. Humane slavery is still slavery.

Will, great job on this article. I think I might buy a few of those books and donate them to my high school library

I think the specifics of the situation are outlandish in terms of the immediate threat. “Oh no, literature!”

I would demonize people, too if they were a threat to my comfy status quo. It would take leaps and bounds for these authorities to fathom a non-chaotic world without any strongarming superstate. So they envision a world gone mad if anarchists have their way. It’s like Christians trying to envision a world without Christ. Everyone would be having sex all the time and murdering for fun, right? Right?

And that’s a hard lesson taught, that the world will be just fine without some invisible hand guiding everyone, whether that hand is the long arm of the law or Immanuel or the idea of Freedom.