If you read my article about Occupy Victoria Gone Wild!, you’ve probably been expecting this. Vancouver Island Activistocrat Zoe Blunt has taken another attack on Victoria’s We Are Change (WAC) group. Blunt is a member of an “end-of-the-world” cult called the Deep Green Resistance (DGR). Before we get started, here are a few important facts about DGR:
- The absolutely believe that the end is nigh. McDonald Stainsby, one of their senior and most respected leaders said just today on the that we have two years left! Stainsby wrote it on a posting in the Rad-Green mailing list- which, curiously, is hosted at the University of Utah. Sidenote: Stainsby is the moderator for this mailing list. The list self-identifies as “Radical anti-capitalist environmental discussion”. One of their rules states that: “This list will not tolerate pseudo- religious fights about Stalin versus Trotsky”. I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried.
- They believe that the only way to save the earth is to immediately incite a revolution, and that the revolution MUST be violent. Their guru, Derrick Jensen publicly supports that people should blow-up dams.
- Stainsby has publicly stated that people who stand in the way of their movement (or who promotes pacifism) must be harshly crushed. He has demonstrated this crushing after attacking me through my family. He also took a similarly vicious attack after Tezporah Berman a few years ago after she joined Greenpeace.
So, to summarize, this is an end-of-the-world cult who seem to believe that world has two years left to be saved. They have publicly supported the use of violence- including the use of explosives. And, as the end is nigh, they justify to themselves that it is okay to participate in character assassinations of people who don’t believe them.
Do you see the problem here?
Today Zoe Blunt decided to publish some very serious allegations. The problem is that she hasn’t provided significant evidence to prove her case. Instead, she took some very juvenile ad-hominem attacks labelling Ryan Elson, WAC and a Lawyer named Doug Christie as White Supremacists.
Christie is a right-leaning lawyer who became famous for defending some pretty controversial people. He first came to public attention defending a teacher who told his students there was a Jewish conspiracy in government. He also defended Ernest Zundel- a man who has been incarcerated for Holocaust denial.
I’ve spent a little time studying Mr Christie, and have yet to find any solid evidence that he is a white supremacist. True, he has supported some controversial people- but, if there weren’t lawyers to support theses types of clients, a fundamental part of our court system would be dysfunctional. All people deserve fair and equal representation.
Regardless, besides a Wikipedia link to a list of clients Christie has represented, Blunt has done very little to prove her accusation. David Eby has represented some shady characters in some shady cases– has Blunt judged Eby on the same premises? Of course not.
It’s irresponsible to make such accusations without providing any evidence/reasoning behind it. I leave it as a challenge to Blunt to qualify what she has been saying. Without this, what she’s been doing is only partisan mud-slinging.
Let me give an example of how Blunt could present a case that an organization is racist. I’ll use No One Is Illegal (NoII) as an example. Here’s a video I patched together of NoII and their very close allies the Native Youth Movement:
The music contains a chorus singing “take back the land, kill the white man”- that’s racist, right? They talk about spilling the white man’s blood- that’s violence, right? Same goes with smashing windows. I also included the statement about NoII that “This Organization Is Dangerous”- I back that up with the evidence of their promotion of racially-based violence.
If Blunt can come-up with a coherent argument that WAC, Elson and Christie are white supremacists, she has the moral imperative to provide us with this information immediately- if it’s true, we need to do something about it. Equally, if it isn’t true (which I suspect it isn’t), then the people and organizations involved deserve to have this cleared-up.
And, from now on, can we come to an understanding that it’s unacceptable to come-out with wild allegations like this, without providing the story behind the allegation? People who do this are at the nexus of assholery- it shouldn’t be tolerated any more…
This is the second wicked attack Blunt has taken in two weeks. She was involved with ‘outing’ someone’s sexuality, and now makes undocumented/unexplained allegations against the very same man. If Blunt feels that she deserves to be a leader on environmental issues, she must act with integrity- this is the opposite. It’s time for her to explain her allegations, or apologize for wasting our time…
Doug Christie is a left leaning lawyer? Are you insane? He helped found the Western Canada Concept for god’s sake!
Oops, major typo- that should have said right-leaning lawyer. Thanks for the editorial assistance!
I beleive it was Voltaire who said “I may disagree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it.” These neo-socialist activistocrats operate under the theory of “I disagree with what you are saying, therefore you are wrong, and I am going to attack you and do everything I can to prevent you from saying it.”
A funny thought: If we are to assume that Christie is a racist because he defended racist clients, does that mean that David Eby is a violent meth addict? lol
We Are Change Victoria are not Racist, what these dangerous Socialist idiots were really pissed about was WAC held a rally under the name “Occupy Solutions” Well these socialist terrorists stole the Occupy movement away from the people and they did not like the fact that WAC stole the name back again. People like Zoe Blunt and her friends are dangerous and should be in prison, These people are organized across the country and I for one would like to see them stopped (or at least arrested for one of their many crimes)
Not to be a pain in the ass, but most sources now agree Voltaire did not actually say that, but that was written by a biographer who inferred that sentiment from some of Voltaire’s writings. I don’t usually link Wikipedia but….http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall
What crimes are those? You know this is suspiciously similar to what The Hammer said they were doing to Greg. If your narrative is strong, then let it stand as is.
In this case, the crime is criminal defamation. That is, unless Blunt can solidly back-up what she has been saying with facts…
I’ve posted them a few times in other articles- thought I was getting redundant..
Greg, DGR has a fairly detailed narrative. Derrick Jensen lays out his points in such an explicit manner it should be easy to refute. Rather than refer to them as an “end-of-the-world” cult, speak to the point that industrial civilization is sustainable and that destroying biodiversity and replacing it (when it is replaced) with monocultures is generally a good idea.
Of course, if humanity continues our current growth-curve, and irresponsible use of natural resources, we will eventually wind-up in a big mess. That said, I seriously doubt that we only have two years left- that’s a bit extreme (and cultish).
Have you seen end:civ? Both Blunt and Stainsby are in it, and it’s all about the DGR’s philosophy. Watch the video, then re-read Stainsby’s statement that we have two years left to survive.
Once you’ve done that, then let’s get into a conversation if if “end-of-the-world” cult is a proper way to classify DGR. Personally, after lots of deep research and conversations with their members, I have no doubt now.
If it is definitively criminal then why wait? Press charges. Make her produce the facts if they exist.
Are you familiar with the exponential function? A good non-DGR source illustrating where society is on this curve is presented by Chris Martenson. You can either watch his documentary series or read his book, I’ve done both. That is the funny about exponential functions, is they seem to creep along then all of a sudden…BOOM! You’ve hit a wall that appeared to be so far in the distance. I have seen End:Civ and although I give most predictions made by environmentalists the same amount of weight as I would give economists predicting future growth (which is to say very little) I do subscribe that the next 20 years is going to look vastly different than the last twenty years. Reason: Exponential function. Stainsby might be in error in his 2 year prediction in both time and result, but big changes are on the horizon within our lifetimes Greg. Big changes. In my reading there are only two compelling narratives of our future, one is that we flame out and take the majority of the biodiversity with us (google Canfield Oceans sometime), the other narrative is we rise from our ashes like the phoenix and become as technological gods, our future descendants as incomprehensible to us as Lucy would have found us to be. So I emphasize with the radical environmentalists as they agonize over our inability as a species to shake off this consumer driven economy, but I also relate to those that hold out hope that we will pull the big one out of our collective hats that will change our view on everything. I think following some of the former will give us the leeway to accomplish the latter, so these are not mutually exclusive views.