How we can stop the destruction of life on Earth

How we can stop the destruction of life on Earth

     by Ben Warner / Deep Green Resistance UK

According to the Oxford English Dictionary the new word of the year is “post-truth.” It means “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” In other words, so many people are burying their heads in the sand that we need to have a new word for it. If you do not think we are in great danger of wiping out most of the life on this planet, feel free to remain, albeit for a short while, in the post truth age. But if you want to live in a flourishing, abundant and diverse living community, I invite you to continue reading to find one way this might be reached.

The environmental movement has failed. Since the publication of Silent Spring we have not even been able to slow down the rate at which human produced CO2 levels increase each year. If you wanted to stop your bath from overflowing, but each second the tap was turned more and each turn was bigger than the last, when would you realise your attempt to prevent overflow was failing? We have not slowed down the destruction of the forests, the jungles, the grasslands, the coral reef or any other non-human community. The dominant culture is poised to wipe out most life on Earth. If we do nothing it will certainly succeed. We can only stop it if we act.

The quickest, surest and most effective method of stopping a group of people from murdering other beings is to permanently remove the means, the devices, the machines they use to achieve their goal. The means this culture uses is industrial infrastructure. We need to permanently impede this infrastructure before it kills us and the communities of life we rely on. This can be achieved by small groups of unconnected people who work secretly to dismantle, disrupt and sabotage any device that is a threat to life. They will have to be dedicated, educated and skilled. They will have to plan their actions with precision and accuracy. They will have to work undetected, underground and unthanked. If life is to have a future we need this underground to start immediately.

Aboveground activists should work to normalise this kind of resistance. We can support them emotionally, morally and politically. In order to maintain security we must do this without making any direct contact with the underground. Our work is complementary but must be separate.

Modern humans (homo sapiens) have existed on this planet for about 200,000 years. Despite humans’ spread across the globe, fossil records show us coexisting with the rest of the earth’s species for the first 97% of our time here. (There is some debate as to whether indigenous humans drove some species extinct, but if it occurred, it wasn’t anything like the mass extinction that industrial humanity is currently causing.) We must protect the life that still remains using all effective means. An underground has to form, and those of us who are unwilling or unable to join it must support it in any way we can.

To repost this or other DGR original writings, please contact newsservice@deepgreenresistance.org

Verdict in Montrose 9 Necessity Defense Trial: GUILTY

Verdict in Montrose 9 Necessity Defense Trial: GUILTY

     by ResistAIM

Cortlandt, NY — Four months after conclusion of the trial, today Judge Daniel McCarthy found the “Montrose 9” guilty of disorderly conduct for blocking traffic in Cortlandt Town Court. The “Montrose 9,” local residents and environmental advocates who were arrested for blocking access to a ware yard in Montrose to halt construction of Spectra Energy’s AIM pipeline on November 9, 2015, claimed that their actions were necessary to prevent a greater harm.

At the Press Conference after Judge McCarthy’s verdict, Defense Counsel, Martin Stolar, a prominent social justice attorney, said “I am extremely disappointed with respect to the necessity defense, which seems so obviously true. We will take it up on appeal. They (the defendants) are heroes, not criminals.”

After months of delay, testimony from the defendants ended on July 22, 2016. Many of the defendants expressed their concerns about global climate change and environmental damage from the fracked methane gas the pipeline will carry, fear of pipeline explosions and the possibility of another “Fukushima on the Hudson.”

Their goal at trial was to prove that the violation they committed – blockading Spectra from constructing a fracked gas pipeline – was necessary to prevent a greater harm. They demonstrated that Spectra Energy’s AIM pipeline presents immediate risks from explosions and impacts the health and safety of the community. Additionally, they noted that the fossil fuel industry is locking our nation into an unsustainable future of fossil fuels at a time when the country has to move towards renewable energy resources. They made clear that although members of the community had been diligently working through regulatory channels, their efforts were stymied by interminable delays and legal maneuvers, leaving them no recourse but to pursue non-violent direct action.

Although today’s ruling was not the outcome that many present had hoped for, the Montrose 9 and their allies said that they plan to continue the fight.

Marty Stolar: “Judge McCarthy’s verdict is guilty. The Judge rejects the justification as being speculative and the harm is not imminent or about to occur. He then rejects our First Amendment defense, and that the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The justification defense which he rejects, we all know, and you all know, the actions were justified, the harm is imminent, and the pipeline is extraordinarily dangerous, and constitutes a present harm and a present threat to every resident in this town, in this county and of the areas surrounding Indian Point. An appeal will be led after the sentence is imposed on January 6th.”

Susan Rutman: “It is absolutely staggering. This decision is disrespectful. But we will persevere. We cannot be thwarted by the limited scope of the legal system. He (the judge) wouldn’t even make a declaratory statement.”

Andrew Ryan: “This furthers my belief that we are run by a Corp-ocracy. They are people who care only about profits. They create and they interpret the law.”

For over three years, these concerned residents along with a number of groups in Westchester County, petitioned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) asking for an independent and transparent study to be done before allowing Spectra’s dangerous Algonquin Incremental Market (AIM) pipeline to be built. Their concerns, and those of elected officials at all levels of government, were ignored; FERC similarly dismissed the concerns of nuclear safety experts and pipeline experts. This refusal of FERC to acknowledge or address health and safety concerns meant that the local community had no legal or policy recourse, which supported their claim of necessity defense.

As of today’s date, Spectra still has not completed pipeline construction as the project has encountered environmental violations, noise complaints, and legal challenges. For months they have tried and failed to run the 42” pipeline under the Hudson River adjacent to Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, with another attempt slated for this month. As a stop gap measure to bypass their failed river section and salvage the project, FERC granted permission to Spectra Energy to run additional gas through existing pipelines under the Hudson and Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant. This scenario, running additional gas through 50- and 60-year-old pipelines under the plant, was never examined by FERC or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for safety and was not a condition granted in the FERC permit.

It is the latest in a string of examples of FERC’s failure to address safety concerns or act in the best interests of public heath and safety. In fact, today, members of ResistSpectra, Safe Energy Rights Group (SEnRG), and Stop the Algonquin Pipeline Expansion (SAPE) are in Washington DC attending The Peoples’ Hearing, where representatives of impacted communities will provide testimony and evidence of FERC’s abuses of power and law across the country. Their evidence will demonstrate to Congress the need to reform this rogue agency and reexamine their authority under the Natural Gas Act.

Find out more information about the AIM Pipeline and ongoing resistance here:

Online: www.resistaim.com
On Facebook: www.facebook.com/resistaim

On Twitter: https://twitter.com/ResistAIM

Photos by Erik McGregor
Video Andy Ryan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZLS_FIvK9Q

Video Kim Fraczek: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0omT34SWw8&t=36s

Protective Use of Force: Defining Nonviolence and Pacifism

Protective Use of Force: Defining Nonviolence and Pacifism

This is the fifth installment in a multi-part series. Browse the Protective Use of Force index to read more.

via Deep Green Resistance UK

Gene Sharp, founder of the Albert Einstein Institution, a non-profit dedicated to the study of nonviolent action, defines nonviolence as “the belief that the exercise of power depends on the consent of the ruled who, by withdrawing that consent, can control and even destroy the power of their opponent. In other words, nonviolent action is a technique used to control, combat and destroy the opponent’s power by nonviolent means of wielding power.” [1]

Nonviolence can be described as principled or pragmatic, reformist or revolutionary. Robert J. Burrowes describes how revolutionary nonviolence aims to cause significant, long term change and works towards a peaceful, egalitarian and sustainable society. [2] The Gandhian form of principled, revolutionary nonviolence is sometimes referred to as orthodox nonviolence. [3] Nonviolence can also be categorised as actions either of concentration or dispersal. Actions of concentration involve people coming together for marches and protests. Actions of dispersal would be boycotts and stay-at-home strikes, or other distributed action. [4]

In Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: The Dynamics of People Power in the Twentieth Century, Peter Ackerman and Christopher Kruegler differentiate between nonviolent sanctions and principled nonviolence, pacifism, or satayagraha. Sanctions are the use of methods to bring pressure to bear against opponents by mobilizing social, economic and political power without causing direct physical injury to the opponents.

Some nonviolence advocates argue that nonviolence and pacifism get confused, when they are in fact very different. [5] Principled nonviolence is synonymous with pacifism or Gandhi’s satayagraha or “truth force.”

In Pacifism as Pathology, Ward Churchill describes pacifism as promising “that the harsh realities of state power can be transcended via good feelings and purity of purpose rather than by self-defense and resort to combat.” [6] Churchill argues that proponents of requisite nonviolence believe that nonviolent resisters must not inflict violence on others but may expect to experience violence directed against them. [7]

Peter Gelderloos describes how nonviolent activists seem to prefer one term or another“pacifism” or “nonviolence”some making a distinction between the two; he also notes that these distinctions are often inconsistent. Nonetheless, pacifists and nonviolent activists tend to work together with little concern for their chosen identity or ideological label. Gelderloos defines pacifism/nonviolence as a way of life or a method of social activism that avoids, transforms, or excludes violence while attempting to change society to create a more peaceful and free world. [8]

Gelderloos also takes issue with pacifists or nonviolent activists who distinguish themselves as revolutionary or non-revolutionary. He maintains that both groups work together, attend the same protests and generally use the same tactics. It is their shared vision of nonviolence, Gelderloos argues, and not a shared commitment to revolutionary goals, that primarily informs with whom they work. [9]

Bowser identifies pacifists as holding two unifying beliefs: beliefs in anti-war and anti-oppressive violence. He uses the term “pacifismto mean ineffective, disengaging non-resistance and the term “active nonviolence” to describe offensive, creative action, where those practicing it put themselves in physical danger and engage in direct action, property destruction, and civil disobedience. [10]

“Civil disobedience” is a term coined by Henry Thoreau in 1849 in his essay of the same name. He describes civil disobedience as willful disobedience of laws considered unjust or hypocritical. Sharp defines civil disobedience as a “a deliberate, open and peaceful violation of particular laws decrees, regulations, ordinances, military or police instructions, and the like which are believed to be illegitimate for some reason,” adding that “civil disobedience is regarded as a synthesis of civility and disobedience, that is, it is disobedience carried out in nonviolent, civil behavior.” [11]

Lierre Keith, one of the founders of Deep Green Resistance, considers nonviolent direct action to be the most elegant political technique that has been used successfully over the last fifty years around the world. She describes how unlikely it is to shift the stance of those who have a profound moral attachment to true pacifism. She also maintains that those who support direct action using force or militant tactics need the support of nonviolent activists. She emphasizes that it is not helpful to get into conflict with these activists and that it is better to thoughtfully engage and disagree.

US attorney Thomas Linzey and his organisation Community Environmental Legal Defence Fund (CELDF) have developed a strategy described as “collective, non-violent civil disobedience through municipal lawmaking” to elevate community rights over corporate rights. The aim is to stop corporations coming into local communities and damaging the local environment or economy to make a profit.

Read on at What is Nonviolent Resitance? Part One

Featured image by Daniel Marsula/Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Endnotes

  1. Politics of Nonviolent Action, Gene Sharp, 1973, page 4
  2. The Strategy of Nonviolence Defense: A Gandhian Approach, Robert J. Burrowes, 1996
  3. Global Warming: Militarism and Nonviolence,The Art of Active Resistance, Marty Branagan, 2013, page 139
  4. Unarmed Insurrections: People Power Movements in Nondemocracies, Kurt Schock, 2005
  5. Global Warming: Militarism and Nonviolence,The Art of Active Resistance, Marty Branagan, 2013, page 111
  6. Pacifism as Pathology, Ward Churchill, page 1998, page 45
  7. Pacifism as Pathology, Ward Churchill, page 1998, page 126
  8. How nonviolence protects the state, Peter Gelderloos, 2005, page 6, read online
  9. How nonviolence protects the state, Peter Gelderloos, 2005, page 7, read online
  10. Elements of Resistance: Violence, Nonviolence and the State, Jeriah Bowser, 2015, page 8, read online
  11. Politics of Nonviolent Action, Gene Sharp, 1973, page 315

To repost this or other DGR original writings, please contact newsservice@deepgreenresistance.org

Protective Use of Force: The Problems with Violence

This is the fourth installment in a multi-part series. Browse the Protective Use of Force index to read more.

via Deep Green Resistance UK

It is difficult to find a clear, well-reasoned list of arguments against resistance movements using “violence” or force. Some critics argue that it’s authoritarian, but then list only authoritarian revolutions as examples. [1] Others argue that  the use of “violence” or force gives the state an advantage over resistance movements. Therefore it’s best to use nonviolence, which states may find more difficult to violently repress (more on this in future posts). [2]

Another common critique of “violence” or the use of force is that the end never justifies the means. Sharp argues that “violent” struggles against dictators have rarely won freedoms, and have resulted in brutal repression. [3] Saul Alinsky makes some useful points on this in chapter two of his book Rules for Radicals.

The most comprehensive list of arguments that pacifists articulate against the use of “violence” or force is in Endgame Volume II: Resistance by Derrick Jensen. [4] Jensen includes his response and counterargument to each one:

  1. Love leads to Pacifism, violence implies a failure to love
  2. You can’t use the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house
  3. It’s easier to make war than peace
  4. We must visualise world peace
  5. If someone wins someone loses
  6. Schiller’s line: “peace rarely denied to the peaceful”
  7. The end never justifies the means
  8. Violence only begets violence
  9. We must be the change we wish to see
  10. If you use violence against exploiters you become like them
  11. If you use violence the media distorts our message
  12. Every act of violence sets back the movement 10 years
  13. If we use violence the state will come down hard on us
  14. The state has more capacity to inflict violence than us
  15. Violence never accomplishes anything

To conclude, in the last three posts I’ve attempted to clarify the vague concept of violence. I have listed a number of categories and definitions of violence. I’ve also stated that we need to consider the intention of those involved and the context of the situation. It is important to consider if a violation is taking place and instead of thinking in terms of violence, frame things in terms of how much justifiable force is need to defend humans, non-humans or the earth. I have described structural, subjective and objective violence and the concepts of state monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Finally, I’ve listed the problems with violence. The aim here is to move away from the binary thinking of violence vs nonviolence and to appreciate the complexity of this topic. In the next post I will explore nonviolence and pacifism.

This is the fourth installment in a multi-part series. Browse the Protective Use of Force index to read more.

Featured image: A Palestinian hurls a stone towards Israeli police during clashes in Shuafat, an Arab suburb of Jerusalem and home to the victim of a suspected revenge killing for the murder of three Israeli teenagers. By Baz Ratner/Reuters

Endnotes

  1. Nonviolence: The History of a Dangerous Idea, Mark Kurlansky, 2007
  2. Blueprint for Revolution: How to Use Rice Pudding, Lego Men, and Other Non-Violent Techniques to Galvanise Communities, Overthrow Dictators, or Simply Change the World, Srdja Popovic, 2015, page 86
  3. Dictatorship to Democracy, Gene Sharp, 1973, page 4
  4. For a thorough critique see pages 675-757 in Endgame Vol II or incomplete versions here and here

To repost this or other DGR original writings, please contact newsservice@deepgreenresistance.org

Indigenous Resolve ‘Stronger Than Ever’ as Feds Order DAPL Protest Camp Shut Down

Featured image: The Oceti Sakowin camp is currently home to thousands of water protectors and allies. (Photo: Reuters)

     by Deirdre Fulton / Common Dreams

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on Friday informed Indigenous water protectors and their allies that they have nine days to vacate the main Dakota Access Pipeline protest camp—or else face arrest.

“This decision is necessary to protect the general public from the violent confrontation between protestors and law enforcement officials that have occurred in this area, and to prevent death, illness, or serious injury to inhabitants of encampments due to the harsh North Dakota winter conditions,” Col. John Henderson of the Corps said in a letter to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe chairman Dave Archambault II.

The Oceti Sakowin camp, on the banks of the Cannonball River, will be closed Monday, December 5, the letter warned. Any individuals found on Army land north of the river after that date would be considered trespassing and could be prosecuted.

The Corps said it would establish a “free speech zone” south of the Cannonball River on Army lands.

But Dallas Goldtooth of the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), told the Bismarck Tribune that “there’s not enough land on the south side of the river where many are already camping; and a planned winter camp on 50 acres of reservation land near Cannon Ball is not yet ready, with groundbreaking set for next week.”

What’s more, he noted that “the eviction deadline is the day after more than 2,000 American war veterans are scheduled to arrive at the camp to stand in solidarity with Standing Rock,” the Tribune reports.

Archambault issued a statement in response to the Corps, saying the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe “is deeply disappointed in this decision by the United States, but our resolve to protect our water is stronger than ever.”

“It is both unfortunate and ironic that this announcement comes the day after this country celebrates Thanksgiving—a historic exchange of goodwill between Native Americans and the first immigrants from Europe,” he continued. “Although the news is saddening, it is not at all surprising given the last 500 years of the treatment of our people. We have suffered much, but we still have hope that the President will act on his commitment to close the chapter of broken promises to our people and especially our children.”

Indian Country Today reports:

The notice from the Army Corps comes less than a week after Morton County Sheriff’s deputies sprayed rubber bullets, mace and water on more than 400 people demonstrating at a bridge blockade not far from the camps. Temperatures were below freezing when protectors were repeatedly hosed down by police that Sunday night, November 20. There have also been reports that concussion grenades were fired at protectors. Dozens were hospitalized, including 21-year-old Sophia Wilansky, who may face the amputation of her arm, and Cheree Lynn Soloman, who is fundraising for eye surgery.

“If you were concerned about the safety of the fucking people you would have taken your ass out there and you would’ve cut their fucking hoses,” lamented Kash Jackson, an Army veteran from Michigan. His Facebook LIVE rant was broadcast shortly after the Corps announced its warning to water protectors that anyone choosing to stay on Corps land beyond December 5 would be doing so “at their own risk.”

“You stand firm, Standing Rock,” Jackson continued. “You stand firm right where you’re at. They want to push you off that land. It’s not their land to begin with.”

Meanwhile, IEN said in a statement: “We stand by our relatives of the Oceti Sakowin and reaffirm their territorial rights set in the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851. If the Corps wants to keep people safe and prevent further harm, then deny the easement, rescind the permit, order a full Environmental Impact Statement, and send Department of Justice observers.”

“This decision by the Army Corps and the United States is short-sighted and dangerous,” the statement read. “We have already seen critical injuries cased by the actions of a militarized law enforcement. We implore President Obama and the White House to take corrective measures and to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline once and for all.”

The group, along with Honor the Earth, the International Youth Council, and the Camp of the Sacred Stones, is planning a news conference for Saturday afternoon, which IEN will live-stream from its Facebook page.

Filmmaker Josh Fox, who has been outspoken in his opposition to the crude oil pipeline, called the Corps’ eviction notice “a major act of aggression against basic rights of peaceful assembly and protest in the U.S. and constitutes a violation of treaties as well as the U.S. constitution’s guaranteed right to protest and assemble.”

“Oceti Sakowin, the main camp for water protectors, is a beautiful self-organizing community,” Fox continued. “It stands as not only the main place for the protest movement to assemble and organize, but it also represents a major leap forward for our combined movements for the environment, Indigenous sovereignty, and real democracy in America. If the Army Corps tears down this protest camp hundreds more will spring up in its place. A crucial alliance between indigenous values, native sovereignty and environmental movements has been forged here. We expect that the Standing Rock movement will find new and creative ways to fight the Dakota Access Pipeline no matter what, and that the Standing Rock movement and its alliances will find many areas of common ground and protest. We will fight fracking. We will fight pipelines.”

 

Protective Use of Force: Different Forms of Violence

Protective Use of Force: Different Forms of Violence

This is the third installment in a multi-part series. Browse the Protective Use of Force index to read more.

via Deep Green Resistance UK

Societal violence

Structural violence is the deaths and suffering caused by the way society is organised so that huge numbers of people lack the means necessary to avoid starvation, prevent illness etc. [1] Cultural violence is the prevailing attitudes and beliefs regarding power and the necessity of violence. [2]

In Violence, Slavoj Žižek, a controversial philosopher and cultural critic, differentiates between what he calls subjective and objective violence. “Subjective violence is experienced in a truly peaceful work where there is no violence of any sort. Objective violence is the inherent violence of the ‘normal’ state of things.” [3]

Žižek describes two kinds of objective violence. Symbolic (objective) violence is embodied in language and its forms, which is similar to the concept of cultural violence described above. Systemic (objective) violence includes the terrible consequences of the everyday functioning of economic and political systems, similar to structural violence described above. This kind of violence is inherent to the system itself: direct physical violence; subtle forms of coercion that sustain domination and exploitation, including the threat of violence. He also describes ideological violence, which includes racism, incitement, and sexual discrimination. [4]

Žižek observes that there is a focus on subjective violence (social agents, evil individuals, disciplined repressive apparatuses, fanatical crowds) to distract our attentions from objective violence and our complicity in the oppressive systems that perpetuate it.

State monopoly of violence

A defining characteristic of the modern state is the state monopoly of violence. This is the concept that only the state has the right to use or authorise the use of physical force. The German sociologist Max Weber first described this concept in his 1918 lecture Politics as a Vocation:  “human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” The German philosopher Walter Benjamin wrote about the state monopoly of violence in his 1921 book Critique of Violence.

The state monopoly of the legitimate use of violence is a concept to mean that the state and other actors are using violence but the use of violence by those that are not the state is illegitimate or illegal. Whereas the state monopoly of violence means that the state is the only one using violence, which is where we have got to in most Western countries. So the state is deeming self defence as illegitimate (more on this in the future article on self defence).

Ecological violence

Author Marty Branagan calls the damage to ecosystems caused by industries or armed conflict “ecological violence,” [5] but quotes three studies that state that the extent and intensity of warfare are decreasing. [6] I completely disagree and think it’s clear that structural, cultural and ecological violence are all increasing. 180 million to 203 million people were killed by wars and oppression in the twentieth century alone. [7]

Property destruction

Finally, it is important to distinguish between violence against property and violence against people. Some reject that violence is an appropriate word to use to describe property destruction. Property destruction can be achieved without harming any sentient beings and can be effective at stopping an unjust system. It can also be used to intimidate, which is perhaps why some advocate against it. [8]

When considering if property destruction constitutes violence, a number of questions need to be asked: what objects will be damaged; for what purpose; using what kind of force; will any living beings be injured in any way? Do you believe that “property rights” can be “injured?” Radical environmentalists argue that violations of property rights can in fact constitute violent acts or be the result of past violence. “Property” is created when land and animals are forcibly enclosed or when people are separated from the products of their labour. This is a violent process as it involves the actual or threatened use of force to control. Violence will then be needed to maintain this property.

There’s a critical difference between the legitimate use of force, and violence, which is always illegitimate. We need to stand in solidarity with those who use justifiable force by putting their bodies on the line. And then be critical of those that use the dire situation on the earth as an excuse for reckless aggression or selfish violence. [9]

The British suffragette Emmeline Pankhurst had this to say about property destruction: “There is something that Governments care for far more than human life, and that is the security of property, and so it is through property that we shall strike the enemy.”

This is the third installment in a multi-part series. Browse the Protective Use of Force index to read more.

Endnotes

  1. Historical materialism chapter, Critical Security Studies book, Eric Herring, page 157 https://ericherring.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/eh-hm-and-security-09.pdf
  2. Elements of Resistance: Violence, Nonviolence and the State, Jeriah Bowser, page 7, read online
  3. Violence, Slavoj Žižek, 2009, page 2
  4. Violence, Slavoj Žižek, 2009, page 1-10
  5. Global Warming: Militarism and Nonviolence,The Art of Active Resistance, Marty Branagan, 2013, page 7
  6. Global Warming: Militarism and Nonviolence,The Art of Active Resistance, Marty Branagan, 2013, page 40
  7. Jeriah Bowser has done a great job of describing the increasing amounts of violence in the world in the last century in Elements of Resistance: Violence, Nonviolence and the State, 2015, page 22-31, read online
  8. Deep Green Resistance, Lierre Keith, 2011, page 81 (link to DGR book, online version ideally if ready in time see this forum post https://deepgreenresistance.org/forum/index.php?topic=5188.0)
  9. Igniting a Revolution, Steven Best, Anthony J. Nocella, 2006, page 324/5

To repost this or other DGR original writings, please contact newsservice@deepgreenresistance.org