Speaking the language of fear

After reading many stories about Monday's terrorist attack in Washington by the Earth Liberation Front, I'm simply stunned by the ability for people with a cause and penchant for violence to justify their actions. Perhaps it's because I'm not passionate enough about a movement to act out so brutally, or maybe it's because I truly believe in the power of social change though political action.

It's bizarre, but somehow these misguided social crusaders believe their extreme acts of destruction will actually alter society. In reality, the only thing they accomplish is alienating reasonable people from what is often a very worthy message, such as environmentalism. And besides, if you transform society by instilling fear of personal harm or destroyed property, what kind of positive change have you really created?

A good example of this reasoning: the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. A group of Muslims who were angry at the United States for meddling in the Middle East over the decades decides to crash planes into the symbolic hub for our bustling economy. It's hard to believe the terrorists actually believed their actions would harbor a change in U.S. foreign policy, but if that was their intention they failed miserably. Rather than a sea of conversion to Islam, what resulted was the American people rallying around the very leaders who had perpetrated the crimes against Middle Eastern nations in the first place. Then, we invaded two more of them. More likely, the Sept. 11 perpetrators were hungry for revenge and blinded by rage -- just like an ecoterrorist.

History teaches us that violence is rarely an effective avenue for social change. It tends to either solidify the status quo and turn otherwise sympathetic bystanders against you, or it rears the ugly head of overzealous authority figures. Suddenly, people stop caring about your message because they're pissed off -- at you. Meanwhile, nothing changes.

It should be noted that I'm talking about saving the environment -- and the fact that blowing up expensive houses to declare your support for Mother Nature is nothing short of absurd. But the argument gets a bit muddled when applied to government oppression. I would see things differently if we were talking about a population of people rising up to overthrow a fascist regime. When a body of authority is using its power to abuse the populace, I think it's a right and arguably a duty to rise up in the name of freedom and human rights. Obviously violence is often necessary when challenging a government with any kind of standing army.

However, what we're talking about here is cutting down trees and polluting the skies. Sure it's hurting us, probably slowly killing us, but it's not preventing us from freely expressing ourselves, or from walking down the street at night, or any of the many freedoms we enjoy as humans and as Americans. Those freedoms are worth killing for -- not the tree in my backyard. For that, I think the political system is the appropriate avenue for change.

Ecoterrorists are simply spoiled brats with expert arson skills. They never bothered to learn that social justice is a slow process, often involving a give-and-take, and as a result they are incapable of understanding political systems. They are self-righteous, hysterical creatures living in an underworld of pessimism and hopelessness. Violence is their drug, and seeing structures burn to the ground is their fix. When they are punished for their actions, they accuse reasonable people of oppressing them. They want it both ways -- the freedom to change the law, and the freedom to be exempt from the law.

What they want is anarchy; what they get is a strong dose of reality.