Hello,
this list, despite its name, seems to have been designed as a
subtle and open corporate propaganda with an academic face, against
environmetnalism.
There is no other way to explain why the so-called "eco-terrorists" are
the only ones mentined, leaving corporate and state terrorism away from
attention. If this is not sheer propaganda, then what is it?
Indeed all innocent and honest opinions should be heared, even the ones we
don't like, but are they really innocent and honest?
Agent Orange, DDT etc, Nuclear Power, Depleted Uranium bomps, Human Bovine
Hormone and much of Genetic Engineering and greenhouse gasses could be
thought as a form of (state+corporate) Eco-terrorism too as they affect
or threaten to affect each and everyone of us.
Any "ecoterrorist"
activity that has been mentioned here, including the Unabomber, is pale
and minimal compared to the fact that right now we all have agrochemicals
floating in our fatty tissues just because some wanted to make money.
On Sunday i decided, after ~6 years in the UK, to dear to swim in the
river Thames. People only asked me if i am still alive. Then i found out
that Tritium is "legally" being disposed off in the river Pang, one of the
most beautiful tributaries to the Thames. One day after, Greenpeace
discovered and photographed corroding barrels of radioactive waste in the
English Channel (in which i have frequently swam). Huge amounts, shoved to
the channel in the 60s. But it keeps on up to an extent today.
If this is not Ecoterrorism, what is it? And in any case, why doesn't
anyone speak about it in this list, but find it easier to crucify the
Unabomber? (by the way i dont' see why he shoudl be mentally ill,
although he could well be. Anyone with a
trace of sensitivity in this society would not find his motivations
irrational, despite the fact that his actions were hair raising- we know
now much more hair raising stuff anyway to originate from more official
and 'sane' sources and with crazily much more victims).
It seems that this list is not really willing to challenge any state or
corporate form of terrorism, and this raises specific and
general (for other lists) suspicions as to what some
contributors really want to achieve by fishing people's opinions.
E.g., why is Monsanto's GM terrorism (conveyed indeed as a threat to the
environment etc etc and also as a reality) not discussed in this list?
Where are any comments on WTO-related ethics?
Why this obsession with ONLY corporate-interesting issues - people that
threaten the welfare of corporations, rather than the opposite?
I think it was through this list that i read what is Monsanto doing right
now
to a US farmer: The farmer has found GM rape in his rape field (he was
breeding rape for 30 years). He sued Monsanto. Then Monsanto sued him for
"stealing" "their" rape and claimed all his harvest value. The farmer said
that beside his field GM rape seed is flying around by the tones, due to
the wind, when the fields are sown.
Then, "accidentally", GM rape is forced to be "by mistake" sown to Europe,
in the hope perhaps that once Europeans suspect that now the GM genes can
be anywhere and there is no point in stopping GMO farming, their
resistance
will cease. What is this if not ecoterrorism, and where are the comments
from this list? Some members speak as if they were paid by corporations
for promotion of their goals indeed. Even if they don't they feed
corporations with 'academically' laced arguments
According to the (of Bible significance perhaps book) "Global Spin"
by Sharon Beder, corporate attacking of individuals with vain litigation
is an acknowledged corporate strategy aiming to cease any protests by
demoralization and financial excaustion.
In this case it is of course obvious.
What is not so obvious, is that many newsgroups, mailbase lists etc etc,
could very well be fields of observation and data collection of corporate
and state eyes, and of course fields of propaganda masked as innocent
opinions, dillemas and questions. That's why some cannot stand the list,
despite the fact that it has an extremely worthwhile and sophisticated
cast of members. When Europa satellite is bombarded with Plutonium, nobody
thinks it is a worthwhile topic of marginal concern. So goes for Sebia and
Iraq bombarding with depleted Uranium, polluting giants (e.g. Sellafield
etc), etc etc.
When one watches the sociological dynamics of this list from outside for a
long time, there are very important conclusions that one can make, as to
who, distort, paraphrase, monopoplize, etc, and what they
may represent. In theory, and why not in practice, any
list involving politically sensitive topics is the most obvious place
for "THink Tanks" to monitor people's opinions so as to form the proper
arguments for further propaganda. Some list members could well be staff of
these "think tanks". Even if this is not so, and this obsession with
particular subjects is innocent and totally accidental, we could all be
members of a
big cyber-experiment where we are being watched as goldfish in a bowl by
just anybody. Perhaps the freedom of Internet communications has a price
after all.
I hope you can see that i am not covered by the message below, but i have
to remark that it includes a solid opinion of what's unethical, which is
an extremely rare event in this list.
Maria-Stella
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 [log in to unmask] wrote:
> In a message dated 6/23/00 3:36:01 PM !!!First Boot!!!,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> No vested interests here, ecoterrorism in my opinion is unethical.
> There are just better way to solve problems, without using violence.
> I think John Foster put it best when he said in some form of words
> prinicpled policy works best.
>
> Have a good one,
> Lisa D.
>
> << Hello,
> some time ago i asked in the list what you thought about GM-terrorism and
> GM-abuse. I got no replies, which means that 1)there is fear due to
> censorship or 2)there are vested interests not to touch this hot potato,
> since the public is agitated already or 3) it is a boring subject (yes,
> you bet!)
> I hope this time some of you that take so easily on your shoulders the
> moral
> responsibility of e.g. bombarding Europa (the Satelite, not the Continent
> i hope) with plutonium, to donnate your thoughts to the list:
>
> For example:
> -The USA government was some time ago preparing to spray the coca fields
> of Colombia with herbicides so that the trade is killed. (Not for the
> health of US coca addicts probably, but because the money feeds guerillas
> in those countries). In our new age that some of you like so much, it is
> interesting to consider how fortunate the coca producers are.
> How are they going to get advantage of the new technology? Simple:
>
> 1) They could make Roundup-Ready coca, cannabis, opium, whatever, so that
> they go on without problems, as if they cultivated rape (and notably,
> without weeds, by the way!). (I don't think they would mind stealing the
> pattent) from Monsanto for such a purpose!
> 2) They - and many others- could make Roundup Ready weeds, and invade US
> food fields at their ease without anyone noticing. (This could be and sold
> to various enemies around the world in the form of seed-bombs).
> 3) They can camuflage the interesting substances of the above plants,
> inserting the interesting genes that produce them into everyday innocent
> foods, e.g. cabbages, lettuce, tea, coffee, strawberries and banannas,
> which would really eliminate distribution dangers.
> Except for the unsuspicious consumers (who knows?), the conscious
> concumers would have a feast, rolling a lettuce leaf under the nose of the
> law (if it exists).
> To tackle these problems, the US or any government would have to make
> expensive checks in ALL products.
>
> Anyone still believe that the geenie is still IN the bottle?
>
> Maria-Stella
> >>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
