Humane Society Donates Money to “Eco-Terrorism” Witch Hunt, But Not Enough to Protect It From the Green Scare

The “dialogue” in the comments section regarding the previous entry made me sad; what could have been an interesting, important and enlightening discussion about sexism in the animal rights movement turned into the activists, essentially, claiming exactly what you are talking about here: that you are either for animal rights or against animal rights. There can be no dissention. No discussion. “We are all working for the same thing” was stated as if it were fact. “To disagree with PETA is to work AGAINST animal suffering.” Maybe it’s a little hyperbolic to use the analogy, but it seems that New McCarthyism isn’t limited to the government or “conservative” circles—not when we are calling upon our own to sit down and shut up.

Of course, the “conversation” got more petty: “FoA is not as popular as PETA, therefore keep your mouth shut.” “FoA hasn’t accomplished as much as PETA, so keep your opinions to yourself.” I really wonder how people know what they know. I might work for FoA, but this is not the forum for talking about our accomplishments. But if anyone is interested, genuinely, in what we do, please visit our website. Please give us a phone call. Let’s talk.

That entire thread is an illustration that this us versus them mindset, insidious as it is, has infiltrated even those of us who consider ourselves progressive; as people who believe we are challenging this very system. When did animal activists become so mean-spirited, small minded and self-righteous? When did posing genuine questions become harmful to a movement?

Some of the people who blindly, unquestioningly accept every action that is promoted in the name of animal advocacy by organizations like PETA, HSUS, et. al. frightens me to no end. For that matter, I’d hope that Friends of Animals members and supporters would ask questions and voice concerns, engage in a productive and constructive dialogue. The last thing we need is uncritical endorsement. That’s not how the very best ideas are advanced.

Free speech, I think, is a beautiful thing. I don’t have all the answers as far as animal rights goes. But there is nothing that interests me more. Nothing. It is my personal hope that this desire is guiding force behind dialogue—not a desire to cut people down or degrade them because they have different ideas about what it means to be an animal rights activist.

I can say with much certainty that the demonstration that took place in Victoria was inspired by a genuine desire to see change in our society—a transformation in the way humans view each other and other animals. I am disturbed by the way that message has been received by some; how unwilling we are to question authority. Yes, it’s a cliche, but I cannot imagine anything more apt: You have to be the change you want to see in the world.

Thanks for another excellent article, Will. Superbly written and thought provoking, as always. It’s almost bizarre just how far this thing has gone. The degree to which history is repeating itself almost makes me feel as if I’m in a television show, Truman Show style, and everyone is laughing as I walk around uber-confused. I’m not laughing.

HSUS made a bad move. But we must understand: corporations are corporations; they do things that make them look good, that will make them popular with a broader range of people, and will just keep law ‘enforcement’ off their backs. It always boggles my mind when people are so surprised that an animal rights corporation does something that seemingly contradicts their mere existence.

As an anarchist, I don’t believe any of these big businesses are our savior. A politician is just as worthless as the one that came before, a CEO just as corrupt as her peers. You’re correct in saying that this is a culture war, but let’s not forget about the class war, too. There are plenty of vegan capitalists running around, and to that end, they will always support the government in hopes of securing their comfy position. No capitalist with a lot of money wants to think about potentially NOT having a lot of money. By the way, does anyone know what Ingrid Newkirk’s salary actually is?

My point is this: forget about PETA. Forget about HSUS. Support them as much as you personally believe is possible, for you, but don’t stop supporting smaller, grassroots organizations. Don’t stop supporting collectives, and worker-owned businesses. Don’t stop doing everything you possibly can to end oppression and injustice, whatever that may mean to you.

Don’t stop fighting. This nightmare is not sustainable. It will end, but not without a bitter struggle. Remember that all movements are connected and try to have some solidarity with all fellow activists. The power belongs to the people!

- lantz.

I think people are reluctant to comment on events this potentially big without knowing the facts. Few people are going to want to openly support the act, and I hope just as few people will jump into openly condemning it.

I do think it’s inevitable that violence toward people will increase by some people drawn to radical eco and animal activity, especially as non-violent methods are cracked down on by the government. People are going to be forced to really think about just how far they’re willing to go to defend the helpless … letter writing, property destruction, or murder like John Brown. And how effective is any of it? Is reason and compassion enough to overcome greed and indifference? Does violence against a much larger and more violent opponent have any chance of success or is it just a way of blowing off frustration and anger? Are you acting out of any expectation that you’re actually going to change the world or do you need to do what you believe is right regardless of the consequences?

On the other hand, the pro and anti PeTA opinions have been around for a long time, and the various factions involved in these issues give each other a lot more attention than the general public does. It’s more emotionally rewarding to debate them even though they’re less important.

I don’t agree with these actions or with the HSUS’ reward $$$.

BTW – Condemning violence that could hurt humans or animals is not protecting vivisectors.

A fire bomb could not only kill people and pets, but spread fire throughout a city. Then how much less popular would AR be?

That’s why these actions, (whether committed by activists or not) hurt ALL AR activists.

I’m going to demonstrations this (and pretty much every) weekend, and we get enough bullshit just trying to stand on the corner exercising our 1st amendment rights.

The burned out car pictured here belongs to my neighbor. He is a yeast geneticist who studies RNA splicing reactions. He is not an animal researcher. Why did they bomb his car?

The other guy uses mouse embryos. Frankly, compared to primate research or factory farming, I don’t see why this attracts an arson/attempted murder attack.

Finally, what is “eco” or “green” about any of this? Preserving species of animals is an ecological issue, but mouse embryos? That makes about as much sense as liberating a bunch of minks and setting them free in the wild to reek havoc upon the local wildlife.

A note to Kathy, who refuses to condemn this violence: Hang your head in shame. The people who committed these bombings deserve to rot in prison for years.

Hi Reality Check,

That is very interesting that your neighbor is a yeast researcher. If it’s true, then that would seem to confirm my suspicion that this action does not seem to fit the pattern as being an animal liberation action. It also could explain why the authorities have refused to identify this person – but readily identified the first target. If they told the press that the second person was, in fact, a non-animal researcher, it would undoubtedly lead to some questions, like, “well, was this really animal activists then? How do you know it was?” It would also lend credence to the idea that this was the work of agent provocateurs. No animal activist, I don’t believe, would ever even so much as protest yeast research – let alone take such drastic steps as a firebombing.

Is your neighbor Manuel Ares?

Damail: What do you mean–how violent and hate-filled the radical left is??? The AR activists have caused nothing more severe than property damage. How many AR activists have been harmed by those opposed to AR?? How many innocent animals have been murdered in labs and slaughterhouses?? Your view of violence is incredibly warped if you think property damage constitutes a higher level of violence than the killing of innocent beings. I don’t try to “recruit” people to my cause, I just seek out other compassionate people. I would not waste my time on anyone with your attitude.

Lantz–

Ingrid Newkirk makes something in the area of $30,000 a year. Now that seems like a fortune to me, but as far as the heads of “non-profit” activist groups go, it’s way on the low end of the spectrum. Not that I care for PETA, but I gotta respect her for that at least.

FYI–violence and property destruction has been an integral part of achieving gains in EVERY. SINGLE. SOCIAL. JUSTICE. MOVEMENT. No exceptions. If you think significant gains were made without it, you are seriously misinformed. See, for example, Nelson Mandela (Nobel Peace Prize for a “violent extremist,” imagine that!) and the African National Congress, the abolition of slavery (though it still exists, we gotta get busy), America’s breaking away from the British empire, the civil rights movement, and on and on and on. The only problem with violence and property destruction in the animal rights and environmental movements is that it’s not yet widespread enough.

“Why should there be a difference between an ALF warrior and a Zapatista? There isn’t.”

The ALF is unorganized and unarmed. They have pledged to never endanger a human’s or animal’s life.

People are making a lot of noise about revolution, but we’re lucky to get 10 people to a lawful protest. I know it’s not revolutionary enough for some people, but everyone please do something.

Don’t just sit in the cheap seats throwing popcorn at us

All this noise about the UC Santa Cruz actions seems to be missing what I think is perhaps the biggest issue here – was this an actual animal liberation action? Many, many signs seem to point to me that it was not.

First, the convenient timing for the University of California system. This was a perfect impetus for them to get AB 2296 passed – even in their own words. So they clearly would have a motivation to staging a false flag attack.

The coffee shop flyer is very strange – and not really keeping with any behavior I’ve seen of any activist group in my years as an activist. I don’t know why someone would post a list of scientists at a random coffeeshop – but nowhere else (including the web!) – that apparently included so many people that weren’t vivisectors.

On top of all this, it appears all but confirmed now that the target of the car firebombing was a researcher studying RNA splicing in yeast named Manuel Ares. Although authorities won’t publicly confirm this (even though they were happy to confirm the first target – isn’t that funny?) many signs point to this. We have the statement on this very thread. Then, we plug in Manuel Ares’ name into Google’s white pages and we find that he lives on Dickens Way – a stone’s throw away from Feldheim’s house (also found on Google’s White Pages). And what else do we know about Dickens Way? Well, according to the Sentinel, that was the location of where the car firebombing happened.

So, can someone please tell me why the hell any animal activist would be so outraged at YEAST research to firebomb someone’s car? I mean for god’s sakes, most vegans EAT (nutritional) yeast! And why wouldn’t the University of California or the FBI hurry to tell the public that this second target DOESNT EVEN DO ANIMAL RESEARCH? Combine this with the fact that AB 2296 failed to pass before because so many senators were troubled that it only protected (and therefore made a protected class of) ANIMAL researchers rather than academia as a whole…

Something is very, very fishy here folks – and we all should demand answers from the FBI and the UC system – why haven’t you told the media that the second person targeted wasn’t even an animal researcher?

Lantz–

I agree with a lot of what you say, but not the part about capitalism being the root of the problem. Bring down capitalism without stopping production, you still have the destruction of the natural world and commodfication of life, human and nonhuman alike. It doesn’t matter what government system we have, as long as there are this many humans consuming at this level in a manner that is not bioregionally sustainable, we’re fucked. The future of life on this planet is fucked. The root of the problem is not capitalism, but civilization (especially industrial) in its entirety. We need to stop it before it makes the planet unlivable.

Thanks for the great discussion

I’m not condemning underground tactics in general, just violent ones that have potential of harming life.

“Not everyone is cut out to engage in hardcore direct action (I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not), but I find it pointless for you, or for anyone to condemn underground as opposed to aboveground tactics.”

So you – like so may people I know – are stuck in an idealistic/activistic paralysis pickle. Above ground is not hardcore enough, but you don’t think that direct action is worth the risk to you personally. It really just sounds like you’re talking yourself out of doing anything for AR beyond prisoner support?

Because I know him, but good try

In that case, I agree–do it!

I don’t think we should accept as sacred writ the claim that the second person was merely using yeast. Vivisectors and their supporters have lied AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN. Constantly. It’s the only way they can possibly maintain the illusion that it actually benefits humanity. The researcher could’ve been lying by omission to his neighbor; as someone said, seems like the authorities would be publicizing it like crazy if a non-animal-researcher were attacked.

I also have conducted my own research into the issue and come up with nothing whatsoever that explains why his car was bombed. I defy anyone to provide any evidence that actually even places him within the category of “animal researcher,” let alone go on to demonstrate the inflammatory claim laden in the word “vivisector.” Just where on earth are you getting your information exactly? If you got it, then show it, and I’ll take it into consideration. But otherwise, just shut up because it is not only a waste of my time, but it is personally hurtful and disturbing.

I have lived on campus very near, like 4 doors down, from the researcher for 25 years. I have my own ways of knowing that are not media or ideological fantasies. And besides, even I went to the completely obvious and freely available ways to check it out, like UCSC’s web site and other places. I mean how hard is it to figure out?! Just type in “yeast” to UCSC, and you have confirmation. Like hello? anyone home?

I am getting really tired of listening to pure crap. You want to say something, especially something inflammatory and defamational, then take responsibility for your own actions, demonstrate that you actually do give a rat’s ass about it all, and do your homework before you foist a bunch of foul and sinking garbage on the rest of us and expect us to do the work of clean up.

I mean, how many steps is it to hurl a bomb from this kind of ignorance and blindness, by virtue of either insanity or ideology if the two can even be separated in a case like this.

In other words, from Surf City itself, just chill dude.

Here are some questions that have occurred to me since the events that I now feel comfortable sharing:

•Why would animal rights activists target so many who are not connected to animals? It is clear from various sources online and in print that at least as many as 4 people were targets that do not have anything to do with animals. And one of those targets is the researcher whose car was bombed. What would have happened if the pamphlet either didn’t exist or hadn’t been planted at the cafe? In other words, with only the two firebombings alone, we have no connection to animal rights at all because that is not something the two researchers had in common.

•Say it is an animal rights related group of some kind, why would they not double check the facts about the targets? especially if they are leaving a pamphlet in public, which is bit odd anyway, and intending to use rather serious actions such as firebombs. Animal rights activists have been at this a long time; they are not amateurs nor completely arbitrary (usually) so how does one explain all the “mistakes” and apparent randomness?

•Why would the story come out as about animal researchers being firebombed when that wasn’t true and is so easy to verify? And why would that fact never be corrected or retracted? So that the public all over the country now thinks it has to be animal rights related and nothing else, as if that were a given when there are so many unanswered questions?

•Why have not the regular media, independent media, alternative media, investigative media, or any other group tried to put all of this together as a story of interest, one that changes the way we see the whole thing? Sorry for the sidebar, but hello? is everyone asleep?

•Why has not UC or any law enforcement come out with a statement about the facts here, especially since lots of people already know about it and more are learning and bound to learn? a statement merely confirming the widely known and easily verifiable fact that the researcher on campus did not work with animals? Why wouldn’t they want to that part of the information to come out? It is not only in the interest of truth, but it is in the interest of general public safety. Don’t we deserve to know? especially if the set of erroneous targeting implies that the general public is at risk?

•Who could possibly benefit from this situation? How does the animal rights cause benefit, exactly, with widespread condemnation, catalyzed internal in-fighting, reactionary backlash, impending crackdowns, and even further restrictive legislation? What is it that they are actually thinking about all of this within their own groups? Is there anything for them to do or say about all of this? Will we only get silence and not know why?

And that is only to begin with some of the more obvious questions that are raised. Is anyone interested in them at all? And if so, what are the concerns and implications? If not, why not?

Perspective? Okay, please tell me what is the correct perspective to adopt

when random people are targeted, threatened, and attacked?

when firebombs go off at private residences that are connected to each other and even share walls with neighbors?

when they go off just before dawn, at time that virtually guarantees that not only will people be inside, but they will also be fast asleep?

when there are at home young children, who are vulnerable in all sorts of ways, but in particular are not psychologically or physically equipped to respond swiftly and effectively to danger so are at greater risk than a sleeping adult who is in turn at greater risk than a wakeful adult?

when people who are involved in the actual threats do not even bother to get the facts before they make those threats or indeed before they activate a firebomb?

when people who are involved in the issues at stake do not even bother to get the facts before they make all kinds of statements that have dubious ethical grounds?

when the community of activists involved, whether they had to do with the events or not, applaud without bothering to check to make sure that what happened was even to be considered part of their own cause?

when those activists refuse to listen to any other than what they want to believe is true because the Cause, the Cause?

when people concerned with ALF related things refuse to even look at the issue at all from any perspective? including one that is sympathetic and concerned that this could harm ALF directly and even possibly be a set up?

So tell me what is the correct perspective then?

Your point being…? I refuse to treat with respect ad hominem moves of any kind. In turning attention to what I may (or may not) do in my personal life, as if that somehow undermined anything I have said–a specious maneuver at best–, as if you could even possibly know in any way in the first place (“undoubtedly”?), you have succeeded in demonstrating why I made one of the points I made: people need to remember that there is a principle based on the presumption of innocence and stop making unsupported, vague, unfounded, or even verifiably false accusations, insinuations, or anything of the kind, about anyone who may or may not be involved.

So go ahead and do something really helpful and informative such as cast some more doubts and innuendo around, this time on an anonymous poster about which you haven’t a clue nor would it be possible for you to either. As if that mattered anyway, which it doesn’t. It simply defies reason to say that who I am or what I do, especially when unknown and unknowable, has any bearing on evaluating the validity of statements made.

Were I a self-professed and readily verifiable cannibal of small children, you still wouldn’t have an “argument” that held any merit about my statements. Because it isn’t even an “argument” in the first place.

So how about if we start all over? and discuss what really matters here? Like why it is that anyone would firebomb a researcher who works with yeast?

Kathy, first of all, just to be clear, we cross-posted, and there was no way to know that you even had posted because the posts didn’t appear until hours and hours later. So the post following yours was NOT addressed to you but rather to Harry’s post above.

To the matter about which you posted, which seems to be about double standards and/or possible hypocrisy, I simply ask you where it was that I actually stated what you say I think?

Perhaps if you point to where I say what lead you to your conclusions, I could sort it out. As it stands, without any idea where your statements come from or even a hint about what they are based on, there can’t be anything I can say, one way or the other.

archipelago,

thanks for posting that article. It was an interesting read. But I must say that OF COURSE Erik Marcus has a problem with stuff like this. He’s not fighting for animal liberation (although he may think he is). He’s maintaining the status quo. He’s worked for 18 months just to get UCSC dining halls to stop serving battery cage eggs? What a fucking colossal waste of time! If you know anything about “cage-free” eggs, you’ll know why. A self-proclaimed animal rights activist using that much energy to achieve nothing substantive for animals is just pathetic. Perhaps Erik should read through this:

http://www.peacefulprairie.org/freerange1.html#freerange2

Anonymous: You wrote “I want add that this whole thing not only stinks to high heaven, but is disgusting ethically. No one, no matter what ideological conviction, should engage in such crap. For those involved in animal rights it is particularly egregious, for there is a code of ethical principles that are the fundamental core of the entire movement and commitment.”

I may have misunderstood, but I took that to mean that you did not believe that AR people should be involved in bombings due to their high ethical standards. If you meant something else, please explain what you were talking about. Thanks!

Apparently you misunderstood my doubts. If he were just a yeast researcher, don’t you think the university and police would be all over that fact? Because, after all, one of their goals is to use this to make animal rights activists look as bad as possible. That makes me suspicious as to whether or not it was even an activist who did it!

Harry,

I take a vegan approach to eggs, and I have seen the Peaceful Prairie piece you mention, and do not dispute it, and I respect and appreciate the rowk they do. However, I also respect pattrice jones, who runs a chicken sanctuary in the middle of commercial chicken country, and whom I have had the pleasure of conversing with on several occasions. She writes:

“While frustrated by captivity and deprivation, uncaged birds do not suffer the extreme psychological duress of being immobilized in a small space that precludes movement to relieve acute pain. These inferences are supported by our experiences at the Eastern Shore Sanctuary, where ‘spent’ hens from both types of facilities have found refuge. In our experience, the degree of injury evident in hens who have spent full terms in battery cages is much more severe than that of hens who have spent an equivalent amount of time in cage-free facilities, in terms of overall physical health, number and extent of specific injuries, and level of psychological trauma as expressed by behavior. (This is not to say that hens
coming from uncaged facilities have no injuries or trauma, just that the condition of hens coming out of battery cages is, in our experience, substantially worse.) Spent hens from battery cages arrive nearly bereft of feathers and with visible abrasions on their
wings and necks. Some are initially unable to walk due to crippled feet and all remain most susceptible than most birds to foot injuries. Some are physically able to walk but seem not to be able to conceive the possibility. It may be days before such birds venture to try to walk. The level of panic and terror expressed by these birds is difficult to describe. Their behavior is considerably more frantic and disordered than that of other newly arrived birds (including those from cage-free egg facilities) and remains so for
some time.
Thus, even if confined in the least enriched of cage-free egg facilities, hens would experience a considerable improvement in both physical and psychological well-being through the abolition of battery cages. Further, the sheer impossibility of confining the
same number of hens in cage-free facilities means that, if widely implemented, the abolition of batter cages would result in a reduction of the number of hens confined for purposes of egg production.”

So there is room for debate on whether abolishing cages in a facility results in a significant improvement for hens.

what really sucks about this arson is that the media, of course, call up Jerry Vlasak and get some choice quotes about how the vivisectors should be scared, etc… etc…
WHY IS A PERSON WHO OPENLY SUPPORTS VIOLENCE AGAINST LIVING CREATURES ALLOWED TO BE A SPOKESPERSON FOR THE DIRECT ACTION ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT, MOSTLY CONSISTING OF THE A.L.F., WHICH HAS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED GUIDELINES OF NOT HARMING ANY LIVING CREATURE?
FUCK JERRY VLASAK. SOMEONE MAKE HIM SHUT UP. HE IS AN IDIOT.
Fuck the FBI and UC for using this arson to scare up support for a bill protecting vivisectors from public scrutiny. And double fuck them if they had something to do with this arson!
It is highly doubtful to me that AR people had anything to do with this. How many times have you heard of teenagers running around late at night setting things on fire randomly? It happens all the time. But if AR people DID have something to do with this, they obviously made horrible mistakes, and should compensate the family in some way (perhaps anonymous re-payments, since I wouldn’t like to see a witch-hunt style trial that sent the idiot arsonists to jail for absurd sentences for the PR value of the FBI), and they should NEVER ENGAGE IN DIRECT ACTION AGAIN! They obviously don’t have the mental capacity to handle it. BUt again, I find it highly doubtful that AR people were responsible.

PS- Will, this website is totally awesome and I really respect and apprieciate all the hard work that must go into it.

asdas: We don’t even know for sure that it WAS AR activists but, to me, that makes what HSUS did even worse because they assumed it was and were so quick to speak out against them in order to protect themselves. That is even more despicable (again, IMO) than speaking out when they KNOW it is AR activists.

Pacelle defends the reward money:
http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2008/09/nonviolence.html

My blog post about his post:
http://diggingthroughthedirt.blogspot.com/2008/09/hsus-defends-reward-in-firebombings.html

Pacelle shares readers’ comments about his post. Of course, not mine or any others that disagree with what the HSUS did:
http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2008/09/nonviolence2.html?cid=129710342#comments

Thanks for another excellent article, Will. Superbly written and thought provoking, as always. It's almost bizarre just how far this thing has gone. The degree to which history is repeating itself almost makes me feel as if I'm in a television show, Truman Show style, and everyone is laughing as I walk around uber-confused. I'm not laughing.

HSUS made a bad move. But we must understand: corporations are corporations; they do things that make them look good, that will make them popular with a broader range of people, and will just keep law 'enforcement' off their backs. It always boggles my mind when people are so surprised that an animal rights corporation does something that seemingly contradicts their mere existence.

As an anarchist, I don't believe any of these big businesses are our savior. A politician is just as worthless as the one that came before, a CEO just as corrupt as her peers. You're correct in saying that this is a culture war, but let's not forget about the class war, too. There are plenty of vegan capitalists running around, and to that end, they will always support the government in hopes of securing their comfy position. No capitalist with a lot of money wants to think about potentially NOT having a lot of money. By the way, does anyone know what Ingrid Newkirk's salary actually is?

My point is this: forget about PETA. Forget about HSUS. Support them as much as you personally believe is possible, for you, but don't stop supporting smaller, grassroots organizations. Don't stop supporting collectives, and worker-owned businesses. Don't stop doing everything you possibly can to end oppression and injustice, whatever that may mean to you.

Don't stop fighting. This nightmare is not sustainable. It will end, but not without a bitter struggle. Remember that all movements are connected and try to have some solidarity with all fellow activists. The power belongs to the people!

- lantz.