Michael Moore for Dummies
Guest post by Rod McLaughlin
Unlike many readers of this site, I have environmentalist sympathies. I think green anarchist turned film-maker Craig Rosebraugh once did some good. When he organized the “Liberation Collective” in old town Portland, or organized protests against police excesses, he was doing something useful. When he was a spokesman for extreme environmentalists, this was not “eco-terrorism”. Burning down an empty building in the middle of the night is not terrorism: it doesn’t terrorize anyone.
The only genuine eco-terrorist is Ted Kaczynski, the “Unabomber”. One of the most effective bits of Rosebraugh’s new documentary, “Greedy Lying Bastards”, is when it shows a billboard put up by the skeptic Heartland Institute, with a picture of Kaczynski, and the legend “I still believe in Global Warming. Do you?”. But Heartland’s idiotic mistake has nothing to do with the facts of global warming. It doesn’t show that the medieval warming period didn’t happen. It doesn’t prove that the warming in the last century was unprecedented and man-made.
Rosebraugh is shameless in using guilt by association. He tries to give the impression that global warming “deniers” tend to be American knuckledraggers, ignoring sane, smart people around the world who doubt the global warming hysteria. For example, he forgets to tell us that the three most prominent Canadian skeptics boycotted Heartland because of the above-mentioned own goal.
Left-wing American documentaries, like this one, or Michael Moore’s, or one I saw about the evils of Walmart, tend to insult the viewer by bombarding her with one side of the story, and words like “lying”, “greedy” and “bastards”. Watching Rosebraugh’s movie, every time the narrator said that there is lying and greed on the skeptic side of the debate, I wondered whether he’d consider if these vices occur among the promoters of climate change “theory”. He did not.
Unflattering shots of one’s opponents, selective information about funding, tear-jerking anecdotes about sea level rise, and shots of hurricanes and fires, with no statistical analysis to show if these events really did increase during the 20th century. All this Rosebraugh learned from Michael Moore, who has been criticized for “dumbing down the left”. Rosebraugh does the same with environmentalism.
To be fair, Rosebraugh did mention billionaire George Soros funding warm-mongering organizations, as well as the mega-rich Koch brothers backing “climate change deniers”, but only in passing.
It doesn’t matter if the CEO of Exxon says global warming is not unprecedented and anthropogenic, because it’s in his company’s interests. This has no bearing at all on whether or not it’s true. It’s the old “self-serving argument” fallacy. Just about any argument and its opposite serves someone: you have to figure out whether it’s right or wrong independently of interests.
Rosebraugh chooses the most plausible-sounding defenders, and implausible critics, of the anthropogenic global warming position. Worse, he almost avoids citing any of the numerous scientifically-trained skeptics. An honest approach would be to interview Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKittrick, who first broke Michael Mann’s “hockey stick”. Or Joanne Nova, or Anthony Watts, the creator of Watts Up With That. Or Judith Curry, a scientist of whom Michael Mann revealingly wrote “I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause”. Skeptical professor Richard Lindzen does appear, but not for long enough to explain his rejection of climate change hysteria.
For his leading climate skeptic, Rosebraugh chooses Christopher Monckton, who, by carefully selecting from his presentations carefully, is made to look like a nut. In reality, he’s merely eccentric. If you read his stuff, Monckton has a grasp of logic unheard of among warm-mongers, misanthropists and fluffies. Rosebraugh tries to refute Monckton’s views on the grounds that he isn’t “a scientist”. This is a variant of the logical fallacy of “argument from authority”.
This implies that you must accept what scientists say. So what do you do when they disagree? Two giants of science, Richard Dawkins and Edward Wilson, recently had a debate about kin selection theory. Dawkins used the number of scientists who support him as an argument. Wilson showed no mercy: “It should be born in mind that if science depended on rhetoric and polls, we would still be burning objects with phlogiston and navigating with geocentric maps.”
Michael Moore
I’m not a scientist either, but I understand logic, and the work of Karl Popper on scientific method. I know that ad hominem, post hoc ergo propter hoc, ad populam, and ad verecundiam arguments have no validity.
I first became a skeptic when I read climate “scientists” using the word “consensus”. Anyone with even a cursory familiarity with scientific method knows that that word is not in a scientist’s vocabulary.
In contrast, the argument of Rosebraugh’s documentary, like the global warming movement in general, relies on “scientific concensus”. It can therefore be dismissed out of hand.
Rosebraugh deals with the “Climategate” revelations of 2009 as follows:
· he presents the scandal as a conspiracy to derail the Copenhagen climate talks
· he claims, without evidence, that the emails were “stolen” from the CRU in East Anglia
· he uncritically accepts Michael Mann’s assurance that the emails were quoted “out of context”
· he fails to mention that all the emails are online, so we can judge if phrases like “Hide the decline”, “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith?”, “Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?” and “We have to get rid of the medieval warming period” are less damning in context – they aren’t
· he claims that the various inquiries exonerated the warmists, without saying how
Another technique he borrows from Michael Moore, is showing crowds of conservatives waving flags, wearing garish outfits, and holding up signs with ridiculously exaggerated warnings about Obama introducing communism. And rejecting climate change panic. The implication is, if you disbelieve in anthropogenic global warming, next thing, you’ll be in favor of waterboarding.
Related articles
- Movie review: “Greedy Lying Bastards” a global warming documentary with sobering evidence (denverpost.com)
- Greedy Lying Bastards (powerlineblog.com)
- ‘Greedy Lying Bastards’ film uses a fake cover photo, recycled PR from 2005, cites opinion of a ‘truther’, is directed by a former ELF spokeman and uses a big dose of hate to make its point (wattsupwiththat.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Rod McLaughlin, “Unlike many readers of this site, I have environmentalist sympathies.” McLuhan impeached by his unfalsifiable broad-brush.
In college in the Sixties I was defeated in an informal debate by an ugly hippie’s hyperbole. That taints every self-declared environmentalist. I went on to a career in nuclear power as an environmental conservative. I practice yet today, almost twenty years after retirement.
Guest post by Rod McLaughlin
“Unlike many readers of this site, I have environmentalist sympathies.
_______________________
Sir, I just read the very first sentence of your post and already you could not be more wrong!
Many, if not most of us have been concerned with environmental issues for decades and are dismayed that the environmental “movement” has been usurped by the truly greedy, lying bastards.
I will continue to read your post, but you didn’t start out right and at this point… we’ll see.
Dear Mr. McLaughlin.
Thank you for taking the time to review Rosenbraugh’s film. I am glad to see you criticize the kind of sloppy, one-sided partisanship embedded in the film and so many other efforts to silence serious discussion.
I regret very much, however, the first paragraph in your review. Your assumption about the environmentalist attitudes of people who are skeptical about the evidence for, and the possible extent of, global warming is simply wrong – being concerned about the wide range of uncertainty associated with climate change forecasts, as well as the severe impact of proposed “solutions” on lower income people, does not make me anti-environment.
I also regret your comments about eco-terrorism. Believing their cause is righteous does not insulate environmentalist or animal rights attackers from their obligations to other members of society (including, in a free community like yours and mine, the people with whom they disagree) any more than believing their cause is righteous insulates right-wing terror by militias, burning down an “empty building”, which houses say an abortion clinic or an Army recruiting office, “in the middle of the night”, or Islamic terror by Al Qaeda.
I doubt I will persuade you, but for others on this site, I quote below the text of the US Department of Justice 2006 press release announcing 11 indictments of members of environmental and animal rights groups who committed attacks at at least 17 different sites – far more than just burning down an empty building. The list of those attacks is damning to read. The potential for hurting persons the attackers did not know were in the area, having the fire spread to other buildings and to forest and grass land, exploding gasoline and chemicals, bringing down high tension electrical wires and other electrical connections, attacks on facilities with vehicles full of gasoline, attacks on police facilities, and etc – claiming that these groups work to harm neither human nor animal cannot excuse the harm actually caused and the terror actually created.
You can find an “ordinary language” discussion of these and subsequent indictments and convictions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Backfire_%28FBI%29 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism .
The press release follows:
Eleven Defendants Indicted on Domestic Terrorism Charges
Group Allegedly Responsible for Series of Arsons in Western States,
Acting on Behalf of Extremist Movements
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Eleven defendants have been indicted on charges including arson and destruction of an energy facility for allegedly participating in a campaign of domestic terrorism in five western states on behalf of the extremist Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) movements, the Justice Department announced today.
The 65-count indictment, returned by a federal grand jury in Eugene, Ore., Thursday, alleges that the defendants committed acts of domestic terrorism in Oregon, Wyoming, Washington, California, and Colorado from 1996 through 2001. Specifically, the indictment includes the charges of conspiracy to commit arson; conspiracy; arson; attempted arson; use and possession of a destructive device; and destruction of an energy facility.
Eight defendants were arrested prior to the indictment and three are believed to be outside the United States.
The indictment alleges that the group committed arsons with improvised incendiary devices made from milk jugs, petroleum products and homemade timers in a series of attacks in the five states. The targets of these attacks included U.S. Forest Service ranger stations, Bureau of Land Management wild horse facilities, meat processing companies, lumber companies, a high-tension power line, and a ski facility in Colorado. The indictment alleges that the group claimed to be acting on behalf of ALF and ELF.
“The trail of destruction left by these defendants across the western United States caused millions of dollars in damage to public and private facilities,” said Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales. “Today’s indictment proves that we will not tolerate any group that terrorizes the American people, no matter its intentions or objectives.”
“Investigating and preventing animal rights and environmental extremism is one of the FBI’s highest domestic terrorism priorities,” said FBI Director Robert Mueller. “We are committed to working with our partners to disrupt and dismantle these movements, to protect our fellow citizens, and to bring to justice those who commit crime and terrorism in the name of animal rights or environmental issues.”
“To those who use arson and explosives to threaten lives and destroy property, ATF will continue to dedicate all of our expertise to solve these crimes,” said ATF Director Carl J. Truscott. “We will work relentlessly with our law enforcement partners to find you and bring you to justice.”
According to the indictment, Joseph Dibee, Chelsea Dawn Gerlach, Sarah Kendall Harvey, Daniel Gerard McGowan, Stanislas Gregory Meyerhoff, Josephine Sunshine Overaker, Jonathan Mark Christopher Paul, Rebecca Rubin, Suzanne Savoie, Darren Todd Thurston, and Kevin M. Tubbs conspired to commit numerous acts of domestic terrorism as part of a group they called “the Family,” an alleged group of the extremist movements ALF and ELF. The indictment follows a series of arrests on Dec. 7, 2005, in Oregon, Arizona, New York, and Virginia. Gerlach, Harvey, Meyerhoff, McGowan, Thurston, and Tubbs were arrested at that time for various charges, including the destruction of an energy facility. Paul was arrested on Jan. 17, 2006, on a criminal complaint charging him with one of the arsons mentioned in the indictment. Savoie was arrested on Jan. 19, 2006, on a criminal complaint. Dibee, Overaker and Rubin are believed to be outside of the United States.
The indictment refers to attacks on 17 sites:
Oct. 28, 1996, at the U.S. Forest Service Detroit Ranger Station in Marion County, Ore.;
Oct. 30, 1998, at the U.S. Forest Service Oakridge Ranger Station in Lane County, Ore.;
July 21, 1997, at the Cavel West, Inc. meat packing company in Deschutes County, Ore.;
Nov. 30, 1997, at the U.S. Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse and Burro Facility in Harney County, Ore.;
June 21, 1997, at the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Wildlife Facility in Olympia, Wash.;
Oct. 11, 1998, at the U.S. Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse Holding Facility in Rock Springs, Wyo.;
Oct. 19, 1998, at the Vail Ski Facility in Vail, Colo.;
Dec. 27, 1998, at U.S. Forest Industries in Jackson County, Ore.;
May 9, 1999, at Childers Meat Company in Lane County, Ore.;
Dec. 25, 1999, at the Boise Cascade office in Polk County, Ore.;
Dec. 30, 1999, at a Bonneville Power Administration high-tension power line tower near Bend, Ore.;
Sept. 6, 2000, at the Eugene Police Department West University Public Safety Station in Eugene, Ore.;
Jan. 2, 2001, at the Superior Lumber Company in Douglas County, Ore.;
March 30, 2001, at Joe Romania Chevrolet Truck Center in Eugene, Ore.;
May 21, 2001, at Jefferson Poplar Farms in Columbia County, Ore.;
May 21, 2001, at the University of Washington Horticultural Center in Seattle; and
Oct. 15, 2001, at the U.S. Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse Facility in Litchfield, Calif.
An indictment is not evidence of guilt. The defendants named in this indictment are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
The cases are being prosecuted by the office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon. The cases are being investigated by the FBI and ATF, along with the Eugene Police Department, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, Oregon State Police, Portland Police Bureau, Oregon Department of Justice, and the Lane County Sheriff’s Office.
Dennis Wingo-
As a former scientist with a PhD in Mechanical Eng (thermal sciences side) I can sympathize with your commentary. The obvious question to any climate alarmist is :”If it is as bad as you say, why don’t we start building nuclear plants right now?” Of course the answer reveals that it is not really a “solution” to global warming they seek, it is the desire to satisfy their romance with some future utopian society where, to quote Donald Fagan, “There’ll be spandex jackets, one for everyone…” But I digress. Personally, I am convinced the enormous windmills that are being constructed today will sit motionless in 10-15 years, a testament to our own vanity. I have attempted to explain the difficulties replacing/repairing a transmission with gears as big as an average sized bedroom several hundred feet in the air under windy conditions to neighbors/acquaintances etc. and wonder if anyone promoting these devices have actually thought about this. I would think probably so, but they figure the government teat is here today, so why not? FWIW- the future of electricity and transportation energy sources will be natural gas IMO. Like wood, coal is on its way out due to economics more than GovCo regulations. Nuclear, while I agree is the most practical in the long run, will not gain acceptance in our lifetime. All IMHO of course.
So it’s ok if Obama uses a drone strike on an ELF guy, or not?
A.D. Everard says:
March 10, 2013 at 5:48 am
I’m with leg, LamonT, Baa Humbug (postings 1, 2 and 3), redc and many others.
Burning a building – empty or not – is a threat. That makes it terrorism.
=================================================================
Dittos
“With apologies to our host: Puzzling Commentary. Was there no other ‘review,’ Anthony?”
I doubt anyone else shelled out 12 bucks to see it.
Anthony, if you just put the word “realist” after the word environmentalist, I’m sure you would catch most of your reader’s sentiments. Most are environmental realists.
Everyone is a environmentalist, as we all have to live on this planet and I doubt anyone would be happy living at the center of a city dump. Skeptics are just as concerned about our environment and the future opportunities of our children. They are just more practical and desire fact based actions, instead of “warm and fuzzy” actions.There is no way we should allow the greenies to own the word environmentalist. Cheers GK
And more more thought – we all owe thanks to the firefighters who put themselves in harm’s way to battle these blazes on our behalf. Far too many of them die or are severely injured in the course of their work – http://apps.usfa.fema.gov/firefighter-fatalities/ . Arsonists who kill firefighters with their actions are murderers no less than gun-wielding robbers.
Burning down an empty building in the middle of the night is not terrorism: it doesn’t terrorize anyone.
*********************************
thats where I stopped reading.
ever been a firefighter? anyone that would say that is an idiot.
BTW: There is no difference between blowing a building up, and burning a building down. Only speed and direction differentiate, the two. GK
This review is full of weird statements that are arguable at best. If being an environmentalist means supporting disfiguring the landscape and wasting public funds with ugly, environmentally and economically nonsensical wind mills, I am certainly not an environmentalist, I am something else. I care about beauty and reason.
To many correct and well-deserved comments posted above I could add that Heartland’s Ted Kaczynski billboard was a clever and very effective thing to do. If Heartland would have guts to withstand the pressure and keep these billboards, global warmism would be seriously damaged in the eyes of common people all over America. Common people couldn’t care less about finding bits of manipulated data by playing with Excel graphs. But they would immediately see the point noticing these billboards. This is exactly why the Heartland Institute was attacked so aggressively and relentlessly by all those who have an ax to grind in the dirty green game.
I think snail darters are less important than my grand children. Same with spotted owls.
I think nature kills indiscriminately unlike people.
I think nature made extinct 99% of all animals that are extinct.
I think that if the Grand Canyon was dug by man Greenpeace & WWF would think it ugly.
I think burning down someone else’s property shows a lack of respect for the law and the Bill of Rights.
I think CO2 is blameless in any warming that may be detected.
Maybe I am the one person on WUWT that you were talking about. Respecting nature and loving the outdoors does not mean I think everything in nature is wonderful. If I could wave a wand and rid the earth of the malaria mosquito I’d do it in a heart beat and not shed a tear.
I shan’t read anymore post by you.
….”Unlike many readers of this site, I have environmentalist sympathies.”
Stopped reading right there. It’s a really dumb way to engage your audience. I’m moving on to something else.
Thanks for all the comments.
1. Christoph Dollis got the irony in the title.
2. As many commenters have pointed out, they are as environmentalist as I am.
3. The buildings I referred to being burned down had never had anyone living in them, and were a long way from any residences. The treehuggers very carefully avoided harming, or even scaring anyone. They are called ‘terrorists’ because this culture gives human rights to property. As a result, these non-violent campaigners had their families broken up, and one was driven to suicide. THAT’s violence. In any other Western country, they wouldn’t get decades in jail for what they did.
4. Having said that, I read this site a lot, and it has a somewhat Republican bent. I don’t. But it’s interesting how the right in this country is more open to discussion than the left, who often ban me from commenting. WUWT proofread and put this up within half an hour. But then, it has a huge staff, paid for by the oil industry.
Wow. A bigot (“Unlike many readers of this site, I have environmentalist sympathies” – done a head count, have you?) and ignoramus (“Burning down an empty building in the middle of the night is not terrorism: it doesn’t terrorize anyone”). I couldn’t bring myself to read further than that last comment.
“Burning down an empty building in the middle of the night is not terrorism”
What a load of crap. Burning down someone else’s property is wrong on so many levels! This says a lot about your lack of ethics.
As a former, and quite possibly future Aerial Firefighter, and witness to acts of arson .
Any time you have firefighters on scene, you place people in danger. i saw two good men die in an fire that was caused by an illegal paint booth in an auto parts store. One was a client and
friend.They fell through the roof. Terror enough? Nobody was in the building? how to they know?
Lost my old chief Pilot who was flying a Calfire/CDF S-2 on an ARSON caused fire. during Santa
Ana’s back in the late 90’s. Anytime you Put on the Bunking Clothes or get into the Nomex,
you are taking a risk. Arsonists should face capital crimes if somebody dies. It is Terror…
To Alex Wade:
If you think Monsanto is a good thing and that GMO crops are the way forward, you can’t have done much research. Monsanto and their fellow chemical companies (DOW, Beyer etc) which have moved into this area are attempting to take over the world food supply with their patented, sterile and chemical-laden crops. In North America they have largely succeeded with catastrophic results for human health, for biodiversity and esp for the health of bees on which we all depend for the pollination of plants and trees. They are even now trying to buy bee-research establishments with a view to engineering a new breed of bees to resist their chemicals; I have no doubt if they succeed, these would soon decimate even further the existing bee populations which are already at a critical pass, in many areas.
These supra-national companies have largely suborned the political process in North America, spending billions on the process. Such trans-national companies’ determination to control the food supply is a grave threat to mankind, to all life on earth, and to our freedoms. You should google for information on Monsanto- and GMO-related farmer suicides in India to see where we are headed.
One of my big gripes with those who push CAGW theories is that they have totally distracted the environmental movement worldwide from these and other pressing problems which need all our attention.
As for this article: Once again Anthony, I wish you would do (or insist on) a little basic editing before allowing guest posts with such contentious opinions in them.
Many other posters have remarked on the negaitve effects of “Unlike many readers of this site, I have environmentalist sympathies” and of the remark about burning empty buildings not being terrorism. These questionable statements – both certain to antagonise large numbers of readers – could and should have been removed before publication. As it is, once more I’m unable to pass around or re-post to FB a piece which makes many useful points that warmist supporters need to hear. I can’t pass round to AGW believers anything which provides a stick with which to beat us.
@alexwade: Regarding the “safety” of gene modified plants by biotech companies. Perhaps you would like some neomycin or plastics precursor in your potatoes:
http://www.polymersolutions.com/blog/plastic-producing-potato-sites-vandalized/
Notice in the following study how easily the neomycin genes spread environmentally:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC169075/
Or perhaps some hemorrhagic virus proteins (now I’m sure that all is under control and nothing could ever possibly go wrong):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC104230/
Of course in the USA, many don’t have the qualms about this kind of research that Europe does, especially with much of our government in Pharma’s pocket and a corrupt FDA to “insure” food safety. Enjoy your veggies!
Rod (the OP) said:
The buildings I referred to being burned down had never had anyone living in them, and were a long way from any residences. The treehuggers very carefully avoided harming, or even scaring anyone. They are called ‘terrorists’ because this culture gives human rights to property. As a result, these non-violent campaigners had their families broken up, and one was driven to suicide. THAT’s violence.
————————————————–
Mate, you just don’t get it.
They had no idea if someone was dossing in those buildings. The firefighters risked their lives. We can’t tell from your post, but other buildings or countryside may have been at risk. And, if they weren’t scaring anyone, what was the point?
I leave my most strongly held point till last. What sort of victim culture are you proposing whereby the families of arsonists are the main victims of their crimes?
You have completely lost the plot.
Mr. McLaughlin
I am a conservationist. When mainstream environmentalists would not definitively condemn the actions of ELF and ALF, I ceased all connection with “environmentalists”. When they began to jump on the global warming “man is evil” bandwagon, I knew the global warming hysteria was false. When I was a child, some of the things the Sierra Club promoted were things that I wanted to be part of, but some time around 1980, they took a leftist turn and stopped being about common sense conservation. When they began opposing prescribed burns to control fuel build up, I knew they had been taken over by kooks. I had (sadly no longer with us) relatives who were range firemen in Northern California near Chico. One said he was glad he retired when he did as the fires were getting harder to control because of the fuel build up the environmentalists were causing – and this was in the 1980s. It has gotten worse now, but the people of California don’t seem to connect THEIR STUPID POLITICAL DECISIONS FOR THEIR $500,000 home being DESTROYED BY FIRE. I do pray for those still in that business, politicians have made the job all but impossible.
So you lost me in your first paragraph, and I won’t be bothering with anything else you submit. There is a difference between having a concern for nature and being a modern environmentalist. One looks for things that let nature be nature, the other looks to control other people’s actions through totalitarian government. I KNOW which side I am on, do you?
Glen Bishop says:
March 10, 2013 at 12:28 am
“Unlike many readers of this site, I have environmentalist sympathies.”
I think most readers of this blog are environmentalists.
Very true Glen. And quite the contrary, I think that modern “environmentalism” with its crusade for wind turbines/solar pannels/biofuels was never led from the heart, or if it ever did, was long disconnected.
Reminds me somehow of the tragic of the 40000 killed elephants error. This is how I expect environmentalists to be in 20 years. Oh, we did some errors but now we have truly the solution….
This is environmentalism? It is very sad, but the forcing of bio-fuels, wind-turbines, solar panels down on the modern civilisation has done more damage to the environment then fossil fuels all together, without the added benefits that fossil fuels have. No kidding, just think it through. High priests of green religion is not environmentalism.
I have more respect for the skeptic-comunity and I trust them much more to care for humans and environment then these green-high-priests, who claim the high morale ground and do a lot of damage in the name of their religion. Like burning others property. Some time ago they were burning books also to protect us from evil.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Thank you Mr. McLaughlin for your post. I am one of many who mostly lurk on this site without posting. As a whole, WUWT has had a profound affect on my views of climate change. I do find that some of those who comment quickly drift into their own world of group think and forget how many read sites such as this with befuddled minds trying to figure out what is actually happening and what, if anything, should be done.
Your use of logic was a pleasure to read and I found in it a lot of the reasoning that has lead me, as a non scientist, away from those who are referred to on this site as “warmists.” I don’t agree with everything you write but I’m not sure I have every read anything written by someone else with which I agree with everything. That includes things I wrote in my younger years. Thank you for your efforts.
Rod McLaughlin says:
March 10, 2013 at 7:52 am
“They are called ‘terrorists’ because this culture gives human rights to property.”
What gives you the idea that property enjoys human rights in the US? This sounds very deluded.
“As a result, these non-violent campaigners had their families broken up, and one was driven to suicide.”
I wouldn’t call an arson and tree spiking campaign non-violent.
“In any other Western country, they wouldn’t get decades in jail for what they did.”
That’s true. Sad but true. Here in Germany they would have an entire industry of social workers and psychologists help them rebuild their useless and dangerous lifes.