Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

'Eco-Anarchists' Targeting Nuclear and Nanotech Workers

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the ignorance-is-freedom dept.

Earth 426

scibri writes, quoting Nature: "A loose coalition of eco-anarchist groups is increasingly launching violent attacks on scientists. A group calling itself the Olga Cell of the Informal Anarchist Federation International Revolutionary Front has claimed responsibility for the non-fatal shooting of a nuclear-engineering executive on 7 May in Genoa. The same group sent a letter bomb to a Swiss pro-nuclear lobby group in 2011; attempted to bomb IBM's nanotechnology laboratory in Switzerland in 2010; and has ties with a group responsible for at least four bomb attacks on nanotechnology facilities in Mexico. Another branch of the group attacked railway signals in Bristol, UK, last week in an attempt to disrupt employees of nearby defense technology firms (no word on whether anyone noticed the difference between an anarchist attack and a normal Wednesday on the UK's railways). A report by Swiss intelligence says such loosely affiliated groups are increasingly working together."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Do they realise... (5, Funny)

multiben (1916126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137861)

That bombs and guns are a product of science? Or is that part of their message - to destroy science with science? Fucking assholes.

Re:Do they realise... (5, Insightful)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137881)

I guess since they are anarchists, when they are caught we can just forget all the usual mumbo jumbo about rights and privileges shoot them on the spot?

Re:Do they realise... (4, Insightful)

rbrander (73222) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137937)

No, youngling. The Dark Side is quicker and easier, but it is not more powerful.

Re:Do they realise... (0)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137953)

But, do I get to bang the princess?

Re:Do they realise... (5, Funny)

r1348 (2567295) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138007)

Leave your sister alone, you perv.

Why homosexualism but not incest? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138427)

All of the common arguments for the normalisation
of homosexualism, such as "what consenting adults
do in their bed is neither right nor wrong" work equally
as well for polygamy, polyandry and incest.

So why the hypocrisy?

Re:Why homosexualism but not incest? (2, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138465)

Incest has genetic risks. It actually has a downside. Although in at least some places you can have an incestuous marriage if you don't have kids.

Polygamy and polyandry also lead to societal disruptions. Polygamous Mormons make a habit of ditching the excess boys on the streets of nearby cities. Poly* marriages that don't involve religious and other craziness probably should be allowed. When you guys can figure out homosexual marriage you can start working on that one.

Re:Do they realise... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138449)

Dude, she's your siste... Yeah, go right ahead.

Re:Do they realise... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40137941)

Nope. We are more civilized and understand that due process is important to a functioning society.

--MyLongNickName

Re:Do they realise... (1)

ThePeices (635180) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137957)

Hmm, actually now that you mention it, that does seem like an idea worthy of consideration.

I can see you have thought this through a bit, can you elaborate on your idea a bit so we can have a healthy debate on the pros and cons of your idea?

Re:Do they realise... (2)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137985)

Monday, Memorial Day, BBQ and Beer. Lots of it.

And you want what?

Re:Do they realise... (5, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138009)

I guess since they are anarchists, when they are caught we can just forget all the usual mumbo jumbo about rights and privileges shoot them on the spot?

No, because unless you investigate you can't know if you've caught an anarchist or some poor bastard who just happens to be having a bad hair day.

Also, if you find legal rights to be "mumbo jumbo" to be ignored when given an excuse, why do you want to shoot anarchists, especially anarchist terrorists? Aren't you people kinda kindred spirits?

Re:Do they realise... (0)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138021)

Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.

Re:Do they realise... (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138223)

No, because unless you investigate you can't know if you've caught an anarchist or some poor bastard who just happens to be having a bad hair day.

Or maybe an undercover private cop trying to cause trouble.

It's not like it has never happened. When people died in the Haymarket Riot, it was blamed on "anarchists" and turned out to be plainclothes thug cops on a corporate payroll who had set off the bombs, not the union activists who were blamed. That was the first "May Day". Not many people know that the celebration of May 1st as International Workers' Day or "May Day" started right here in Chicago, not far from where I'm typing this.

In the '60s and '70s, there was something called "COINTELPRO" that the FBI used to try to ""expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize" the activities of any left-leaning group. Their operations always seemed to target a "handful" of dangerous "anarchists" affiliated with dangerous groups like NAACP or the Christian Leadership Conference. That dangerous anarchist Dr Martin Luther King was a target of COINTELPRO.

Not long ago, here in Chicago, during the protests around the NATO meeting, another "handful" of "anarchists" were arrested for "planning" to make molotov cocktails. Three of the 9 arrested disappeared while they were being held for arraignment. Would you be surprised to find out that they were the ones who had the bright idea to make molotov cocktails? It was pretty uncanny if you happened to be on-hand for any of these protests, as I was. Thousands of peaceful protesters, nurses in the case of the protest I attended, and all of a sudden half a dozen, maybe 10 guys dressed in black, faces covered, show up and try to lead the group to break windows or attack a police line. Note, they only did this when there happened to be an overwhelming force of police on hand. These black-clad guys would rush to the front of the group and throw themselves at police or throw some garbage cans or barricades, and then, along with the police, they would turn to look at the crowd to see who was with them. The protestors would look at one another, look at these black-clad guys, and then just move on, not rising to the bait. Then the black-clad guys would disappear only to show up later in the march or at some other encounter between protestors and a large force of well-armored police. The efforts to incite would fail and the black-clads would seemingly disappear again, sometimes apparently through a police blockade. It was the strangest behavior I had ever seen at a large protest.

I've become way suspicious of these highly-publicized busts of a "handful of anarchists". A law enforcement regime that will assassinate an American citizen or wiretap without a warrant or plant a GPS on an Arab-American engineering student with no criminal record is not above a "false-flag" operation, and now that there's virtually limitless corporate money to fund these efforts, and corporate leaders who are sufficiently removed from the rules of social behavior to which most people adhere, I could easily see private police groups and paramilitaries involved in this stuff. Hell, you've got so-called right-wing "journalists" funded by right-wing corporations trying to commit voter fraud in order to prove that there is voter fraud so there can be purges of voters' lists for no reason other than Hispanic surname or student status.

I don't mind being called "paranoid" about these things. I am well aware that I sound paranoid. I honestly hope I'm just being paranoid.

Re:Do they realise... (2, Interesting)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138245)

The Anarchist movement has a LONG (WELL over a century) history of terrorism, so no empathy here.

Re:Do they realise... (-1, Troll)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138431)

You're not only ignorant as fuck, I doubt you have empathy to begin with, so don't brag about a causal relation that doesn't exist haha.

Re:Do they realise... (4, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138347)

I'm pretty sure the GP wasn't calling rights "mumbo jumbo", but rather pointing to the irony of anarchists enjoying the rights that they fight to eradicate.

Re:Do they realise... (1)

multiben (1916126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138475)

^^ This ^^^

Re:Do they realise... (1)

BenJCarter (902199) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138165)

I guess since they are anarchists, when they are caught we can just forget all the usual mumbo jumbo about rights and privileges shoot them on the spot?

Unfortunately they have 'eco' in their class description. Therefore normal rules of science politics. And no, you can't shoot 'em...

Re:Do they realise... (0)

MrQuacker (1938262) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138157)

They arent like those radical religious zealots that hate all science. They just hate nuclear and nanotech. Two very specific branches of science.

Re:Do they realise... (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138357)

That bombs and guns are a product of science? Or is that part of their message - to destroy science with science? Fucking assholes.

The larger question is why they are targeting high tech, rather than mass tech...

These chaps are presumably anarchists, quite possibly with a primitivist or environmental radical vein. Why, then, are they focusing on assorted minor R&D projects that may, at some point in the future, assist The Man's technocratic hegemony over his fellow man and/or nature, rather than hitting the targets that contribute in an overwhelming way, right now?

"Nanotech"(a horribly fluid term that could arguably cover anything from the developments in advanced controlled-ratio copper/tin recrystalization technology that ushered in the bronze age, to the sci-fi grey goo) is certainly an area of ongoing research; but it's a small facet of advanced materials work. "Nuclear" is arguably rather more important, since it shows signs of being the big player if fossil fuels are constrained; but it is, as yet, a comparatively niche source of energy worldwide.

If you want to hit technocratic industrial capitalism where it hurts, why are you hitting fossil fuels? Sure, shooting Dr. Somebody who works on 'p-type selectively nanopatterned selenium bandgap films' in his unguarded office is easy; but its impact is pretty much confined to a 1% difference in efficiency of film-type photovoltaic materials a decade from now. A series of, say, catastrophic refinery fires, cutting 10 or 20 percent off any major industrialized nation's supply of petrochemicals... Now, that would show people what 'inelastic supply chain' really means...

That's what I don't understand about the anti-tech radicals. I don't agree with them, in either case; but I've never understood why they insist on picking at teeny little outgrowths at the very edge of science and technology R&D,,, So long as energy and feedstock chemicals are cheap, post-industrial-revolution society will outproduce your merry little band of revolutionaries so hard it will make your head spin. The only thing you'll change is (slightly) the amount spent on rentacops and the authorities attempting to shut you down.

The only way you would have even a hope of stopping technology in its tracks would be to hit its energy and vital-resource supply. The high tech frankenfood/nanobot/evil nuclear stuff is basically a sideshow compared to the mountains of coal, the rivers of oil, and the boring old steel and cement that keep the lights on and generate a surplus on which to run all the other activities.

Eco-anarchist will be the new terrorist. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40137869)

I can't wait for Captain-Anti-Planet. Earth, Wind, Water, Fire, Profit!

Re:Eco-anarchist will be the new terrorist. (4, Interesting)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138237)

Eco-anarchists have been terrorists for decades. Spiking trees, ever seen what a chainsaw chain can do when it hits one? People can be and have been killed by them.

FUNNY STORY TIME! Well no not so funny story time, okay so back in the early 2000's I was working at a lumber mill here in Canada. We got in a shipment of raw-cut(stuff that hadn't been debarked) from a tree farm, this stuff was being cut for a cabin for a customer who was going to debark, trim and chamfer his own logs. Just wanted rough-cut to save him some time. So we loaded the logs up in the machine to do the cuts and hit nails about 15% in. Shattering the blades(we used a double cut system), one blade segment went right through the control booth. The other blade shattered and parts hit another guy(the cullboy under the machine -- cullboys are the grunts who take the segments off that aren't used but are cut into smaller stock) who nearly bled to death while we were waiting for EMS to show up. Yeah fuck em.

Let's not forget, burning down homes? "Animal liberation" groups, for you know things like diabetic and cancer research. And of course we can always go on.

Re:Eco-anarchist will be the new terrorist. (4, Informative)

zill (1690130) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138289)

Eco-anarchists have been terrorists for decades. Spiking trees, ever seen what a chainsaw chain can do when it hits one? People can be and have been killed by them.

Tree spiking is a despicable and dangerous tactic, but it hasn't killed any one (yet). The only injury from tree spiking was a mill worker named George Alexander back in 1987. He was seriously hurt but not killed.

I'm against tree spiking too, but let's protest with facts instead of emotional-charged exaggerations.

Fear... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40137877)

Some people fear what they don't want to understand....

It's only going to get worse.

Re:Fear... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40137883)

So we need a smart-ray to increase the average IQ ;P

Re:Fear... (4, Funny)

twnth (575721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137903)

So we need a smart-ray to increase the average IQ ;P

I'm thinking more along the line of a clue stick. Preferably with a nail in it, so they get the point.

Re:Fear... (1)

RightwingNutjob (1302813) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137997)

Which do you want: stupid and violent or smart and violent?

Re:Fear... (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138461)

Are you saying that people will fear nanotech less if they learn more about it?

Maybe we could focus on teaching the futility of that kind of action... But people that do those stuff aren't interested on making practial changes anyway. They normaly are in that just for the ride.

Ok, we could also teach them about what those labs are actualy doing. Except that a few of them are actually researching in the minefield of nanoassemblers based nanotech.

strategy of tension (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40137897)

At this point I wouldn't be that sure that they are actually anarchists, Italian state has a long and well established history of blowing up their own citizens and blaming the anarchists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension#Piazza_Fontana_bombing). Anarchist generally dropped 'individual terror' somewhere in the early 20th century as it failed to bring any actual change or a revolution, so even anarchist or anarchist terrorist groups do everything to ensure there will be no casualties of their attacks. Greek groups like CCF, US and UK's ALF and ELF never killed or aimed to harm anybody AFAIK.

Italy on the other hand has this terrorist group always popping up around serious political issues, called nearly the same as the Anarchist Federation of Italy (IAF)... While most anarchist groups would do everything they can to distinguish themselves from other groups (think "Life of Brian"). Just saying.

Re:strategy of tension (4, Insightful)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138043)

A lot of people who call themselves "Anarchists" these days really aren't. Some still subscribe to the idea of no government and believe that it would work out for the best, but too many with that name are just assholes who want to break things.

Re:strategy of tension (2, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138189)

Anarchy doesn't really mean the elimination of rules or social order. It means direct democracy and the elimination of vertical hierarchy.

Re:strategy of tension (3, Insightful)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138241)

Real anarchism at its core is about the recognition of the basic rights, ie the right to self ownership of one's own body, and the descendent right to property. All other rights spring from those two rights.

These so called "anarchists" recognize no rights, and as such have debased themselves to the level of wild animals. I can't put into words the depth of my contempt for such "people".

Re:strategy of tension (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138355)

No, that's not at all what anarchy means. If you vote, through direct democracy, for a speed limit on a highway, and an anarchist gets pulled over for speeding on that highway, they're not going to accept the majority rule. They're going to scream and shout about how unjust it all, and possibly murder the cop who tries to give them the ticket.

Re:strategy of tension (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138451)

I don't think that speed limits would be on the agenda in the first place in such a society...

Re:strategy of tension (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138495)

I don't think that speed limits would be on the agenda in the first place in such a society...

There would be no highways to speed on in the first place in such a society.

Re:strategy of tension (5, Insightful)

meerling (1487879) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138059)

There is a general tendency for media world wide to call any group that isn't backed by some government or known major religion to be called anarchists when they engage in terrorist type activities. Of course those same media people in the USA also like to call almost anything they disagree with politically terrorism, so basically the media people are full of more excrement than your local sewage processing facility.
And no, I do not support the ideals of those cowardly murderers (or attempted murderers) in any way shape or form.

Any evidence for that? (1)

JOrgePeixoto (853808) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138447)

There is a general tendency for media world wide to call any group that isn't backed by some government or known major religion to be called anarchists when they engage in terrorist type activities

Do you have any evidence or at least a couple of examples of that?

Re:strategy of tension (0)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138283)

Here in the UK, "anarchists" are the local chavs/louts/criminal/footie-hooligan scum, who thinks its a bit of fun to dress in black, and give their mindless violence a sheen of political respectability. Unlike continental Europe, the underclasses don't do politics -- just mind warping amounts of booze, drugs, football and violence.

if I had to guess (2)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137909)

I would bet that the group is filled with not terribly tech-savvy people which means they're definitely going to get caught very quickly.

Re:if I had to guess (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138169)

In fact, it is probably made up of graduate students in the humanities.

strategy of tension (-1, Redundant)

harce (1962978) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137915)

At this point I wouldn't be that sure that they are actually anarchists, Italian state has a long and well established history of blowing up their own citizens and blaming the anarchists ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension#Piazza_Fontana_bombing [wikipedia.org] ). Anarchist generally dropped 'individual terror' somewhere in the early 20th century as it failed to bring any actual change or a revolution, so even anarchist or anarchist terrorist groups do everything to ensure there will be no casualties of their attacks. Greek groups like CCF, US and UK's ALF and ELF never killed or aimed to harm anybody AFAIK. Italy on the other hand has this terrorist group always popping up around serious political issues, called nearly the same as the Anarchist Federation of Italy (IAF)... While most anarchist groups would do everything they can to distinguish themselves from other groups (think "Life of Brian"). Just saying.

Re:strategy of tension (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138049)

Double post all the way across the forum! What does it mean?

Re:strategy of tension (1)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138179)

I'm sure harce was merely attempting to get the same comment in the original thread and the inevitable dupe. The only problem here is that he didn't wait for the dupe to actually be posted. Probably should have waited a few more minutes.

Paranoid style in Swiss Politics (4, Interesting)

rbrander (73222) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137919)

The author of "The Paranoid Style of American Politics" spends a few pages at the start of the essay stressing that he just means paranoid Style, not clinical paranoia, and that it is hardly limited to America, but has cropped up all over the world.

Well, it sure seems to be alive and well in Switzerland and Mexico, to name two places that have suffered these attacks. The rhetoric in the Mexican note, about nanotech, from the "ITS" ("Individuals Tending to Savagery", at least they're honest) rings with your standard conspiracy-theory stuff about it ending the world. The anti-nuclear rhetoric in the other is similar towards nuclear armageddon, with the deaths from the "European Fukushima" just around the corner. (Amazing how France has avoided them for 40 years of 77% nuke power generation).

From the original "paranoid style" essay:

"The paranoid spokesman, sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms — he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization . . . he does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish." ...that pretty neatly explains how they can go around blowing up engineers and professors. Since the "paranoid style" essay has become popular again lately because it also jogs memories of some Tea Party fears about Obama taking away all guns or rounding up Christians into camps or whatever, it's worth noting that this is where that kind of thinking eventually takes you if pursued to a logical conclusion. The author also stresses that the "paranoid style" is not a left or right thing, but found on both sides.

Re:Paranoid style in Swiss Politics (5, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138071)

Paranoia is also a result of difficult economic times. If everything's hunky-dory, there's a lot less space for paranoia to thrive in. But with the 2008 financial crisis, the major threat of a European break-up on the horizon and a Chinese juggernaut that just isn't showing many signs of slowing down, and it's kinda understandable that a lot of politics is based on an us-vs-them, apocalyptic them. Not good, not right, but certainly understandable.

self-deception was never my strong suit (2)

spazdor (902907) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137923)

What I want to know is how people deal with the cognitive dissonance of their (presumed) conviction that they're doing good, in the context of the methods that they're employing? Isn't there ever a moment of "Holy shit, my quest to make the world a better, more natural place is now manifest in me doing things like shooting nuns and throwing acid in infants' faces. I think I'd better go back to my hometown and spend a few weeks crying hysterically in the shower."

Re:self-deception was never my strong suit (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137969)

What I want to know is how people deal with the cognitive dissonance of their (presumed) conviction that they're doing good, in the context of the methods that they're employing?

Same way those who support murdering doctors who perform abortions rationalize away "thou shalt not kill."

Re:self-deception was never my strong suit (1)

eugene ts wong (231154) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138163)

Those who kill abortion doctors claim to defend young lives against abortion doctors, from what I've heard.

Who are the anarchists defending, when they kill innocent lives?

Re:self-deception was never my strong suit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138199)

What I want to know is how people deal with the cognitive dissonance of their (presumed) conviction that they're doing good, in the context of the methods that they're employing?

Same way those who support murdering doctors who perform abortions rationalize away "thou shalt not kill."

Or how those who support Collectivist/Marxist ideologies like "Progressivism" with their "collective salvation" and "economic justice" nonsense rationalize away the mass killings that have always happened repeatedly through history when people who follow such ideologies are put into power over a nation or society.

Re:self-deception was never my strong suit (5, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138273)

"Same way those who support murdering doctors who perform abortions rationalize away "thou shalt not kill."

It's "thou shalt not MURDER", which distinction turns the discussion into a mere matter of personal opinion instead of an absolute rule.

http://people.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/001102_ThouShaltNotMurder.html [ucalgary.ca]

The Bible was not originally written in English and all Englsh translations should be take with a grain of salt.

Not limited to psychos and zealots (1)

k(wi)r(kipedia) (2648849) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138281)

What the OP called "cognitive dissonance" isn't limited to murderers, terrorists, and other violent basketcases. It extends even to relatively well-adjusted individuals. Take for example, Albert Einstein. Brilliant in formulating the Theory of Relativity, he resisted for a long time the idea of quantum chaos. "God does not play dice." These eco-anarchists might have the insight to see the dangers of science while being unable to the see consequences of their own actions.

Re:self-deception was never my strong suit (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138339)

The Bible encourages liberal use of capital punishment. Explaining the tortures, burnings, disembowelments, etc. that Christians perpetrated in the past would take some rationalizing...

Re:self-deception was never my strong suit (2)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138379)

The word used in the Hebrew translates much closer to murder than kill. That's also obvious from context because the next few chapters in the text include various death penalties, including a death penalty for murder. But never mind that, the thing is those who are murdering doctors who perform abortion are actually being logically consistent, in that they are trying to stop what they see as mass-murder, and killing a few to save many is a rational course of action. The really inconsistent anti-abortion people are the many who shout about how abortion is murder and then aren't willing to kill doctors. Those people are either liers. hypocrites, or cowards. Frankly, though I'm pretty damn happy that those people are all hypocrites. I really don't want them to find consistency or a spine.

Re:self-deception was never my strong suit (2)

rts008 (812749) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138025)

self-deception was never my strong suit

I think therein lies the answer to your question.

Most people are comfortable with self-deception, in fact, they will embrace it tightly.
It helps them happily maintain their biased, prejudiced, and ignorant attitudes and beliefs....all the better to fit in with their preferred social groups.

This is how marketing works so well.....

What I want to know is how people deal with the cognitive dissonance of their (presumed) conviction that they're doing good, in the context of the methods that they're employing?

If that was a rhetorical question posed as a set-up for expressing your dismay, ignore my comment. :-)

Re:self-deception was never my strong suit (1, Troll)

anagama (611277) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138065)

What I want to know is how people deal with the cognitive dissonance of their (presumed) conviction that they're doing good, in the context of the methods that they're employing? Isn't there ever a moment of "Holy shit, my quest to make the world a better, more natural place is now manifest in me doing things like shooting nuns and throwing acid in infants' faces.

No.

Evidence: Drone Attacks. Afghanistan (the first 6-8 weeks were justified, but for the ensuing decade, we just killed a lot of innocent people and helped with the other side's recruiting propaganda). Iraq.

Re:self-deception was never my strong suit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138109)

"just killed a lot of innocent people"? Really? Propoganda much?

Re:self-deception was never my strong suit (-1, Flamebait)

anagama (611277) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138239)

USDA fed retard much?

Re:self-deception was never my strong suit (2)

anagama (611277) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138277)

Flaming aside, you can read the news right? How about the latest batch of 8, an entire family including 6 kids, in an Afghanistan airstrike:

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/27/the_authoritarian_mind_2/singleton/ [salon.com]

The LA Times identified the victims as "Mohammed Shafi, his wife and his six children," and cited the statements from the spokesman for the Paktia governor's office that "there is no evidence that Shafi was a Taliban insurgent or linked with Al Qaeda." The Afghan spokesman blamed the incident on the refusal of NATO to coordinate strikes with Afghan forces to ensure civilians are not targeted ("If they had shared this with us, this wouldnâ(TM)t have happened").

Re:self-deception was never my strong suit (2)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138259)

Only terrorists get married and/or live in what the US deems a combat zone.

Also, the entire face of the Earth is now a combat zone. Please report to your local death camp immediately. Did I say death camp? I meant happy camp!

Re:self-deception was never my strong suit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138093)

You're deceiving yourself if you think that you're not deceiving yourself. Self-deception is part of the human condition (like taxes and dying), and there is no escaping it.

Re:self-deception was never my strong suit (4, Interesting)

ultranova (717540) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138113)

What I want to know is how people deal with the cognitive dissonance of their (presumed) conviction that they're doing good, in the context of the methods that they're employing?

Some of the correspondence of the Nazis has been published, and some of it touches on this. If memory serves, it went something like "doing the right thing is hard, murdering people is hard, therefore murdering people must be the right thing to do." Yes, seriously.

Isn't there ever a moment of "Holy shit, my quest to make the world a better, more natural place is now manifest in me doing things like shooting nuns and throwing acid in infants' faces. I think I'd better go back to my hometown and spend a few weeks crying hysterically in the shower."

Admitting that you have a problem takes guts. It's hard enough when the worst you've done is puke into a gutter; imagine what it would take to admit that throwing acid on someone's face was actually a horrible thing, not a courageous act of religious or ideological commitment. Add the fact that hatred and violence are addictive, and it should hardly be surprising that people who've given in to them avoid admitting this to the last - and if they do admit it, they make up some bullshit story about being unable to change, as opposed to simply unwilling, thus turning themselves into the real victims, at least in their own minds. Which then justifies further degenerate acts in the name of vengeance.

Wouldn't you rather enjoy the high of self-rightenousness and adrenaline than face the hangover?

Re:self-deception was never my strong suit (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138171)

What I want to know is how people deal with the cognitive dissonance of their (presumed) conviction that they're doing good, in the context of the methods that they're employing? Isn't there ever a moment of "Holy shit, my quest to make the world a better, more natural place is now manifest in me doing things like shooting nuns and throwing acid in infants' faces. I think I'd better go back to my hometown and spend a few weeks crying hysterically in the shower."

"They did something bad first. They must be punished. Punishing someone who did something bad isn't bad"

Re:self-deception was never my strong suit (2)

gox (1595435) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138181)

I can't say I'm really with them (quite the opposite actually), but it seems to me that their world view is as metaphysically sound as any other candidate that seems to be implicitly assumed around here. There is violence everywhere, everyday, most of which we at least indirectly contribute to. Are the excuses we have in place water-tight? I don't believe so.

So they have a cause, we may deem it against us, but I don't see any reason to assume that they are stupid.

Can't stop giggling (4, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137929)

It's a great co-incidence that they decided to name it Olga like my ex-wife. Fitting name, really. Wonder if they will fail just as badly.

Re:Can't stop giggling (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138159)

You know that you had it coming marrying a girl named "olga", don't you.

Re:Can't stop giggling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138333)

You know that you had it coming marrying a girl named "olga", don't you.

No kidding, find a normal girl....... like a big Bertha or something.

Informal (1)

dezent (952982) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137935)

Funny they had to add "informal" in the name of their federation :) How does anarchists organize a meeting btw?

Anarchist community (5, Funny)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137975)

Yes, we tried to organise a small anarchist community a few years ago... but people wouldn't follow the rules.

(Thank you, I'll be here all week)

Re:Anarchist community (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138111)

Please mod parent up as Funny (or rather irony).

Re:Anarchist community (1)

eugene ts wong (231154) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138213)

There was a small community that tried to do it. The rule was that people were allowed to have sex with whomever they wanted. When people didn't mix around enough, the leader made a rule that people needed to mix around more, and then it went down from there.

Re:Informal (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138011)

During detention, usually.

Re:Informal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138051)

A couple years back my hometown had an anarchist book fair. I'm still trying to figure out how they managed that as I can't imagine plans ever getting out of committee.

A trend in recent 'labels' lately? (4, Insightful)

rts008 (812749) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137951)

Is it just me that finds the 'label' Eco-Anarchist' to be as blatant of an oxymoron as 'politically correct', 'Patriot Act', and 'military intelligence'?

I guess 'weasel wording' is the new trend....:-(

Eco-Anarchist......Hmmm...anarchy to the ecosystem?!?!?...does not make sense in the context of their stated goals.

Re:A trend in recent 'labels' lately? (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138031)

Actually, it is much more internally consistent than a lot of other labels. After all, ecology is basic the story of anarchy and the systems that emerge from it. As a result, eco-anarchism should be fairly compelling, strictly from an ideological consistency perspective.

Re:A trend in recent 'labels' lately? (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138311)

Well, since you shined the light on it from that direction, my protest seems to appear smaller!

But I will still argue that the 'Eco-Anarchists' are imposing their own order on the system, thus decreasing the level of anarchy on the system.
Yeah, it's weak, but I'm hardheaded! :-)

Really, that's an interesting comment you made. Thanks...that kind of thing helps keep the mind open and flexible.

* For those about to reply to me with a WHOOOSH!, keep reading:

It does not matter if you were serious, sarcastic, or trying for humour, the end result is the same. :-)

Re:A trend in recent 'labels' lately? (4, Informative)

Ch_Omega (532549) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138033)

The wikipedia article on eco-anarchism [wikipedia.org] is actually pretty good methinks, and gives a good explanation of eco/green-anarchism. I can also recommend This entry [anarchopedia.org] on anarchopedia (who knew there even was such a thing), is also pretty enlightening regarding these groups' ideologies.

No sarcasm or derision implied...:-) (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138409)

Several of you have helpfully provided info and links to educate me on what 'Eco-Anarchists' were about.

I truly thank all of you for your desire and willingness to 'give a helping hand' to another.
That's the main thing that attracted me to /. originally, and has kept me here.

*the other shoe drops*
Most of this info I was aware of.
I was merely, and only, pointing out the trend in labeling getting more oxymoronic lately. At least that's how I see it.

Kudos for an informative and potentially helpful comment, nicely worded, concise, and polite. :-)

Re:A trend in recent 'labels' lately? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138443)

Whatever one's opinions on it, eco-anarchism actually has quite long political roots, and it's relatively strong to this day in the West unlike Socialism/Communism. If you remember Ted Kaczynski aka. the Unabomber with his Manifesto, there's a well-known eco-anarchist/terrorist. But there's even more to it.

What tells legitimate conservationists like Greenpeace and WWF apart from this crazy bunch is that Greenpeace sticks to mild civil disobedience, while these Luddites go for all-in destruction with little or no regard of human casualties. It's really a black-hat underground army of eco-tripping anti-social hipster mercenaries. Think Anonymous of real life.

Idiots. Doing no-one a favour (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40137965)

Except to those who want to take away of what little freedom we have left.

Call the looney bin and get the bus...... (1)

VinylRecords (1292374) | more than 2 years ago | (#40137981)

Here's some of the ramblings from this anarchist group. Almost reads like the speech the bad guy gives in some C-level movie. I think next time I have to give a speech to my employees I'm going to start off with "human beings are made of flesh and dreams" and see if anyone laughs.

"Human beings are made of flesh and dreams. Our dream is that of a humanity free from every form of slavery, that grows in harmony with nature. A dream that we make live in the moment in which we fight to realize it. Our dream has for us a name, âoeanarchy,â and we are ready to gamble everything in order to realize it. We are not alone in this adventure, in the whole world a new anarchy is blossoming opposite of an ideological and cynical anarch-ism, an anarch-ism empty of any breath of life, which only finds its realization in theory and attendance at assemblies and manifestations, the whole cowardice of a citizenism that stinks of death. A new anarchy is rising from the ruins of this anarch-ism, thousands and thousands of cells that speak among each other through thousands and thousands of actions".

Re:Call the looney bin and get the bus...... (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138123)

That reads like something from Norman Gates. http://www.poisonedminds.com/ [poisonedminds.com]

Re:Call the looney bin and get the bus...... (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138207)

"Human beings are made of flesh and dreams. Our dream is that of a humanity free from every form of slavery, that grows in harmony with nature.[...]"

Obviously, they slept/texted through biology class.
Harmony with nature? HAHAHAHAHA![1]
Kill or be killed. Survival of the fittest. Earthquakes. Floods. Hurricanes. Tornadoes. Tsunami. Competition among/against species for survival....etc.
Mankind has fought 'nature' for survival for eons.
Nature is not empathic, sympathetic, nor caring...it just IS.

"[...] A new anarchy is rising from the ruins of this anarch-ism, thousands and thousands of cells that speak among each other through thousands and thousands of actions".

BTW, would they consider auto-immune diseases, cancer, etc. to be anarchy by your own body?

They are ignorant nutjobs, the lot of them, IMO.

[1] I do think we have a responsibility to minimize negative impact and conserve our environment, but with intelligence and knowledge to make our world a better place for everyone.

Re:Call the looney bin and get the bus...... (1)

maugle (1369813) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138421)

"Human beings are made of flesh and dreams. Our dream is that of a humanity free from every form of slavery, that grows in harmony with nature.[...]"

Obviously, they slept/texted through biology class.
Harmony with nature? HAHAHAHAHA!
Kill or be killed. Survival of the fittest. Earthquakes. Floods. Hurricanes. Tornadoes. Tsunami. Competition among/against species for survival....etc.
Mankind has fought 'nature' for survival for eons.
Nature is not empathic, sympathetic, nor caring...it just IS.

Seriously. Take some of those nuts and drop 'em in the middle of the rainforest, see how well they "grow in harmony with nature".

...also, I'm pretty sure the "free from every form of slavery" bit just translates to "I am incapable of holding down a job".

They are eco-terrorists, not anarchists. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138039)

Anarchists stand for obolition of governments, these retards are simply ludite/eco terrorists. I say kill them all, kill all ludites and eco tree huggers. The world would be a better place.

Re:They are eco-terrorists, not anarchists. (2)

Ch_Omega (532549) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138077)

Anarchists stand for obolition of governments, these retards are simply ludite/eco terrorists. I say kill them all, kill all ludites and eco tree huggers. The world would be a better place.

Yes. Let's just make it a rule to kill everyone who don't share our views. That would certainly make the world a much better place.

Re:They are eco-terrorists, not anarchists. (1)

vakuona (788200) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138141)

Not people who share our views, but people who think it is OK to kill people they disagree with. They bloody shot some nuclear executive. They are terrorists, and unless they renounce terror, they should be resisted with the full force of the law.

Re:They are eco-terrorists, not anarchists. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138087)

". I say kill them all,"

I say, old chum, good idea, but let's start with you to make sure the killing apparatus works properly.

Re:They are eco-terrorists, not anarchists. (1)

anagama (611277) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138089)

Anarchists stand for obolition of governments, these retards are simply ludite/eco terrorists. I say kill them all, kill all ludites and eco tree huggers. The world would be a better place.

I wonder if there has ever been any data analysis performed comparing the number of people killed by governments, compared to the number killed by the non-law-abiding whacko who lives down the street. I'm guessing government is more dangerous, but I'd like to see some numbers.

Is it just me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138097)

...or does this story feel like something from the Deus Ex universe? Holy shit, it's the (dystopian) future!

A Simple Solution - (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138099)

A taste of their own medicine would resolve the issue handily.

Luddites are scum.

What's in a name? (1)

devnullkac (223246) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138115)

It'll probably just make me a target for making fun of them, but... IAFIRF? Really? And as long as we're picking, isn't "Informal" superfluous? What would a "Formal" Anarchist federation look like, anyway?

Re:What's in a name? (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138391)

And as long as we're picking, isn't "Informal" superfluous? What would a "Formal" Anarchist federation look like, anyway?

The members spend most of their time bombing their own headquarters

wtf? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138129)

I see anarchism as a valid viewpoint but shooting random people doesn't create anarchism, at least not the kind you actually want. It just makes people think that all anarchists are stupid.

EDUCATION WANTED (2)

glorybe (946151) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138139)

It is sad that we have so many people thinking they have profound understanding of things they actually know nothing about. It is actually slightly true that all things have a negative aspect but in the case of nano tech and nuclear power they can both do far more good than any harm likely to flow from them. A simple example if we had no nuclear power plants we would have far more coal power plants. The use of coal murders people in large numbers. Take a look at W. Virginia's official sites about fishing. One meal a year is the maximum of fish allowed in a diet in many streams and lakes while the rest is one meal every six months. In essence there is no place in W. Va. that coal has not loaded with mercury and lead to the extent that all surface water is now toxic.

Luddite Power! (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138153)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddites [wikipedia.org]

The more we progress, the more we still get stupid ass people who are stuck in the mud of the past.

Yes, I'm talking about the movie and music industries, but it applies to these weirdo's also.

Eco-Terrorist not Eco-Anarchist (3, Insightful)

e3m4n (947977) | more than 2 years ago | (#40138227)

/soapbox/ when you send mail bombs and make assassination attempts you're a fucking terrorist. this whole pussy-footing around the label is horse shit. Calling a terrorist an 'anarchist' because you don't want to use the word terrorist is as horse-shit as saying only white people can be a racist and is right up there with calling an illegal alien an undocumented immigrant. Whats next? Calling drug dealers unlicensed pharmacists? Piss or get off the pot.. they're fucking terrorists. Anarchists reject organized authority and prefer mass chaos. An 'Eco-Anarchist' would be someone who would want to screw up the planet, not assassinate people to 'save' it from the big bad corporation or science. Calling them anything other than terrorists is a complete disservice to anarchists. I know a few anarchists and theyre hardly sending letter bombs and trying to assassinate people. They simply think that if we got rid of all the laws on the books people would step up and whip the shit out of their neighbors that get out of line and the problems would solve themselves. These eco-assholes are just terrorists of opportunity /endSoapbox/

they are not anarchists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138263)

These people are morons.

You are not a Anarchist when you are willing to use violence to force people to conform to your personal agenda. You are a Fascist.

Anarchists are inhuman (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138345)

When anarchist Émile Henry detonated a bomb in a cafe, people asked him
why he hurt so many innocent people. The psychopath replied
"..there are no innocent bourgeois."

This is indeed how anarchists think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Henry_(anarchist) [wikipedia.org]

This is why we need the death penalty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40138373)

I normally oppose capital punishment,
but it is the only way to deal with these inhuman
scumbags.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?