Terrorism

The Green Gunman

|

Three comments about the Discovery Channel gunman James Lee:

1. Yes, he's an environmentalist. Lee's brand of environmentalism may be quirky—not many green manifestos contain the words "a game show format contest would be in order"—but his politics clearly center around the environment. That's a change from the spate of George Metesky types who have carried out most of the other recent acts of private political violence, whose ideologies are hard to fit in any conventional category at all. Lee is more like Scott Roeder, the anti-abortion assassin who killed George Tiller.

2. Other environmentalists are not responsible for what he did. As I wrote when Tiller was killed, words do have influence, but that doesn't mean people are morally responsible for all the ways their words can be received. The pro-life movement's rhetoric is not to blame for Roeder, and the green movement's rhetoric is not to blame for Lee. I can't endorse James Delingpole's view that "there is not a cigarette paper's difference" between the ideologies of James Lee and the Prince of Wales. The two men may agree about the virtues of population control, but there's no sign that they agree about the virtues of kidnapping people and threatening to kill them.

3. It's terrorism, but it isn't a particularly menacing kind of terrorism. In The Washington Examiner, Mark Hemingway pivoted from quoting Lee's misanthropic manifesto to suggesting that eco-terrorism is "America's biggest domestic terrorist threat." Well, unlike some of the people who get saddled with the "eco-terrorist" label, Lee really does fit the bill. But consider the small number of lives that were endangered yesterday, and the fact that the only person who ended up dying was the thug who took the hostages in the first place. If eco-terror is the biggest threat, then this couldn't be a good example of it—or else the other sorts of domestic terrorists are really pathetic.

NEXT: How to Fight for the Taliban Without Getting Detained As an Enemy Combatant

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Lee refutes environmentalism as much as McVeigh refuted libertarianism.

    1. McVeigh was a libertarian?

      1. In every respect that matters. His opinions on the incidents that set him off were highly libertarian.

        1. Re: Chad,

          His opinions on the incidents that set him off were highly libertarian.

          Composition fallacy.

          1. What about “Try to foment a race war” Ron Paul? Does that racist old fuck still get the label “Libertarian”?

            1. Hey, get your hand out of your pants.

              1. Hey, I’m just repeating what I was told to say about Ron Paul.

        2. In every respect that matters (and mind you it is me alone which determines what matters and what does not).

        3. Bullshit, Chad.

    2. Oh, and don’t forget Joe Stack…another libertarian terrorist.

      1. Joe stack was a hodgepodge of Left wing and right wing bullshit. very little of it including the right wing stuff could honestly be called libertarian.

        1. I had to say it, because it fits my “if you ain’t liberal, you’re a madman waiting to happen” meme.

          That, and we liberals so rarely commit acts of violence, or threaten anyone, that it’s virtually zero.

          1. I’d like to add that it’s only because we’re such pussies. If we can run your ass over with the ship of state, we’ll totally do it.

            1. The left have no problem imprisoning and killing poeple….just they only do it using the state.

              As individuals yes they are pussies. As a state backed mob they are the GULAG.

          2. Um… false. Remember the bombing at UW-Madison in 1970? Yeah, they were liberals. And they killed a father and a husband.

    3. Re: Chad,

      Lee refutes environmentalism as much as McVeigh refuted libertarianism.

      Lee was a self-described environmentalist, Chad, there’s no way you can spin that fact. McVeigh never ever said he was a libertarian nor were his actions libertarian.

      1. I never denied that Lee was a wing-nutty environmentalist.

        But you keep denying that McVeigh and Stack were wing-nutty libertarians, basically by claiming since they may not have been 100% pure party line libertarians, they don’t count.

        Of course, there is no “party line” among environmentalists, so it is impossible for Lee to have subscribed to it.

        1. The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

          Sounds hardly libertarian to me.

          1. Sounds completely libertarian to me.

            1. Which means you agree with Joe Stack.

              1. I’m SUCH a prick.

                1. No, you just like to suck it.

        2. But you keep denying that McVeigh and Stack were wing-nutty libertarians

          Prove they were. And don’t forget to leave out the parts about non-agressio and property rights.

          Dick.

        3. Let’s say that we acknowledge McVeigh was a self-proclaimed libertarian or held some kind of libertarian beliefs.

          So fucking what?

          Is your major premise than that ergo libertarians are all baby-murdering psycho domestic terrorists?

          You’re such an idiot. Can you breathe and walk at the same time?

    4. Freak, ok who gave Chad the zombie virus?

    5. “Lee refutes environmentalism as much as McVeigh refuted libertarianism.”

      Surely, we can’t ignore that when some random crazy does something like this because of taxes or something, it is typically conflated with libertarianism.

      And there’s an excellent point to be made here–when’s the last time you heard someone on the right refer to something like this as “Direct Action”?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Action

      They don’t use that word on the right.

      I’ve heard the term used to describe all manner of Luddite/Animal Rights/Enviornmental/Anti-Capitalist…Leftism.

      There seems to be an inherent bias in the way this stuff gets covered in the media–and when craziness is perpetrated in the name of a leftist cause, somehow it’s treated better as “Direct Action”.

      There’s something deeply hypocritical about that. Craziness, threats and violence don’t become “Direct Action” just because you sympathize with the cause of the crazies.

  2. Anyone who claims that he was representative of some larger group (be it environmentalism, anti-immigrationism, left, right, whatever) is an idiot.

    He was crazy. That’s really all there is to it.

    1. This.

  3. You don’t have to kill anyone to produce terror. In fact, sometimes overdoing the death counts actually lessens the impact.

    Compare: one dead US soldier dragged through the streets of Mogadishu vs. thousands dead in Iraq, to the point where people were flipping past the story of the latest 20 troop deaths to see if the Jumble was going to be worthwile today. One of them was effective in producing an early exit, one wasn’t.

    1. Or blow up an entire tiny town in the middle of, say, Arkansas, instead of the WTC.

      Some town with about two hundred inhabitants. Just some houses and an old general store, maybe a functioning gas station. That’s it.

      That would freak people the fuck out.

  4. I think the important factor about Lee wasn’t that he was an environmentalist; it’s that he was a fucking loon.

    And you know how you could tell? ALL CAPS!!!

    1. “and, of course, the Squirrels”

      1. I have been using that line all day.

      2. crrt crrt crrt

    2. “Multiple exclamation marks, a true sign of a diseased mind.”

    3. At least it’s not Comic Sans

  5. This post is too reasonable and even-handed. Cathy Young better watch out.

    1. Maybe another David Weigel is gestating.

    1. Clearly, he was a dangerous right-wing extremist. Clearly.

      1. We’re cute and cuddly!

        1. We LOVE humans!

          1. I love animals…
            They’re delicious

  6. From the manifesto:

    stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth

    I fucking hate ANCHORBABIES!, so maybe this guy was on to something.

    1. I hate them too. Used one to moor my boat last week. Freaking thing just rotted away and I found my boat stuck on the beach 5 miles down the coast.

  7. Remember when libertarians were irrelevant? Now we’re blamed for practically everything.

    1. No you’re not. Most Americans wouldn’t know a libertarian from a pile of dog shit, despite the similarity

      1. Do you have genital warts? It seems like you might.

        1. From fucking sheep? I’m not saying Jolie is a sheep-fucker, I’m just saying it wasn’t denied.

          1. Michael Moore says you guys are freaks, and I believe him.

            1. cool story bro

  8. Neu Mexican and I are disagreeing on this, but would you consider environmentalists to be primarily from the left?

    Also, I DO NOT IN ANY WAY blame environmentalists for this whackjob. I’m just curious what people think about that question.

    1. By and large, yes. The only right-wing environmentalists I know are hunters who are exercised about habitat for their preferred prey.

      1. Like Ted Nugent?

      2. right wing hunters like ducks unlimited are not environmentalists. They are conservationists.

        Environmentalism requires the dismantling of free markets, the limiting of individual liberty and the forced relinquishment of property rights. It is a left wing ideology.

        1. I stand corrected.

        2. Also should note that unlike environmentalist groups such as green peace, sierra club, earth first ect., Ducks Unlimited actually does conserve habitat.

          1. Actually, I work a lot with my local Sierra Club chapter. Our biggest focus is keeping coal companies from permanantly destroying mountains and rivers, dumping toxic shit in peoples’ water supplies, and spewing toxins into the air that kill 10,000 Americans a year.

            How awful of us.

            1. How awful of us.

              Your method to save the mountains and rivers is to take private property rights though regulation. it is not only awful but inefficient and destroys habitat.

              By regulating the hell out of land you wish to preserve you take away any incentive of the land owner to preserve it. If an eagle makes a nest on my land I loose value because of the regulation. So as a property owner it is i n my interest to make sure no eagle ever makes a nest on my land

              In essence you spend money to devalue the market value of habitat land.

              Ducks unlimited spends money to increase the market value of habitat land.

              If conservationists will pay top dollar for my land then it is in my interest to manage the land in such a way as to increase its habitat value

              If you did what Ducks Unlimited does and simply buy the mountains and rivers then plant shit on it you would actually protect something.

              But protecting the environment is not your intent anyway.

              1. Your method to save the mountains and rivers is to take private property rights though regulation

                This is so utterly wrong, I don’t even know where to begin. How is helping a poor person sue a coal company whose god-damned pollutants turned their PRIVATE WELL into a cesspool of toxins “taking the coal company’s private property”?

                I quadruple dog dare you to answer this question with a serious response. I expect nothing other than your typical mouth-foaming?

                1. How is helping a poor person sue a coal company whose god-damned pollutants turned their PRIVATE WELL into a cesspool of toxins “taking the coal company’s private property”?

                  A better question is how does a basic common law civil suit over the destruction of private property
                  keep “coal companies from permanently destroying mountains and rivers,”?

                  In your first post you stated pretty clearing you were doing preventative measures through regulatory measures now, suddenly, you are the champion of “PRIVATE WELLS”.

                  Funny how when you get in a corner you pull the old bait and switch.

                  By the way what do you feel about “PRIVATE WELLS”? Are “PRIVATE WELLS’ better or worse then public water systems?

            2. Well, Chad, at least you don’t blow up Hummer dealerships or drive spikes into trees to prevent logging.

              Or… DO you?

              1. Don’t get me thinking…

                Few books ever affected me as much as The Monkey Wrench Gang (and that was back in my libertarian days!).

                Abbey had more wisdom in his left pinky toe than Rand had in her entire shrivelled heart.

                1. See, Chad, you’re still leaving out what you supposedly learned in your “libertarian days” – we don’t condone violence or threats as a path to change.

                2. back in my libertarian days

                  Smoking pot in college doesn’t make you a libertarian, Chad.

        3. Conservationists want to protect nature in order to promote certain human ends.

          Environmentalists believe their irrational semi-religious idealization of nature is an end in and of itself, one at odds with the needs of human beings. Moderate environmentalists technically believe in the religion and love to pay it lip service, but generally ignore it when it inconveniences them overmuch (not unlike their right-wing Christian counterparts).

          1. I can tell you don’t spend any time with environmentalists. I do, and well, you are completely wrong about them.

            1. I have spent years with environmentalists and cynical pretty much hit the target dead on.

              1. I don’t believe you, as you cannot even remotely echo their beliefs. Instead, you spew the Rush Limbaugh straw-man parody of environmentalists.

                1. Wow, Chad, you missed a perfectly good opportunity to rag on Christians.

                2. Of course, the ultimate conclusion of libertarian logic is actually something akin to feudalism, so you guys are even worse.

                  It is pretty obvious I understand environmentalism more then you understand libertarianism.

        4. No true environmentalist…?

    2. Primarily, maybe, but environmentalism in consumer choice (buying/building/using lower-impact, more energy efficient stuff) isn’t political. I mind the comparison between George W. Bush’s house in Crawford and Al Gore’s wasteful monstrosity outside Nashville. And there are environmentalists in land trusts and preserves who actually do purchase or solicit the donation/bequest of properties to conserve from human impact.

      1. Which proves my theory that liberalism is a mental disorder.

        George Bush doesn’t talk the talk but actually walks the walk while Al Gore talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk.

        Liberals believe words speak louder than actions see Barack Obama campaign 2008 vs President Barack Obama for another example. Truly fucking bizarre!

  9. time for MY Discovery Manifesto!!

    1. I read Greg Egan’s books. You should read them to and make a shows about them.

    2. More T-Rex vs Mega-gators. That shit is awesome! and who could forget about squirrels. They fuck up the reason comments and having them eaten by a giant CGI ice age beaver would be pretty cool.

    3. UFOs and aliens are bullshit and you guys know it. Same with Ghosts and Angles and other paranormal bullshit. Either make shows that debunk them or don’t make shows about them at all.

    4. more lions killing shit.

    5. More Cheetahs killing shit

    6. More shit killing other shit.

    7. Your hulu page sucks. I don’t have cable so fix that.

    8. I have no idea how quantum physics works. Fix that.

    9. The big bang seems like bullshit. The universe created itself from nothing. That is worse then the bible and the evidence given to justify it in popular media is thin. Either show the evidence or debunk it.

    10. Space is cool. More space.

    11. There were a lot of babies in your day care. No recommendations there…just wow lots of babies.

    1. I like this, where would you like me to place the explosives…

      Mama always said I was a psychopathic killer looking for a cause.

    2. Mine would be about the History Channel.

      1. There shouldn’t be any more shows about whether anything in the ancient past was really somehow about extraterrestrials.

      2. No More Nostradamus.

      3. That Ghosthunter show? Whatever channel that’s on? Those people should be ashamed of themselves.

      4. I want a new variety show, like the kind they had in the ’70s. Like Sonny & Cher and the Osmands? Except the host should be Will Sasso as Kenny Rogers.

      5. I want a show about the history of capitalism. …which shouldn’t contain any references to UFOs, whatsoever.

      1. How about some shows about murderous African warlords? Where is the fucking love? Dang, I’m hungry!

        Cap, you don’t have the balls to be a psychopath, you are an insult on your ancestors! I smite thee with my black buttocks!

    3. No “WTF? STUPIDITY!!!!”.

      Fail.

  10. I fucking hate ANCHORBABIES!

    Is that the Anchorman prequel? I’d hate that too.

    1. “I fucking hate ANCHORBABIES!”

      Isn’t that those little English thingys with the TVs in their bellies?

      1. “uh-oh, LaLa!”

  11. You don’t have to kill anyone to produce terror. In fact, sometimes overdoing the death counts actually lessens the impact.

    You know what they say, one death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a Steve Smith camping trip.

  12. Lee was a crazy mofo. It wouldn’t matter what ideology he adopted. That about does it.

    With that said, surely there’s a good racial angle here? Was he a mosque builder? Let’s keep looking, shall we? Listen to Glen Beck?

  13. His gameshow idea Race to Save the Planet, doesn’t sound to far fetched. Other than the fact that he thought it would truely save the world and ended up getting him killed.

    1. A game show like that along the lines of Running Man would be pretty cool. Anyone who believes the world is over populated could be the participants. Ted Nugent would be a great personality for the hunter.

  14. 5. Immigration: Programs must be developed to find solutions to stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth that follows that. Find solutions to stopping it. Call for people in the world to develop solutions to stop it completely and permanently. Find solutions FOR these countries so they stop sending their breeding populations to the US and the world to seek jobs and therefore breed more unwanted pollution babies. FIND SOLUTIONS FOR THEM TO STOP THEIR HUMAN GROWTH AND THE EXPORTATION OF THAT DISGUSTING FILTH! (The first world is feeding the population growth of the Third World and those human families are going to where the food is! They must stop procreating new humans looking for nonexistant jobs!)

    It does not surprise me in the least that a militant environmentalist would attach himself to other equally abhorrent ideals.

    1. Hilarious, considering his own heritage.

    2. I thought it was kind of weird that he cared about the citizenship status of parasitic human filth so much.

      Maybe anchor babies make squirrels sad or something.

    3. Sounds like he wasn’t getting laid much, if at all.

  15. Was looking at a few comparison clips of Al Gore’s writing and the Unabomber manifesto. Main thing I can conclude is that the Unabomber is a better writer. Lee sounds a bit like a tormented superhero– FIND SOLUTIONS…STOP GROWTH…MUST STOP PROCREATING…

    All our little human settlements are nothing. I can imagine that if there is extraterrestrial life surveying Earth they’re probably more interested in the citizens of Insect World, third planet from our sun.

    1. Misspent genius. Ted was probably in the top ten all time.

  16. Now that makes a lot of sense dude, I like it.

    Lou
    http://www.real-privacy.ua.tc

  17. Does this mean that environmentalists can’t set up an organic farm two blocks or less from the sacred ground of Discovery Channel?

    1. No but there’s probably a Whole Foods near it.

      1. In fact there is, about 4 blocks away.

  18. Kind of missing the point. Sure he was a nutjob who could have latched on to and been inspired by any of a thousand different creeds. However, what he actually did, or at least, the extent his violence was limited by circumstances he could not control, was far less dangerous to us than the environmentalist creed he espoused in his manifesto, and that is all too common inside the environmentalist movement, or the damage mainstream environmentalism has caused by tying up resources (like stopping the flood control measures being built at Lake Pontchartrain during the 70’s and 80’s, for one, and retarding the development of the nuclear power industry for another) used to save and improve lives.

    Jesse, you are too fair minded of a gent. Perhaps, your detractors will return the favor some day, but somehow I kind of doubt it. Meanwhile, you are missing out on an opportunity to turn this into what the left calls ‘a teachable moment.’ Actually, the very thought of that, the nausea inducing concept of – ‘a teachable moment’ makes me hesitate. Scratch that. You have to live with yourself, after all. To cynically distort things as they commonly do for political advantage takes a lack of a certain something (I believe you hoo-mons call it a ‘conscience’) that just isn’t worth losing your positive disposition over. That may be a higher point than the one I’m accusing you of missing, but these days I’m not certain of that.

    1. Scratch that. You have to live with yourself, after all. To cynically distort things as they commonly do for political advantage takes a lack of a certain something

      I’m going to save MNG the trouble.

      Since when has John Boehner (dont care if I spelled his name correctly, M-U-D it would be if I had my way) been a member of the left?

      Yeah, they don’t call it a ‘teachable moment’ on the right (excuse me, I gotta go barf), but his whining the other day that Obama better recognize Bush’s contribution or, or, (sniff) else, certainly qualifies as one.

  19. “The two men may agree about the virtues of population control, but there’s no sign that they agree about the virtues of kidnapping people and threatening to kill them.”

    No, the average population control advocate wants to do worse and on a massive scale. Their rhetoric shouldn’t even be let in the room.

    1. Actually, if you ever suggest to the Malthusian-style treehuggers that the ultimate conclusion of their logic is to go on a murderous rampage that ends in a shoot out with the cops, they get very upset. Of course, I only do this online because I wouldn’t want to lose any rl friends.

      Of course, the ultimate conclusion of libertarian logic is actually something akin to feudalism, so you guys are even worse.

      1. Of course, the ultimate conclusion of libertarian logic is actually something akin to feudalism.

        If it is libertarianism that resembles feudalism then why do the most libertarian states least resemble feudal states and the most left wing states resemble feudal states?

      2. Of course, the ultimate conclusion of libertarian logic is actually something akin to feudalism, so you guys are even worse.

        I request that you flesh out this premise a bit further.

        1. Yes, I too would like this explained further. Even if I were to let you go on and lump all libertarians in with anarchists, I would still contend that being a serf is modestly better than being dead.

          At least one of those options would give me a chance to change my circumstances.

          1. Remember: There is no such thing as a left-wing anarchist. They don’t exist.

            Just ask liberals… they’ll tell you.

        2. I suspect that this refers to the idea that, without state-sponsored enforced ‘equality’, society would stratify. This could resemble feudalism.

      3. Banning DDT was far more efficient for killing filthy human beings.

        1. That sucking sound you hear is dilation and evacuation of unwanted parasitic human filth.

      4. Yes, because as we can clearly tell, individual liberty, property rights, and decentralized government translate so well to a warrior aristocracy, vassalage, and serfdom.

        Schmuck.

      5. I only do this online because I wouldn’t want to lose any rl friends.

        1. You have friends?

        2. Must be pretty sad you have to censor yourself around your “friends,” or else you’ll lose them. Those of us who are not afraid of our opinions feel free to voice them and are not afraid of having friends disagree with them.

        I guess living in an echo chamber is different. If you voice anything other than the “correct” approved viewpoint, you are ostracized as impure.

  20. Can’t we just all agree that the founders never intended to grant 2nd amendment rights to tree huggers?

  21. Chad, you’re leaving out a key thing in your ridiculous “McVeigh = libertarian” argument:

    We don’t do what he did. Bombing a building is use of force.

    Now, go fuck yourself.

    1. Actually that was his point.

      1. No, he’s trying to conflate libertarianism with McVeigh-style actions. Which are completely incompatible.

        1. For that to make sense, you would have to assume that he was conflating environmentalism with Lee.

          Give the broken clock some credit on this one.

  22. Quote from the blogger who had several encounters with the man…

    “He was steeped in all kinds of Leftist blather. But he spewed out a lot of Ron Paul crap mixed with some Republican talking points ? whatever fit his protest sign. He was a raving lunatic and I wouldn’t blame any political party for James J. Lee like some people have. He was just an average DC nut job.”
    http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=20337

    The sign he’s holding there might clue you up as to whether there’s much point defining environmentalism as a purely left-wing ideology.

  23. “He was steeped in all kinds of Leftist blather. But he spewed out a lot of Ron Paul crap mixed with some Republican talking points ? whatever fit his protest sign. He was a raving lunatic and I wouldn’t blame any political party for James J. Lee like some people have. He was just an average DC nut job.”

    This is a quote from a blogger who encountered him more than once, at a url I can’t get past the s-pam filter here.

    He’s holding a “stop paying your taxes” sign if you feel you’re done figuring out whether environmentalism is purely left-wing.

  24. fuck your spam filter.

  25. Liberals routinely smear their opponents with the actions of their worst adherents. Their critics are making this an issue to show past and future liberal hypocrisy (as for example liberals are currently attempting with the Tea Parties).

    Further, the link of inspiring violence is far greater on the left because they encourage actions above and beyond voting. By Any Means Necessary may not be how they want the public to understand them, but it is how they achieve success beyond their support. The only piece of the right who is even comparable to the left in this regard is the extreme anti-abortion sect.

  26. Liberals routinely smear their opponents with the actions of their worst adherents.

    And conservatives, of course, would never stoop so low.

    1. And conservatives, of course, would never stoop so low.

      I hate Stalin more then I hate McVeigh.

      My hatred has more to with their differing body counts then their differing politics.

      But, I should note, their differing body counts has everything to do with their differing politics.

  27. They achieve success beyond their support.
    ***********
    Olivia PLR Articles

  28. sounds good for me LJJLJLUIDS

  29. let’s go go that place DG3bsFFY

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.