BY LLEWELLYN H. ROCKWELL JR.
If the media tried to pin the Oklahoma bombing on the entire conservative movement, they dismissed the death of Gilbert B. Murray of the California Forestry Association, five days later, as isolated. The 16th of Unabomb’s bombings in 17 years was portrayed as hum drum and old hat.
Besides, the victims of Unabomb have had few defenders. They are the hated white males of the corporate world vilified by popular culture. Their demise is nothing much to worry about. The New York Times even reminded us that the Oklahoma bomb was “much deadlier:” It’s an Odd aggregation: for Mr. Murray, this bomb was no more or less deadly than any other.
What is Unabomb’s ideology and what does this group want! Its intriguing letter, appearing in the New York Times, is as plain as any article on the op-ed page. These bombers are left-liberal and politically correct. Far from being “evil cowards” deserving instantaneous death, they, like tree spikers and L.A. rioters, are worthy of defense, and loving examination of “root causes.”
Quite simply, Unabomb is an environmentalist organization. It seeks, long term, to “break down all society into very small, completely autonomous units:” but because “we don’t see any clear road to this goal:’ it will “leave it to the indefinite future.” For now, Unabomb seeks a more attainable goal: “the destruction of the worldwide industrial system.” Capitalism wrecks the environment and must be dismantled.
Far from holding an “extremist” position, then, Unabomb is practically mainstream. What the Left seeks to accomplish through regulation and taxation, Unabomb seeks to do through direct action. Unabomb and other environmentalists want the elimination of what the letter calls “all this growth and progress garbage.” They have in common the willingness to use coercion to accomplish this end.
The demand of Unabomb is to have a long essay — “between 29,000 and 37,000 words” — published in the New York Times, Time magazine, Newsweek, “or some other widely read, nationally distributed periodical.” But why resort to bombing! Such writings are welcomed in these Llewellyn Rockwell publications. Why not submit the essay and take an honorarium instead!
And why has unabomb chosen now, as opposed to 17 years ago, to push its manifesto on the public! Well, then, “our thinking was crude.” But “over the years we have given as much attention to the development of our ideas as to the development of bombs.” And this theorizing has led them to believe “the time is ripe for the presentation of anti-industrial ideas.”
Why in the world would they think such a thing! Only because every public school classroom in the country indoctrinates kids in anti-capitalist, pro-green politics. Because the bad guys on movies are corporate polluters, while the good guys are anti-capitalist. And because countless bureaus of the federal government are devoted to putting the interests of bugs and weeds ahead of mankind.
Unabomb’s years of thinking have indeed paid off. They are fully in tune with the ethics of environmentalism (people are dispensable; nature is not), the long-run goal of environmentalism (to destroy prosperity and capitalism), and the tactics of the environmental movement (using violence, whether through the central state or more private means).
Consider Unabomb’s reaction to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The media and at least one federal judge described this accident, whose real victim was Exxon, as a “holocaust” of birds, water, and rocks. The Left pretended to be broken up about the seagulls, but We all know they were dancing a jig. At long last, Americans would see the evil lurking in every capitalist act of oil transportation.
That shipping oil on tankers wasn’t outlawed was due in part to Exxon’s public relations firm. Unabomb’s response came last December: They killed Thomas Mosser, the Burson-Marsteller executive who handled the account.
Mr. Murray, the most recent victim, was the chief lobbyist for what Unabomb considers another fundamental evil: wood harvesting in California. As the Sacramento Bee discovered, however, they wanted to kill his predecessor, who had recently retired. He was hated for being the most prominent pro-logging Mice in the “timber wars” of the Pacific Northwest.
No green lobbyist has even been asked to repudiate the bombing. No Eco-activists who have been “linked” by virtue of ideology need fear government investigation. The White House issued no statements about the “climate of hate” created by the greens, whose message is that People — if they are worth anything at all — are less valuable than blades of grass.
No, environmentalists have as much free speech today as they’ve ever had, and they certainly won’t be subject to Bill Clinton’s new “discipline.” These are the privileges accorded to the Left.
Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr., is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, AL
Reprinted with permission from The Washington Times.
Copyright © 2008 SUANews
All Rights Reserved