The Ecopsychology Issue

Environmental Jihad

Is a holy war against the five-planet lifestyles of the West Justified?
Photo by Justin Guariglia - National Geographic
Photo by Justin Guariglia - National Geographic

April 19 – 25 is Digital Detox Week. Here’s some inspiration for your digital cleanse.


In January 2010, as the war against terrorism dragged into its ninth year, the ideological leader of the mujahideen issued a statement that could have been drafted by any Western environmentalist: “Talk of climate change isn’t extravagant speculation: It is a tangible fact that is not diminished by its being muddled by some greedy heads of major corporations.” Osama bin Laden then declared that “there must be accountability and punishment for those who head the major corporations and their political proxies, so that they stop their harmful actions against humanity.”

Hearing the “enemy” express sentiments so similar to our own inner thoughts is challenging. The momentum of environmentalism is stalling, co-opted by industrialists selling the toxic cleaning agents for their own pollutants and by celebrity politicians who smile for paparazzi while sabotaging global accords. Bin Laden’s words breathe a new sense of intensity and potency into a complacent movement because behind his rhetoric – which sounds so much like our own – are terrifying deeds.

Environmentalism has always had a militant shadow. It is apparent in the seminal works of Edward Abbey, whose oeuvre encompasses nature writing at its most philosophically profound (Desert Solitaire), obstinately righteous (Fire on the Mountain) and passionately violent (The Monkey Wrench Gang). The last, of course, inspired the formation of Earth First! and continues to inform sporadic Earth Liberation Front actions. But until now environmental militancy has been minimal, recruitment constrained by its bourgeois Western origins.

Bin Laden’s clarion call changes all that. It marks the beginning of a holy war against the West that many Western environmentalists may come to endorse. Post-Copenhagen it is clear that our nominally democratic society is under the sway of a corporatist, obstructionist oligarchy whose fat cats will jettison any sustainable vision of the future if it hurts their bottom line. And therein lies the significance of bin Laden’s speech: While one can argue divisively about the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the potential for democracy in the Middle East and the viability of alternatives to capitalism, it is both unarguable and unifying that humanity is hurtling toward a precipitous climate catastrophe.

It is, of course, a highly suspect proposition that anyone in good conscience could rally behind bin Laden. He has blood on his hands that can never be washed off, no matter how green the water. And with a political biography eerily reminiscent of Emmanuel Goldstein from George Orwell’s 1984, one must wonder whether bin Laden is actually dead, a creation of the CIA or simply the pseudonym for a group of jihadist writers. The importance of bin Laden’s words, however, is not what they portend for his future but what they suggest for ours.

There seem to be two possible scenarios that could prevent civilization’s collapse. One is that we continue the scientific-materialist project: Embrace geoengineering wholeheartedly and hope that an entirely unnatural synthetic world can save us. The other possibility – and the one that seems increasingly likely – is that a charismatic member of the mujahideen will arise to deliver a challenge that resonates with the materially poor and the spiritually wealthy of every nation of the world.

And when that happens, we will look back on the day we were first exposed to bin Laden’s environmental plea and know that it was the beginning of a new era of solidarity between those who have rejected consumerism and the five billion others who never had a choice.

Micah White is a contributing editor at Adbusters and an independent activist. He lives in Berkeley, CA and is currently writing a book about the future of activism. www.micahmwhite.com or www.junkthought.org

86 comments on the article “Environmental Jihad”

Displaying 1 - 10 of 86

Page 1 of 9

Ken Vallario

wow, that is frightening, it reminds of when i read the unibomber's manifesto, and although he was obviously disturbed, some of his hostilities were grounded in rational criticisms of industrialization.
it is such a shame that some aspect of the 21st century media machine seems to over-represent the extremes, and marginalize those of us who are capable of clear-headed, consistency..grounded in egalitarian ethical values and skeptical of violence.
my hope is that some leader, much like MLK or Gandhi will emerge from the arab world, and represent a unification of that part of the world, that will eventually force us to reconsider our corporate self-destruction.
non-violent mass resistance would be so easy right now, we have all the tools, we only lack a set of unifying principles.
this is a great article...it is provocative in a constructive way, it forces us to evaluate ourselves without accepting an agenda that goes against basic human decency...

Ken Vallario

wow, that is frightening, it reminds of when i read the unibomber's manifesto, and although he was obviously disturbed, some of his hostilities were grounded in rational criticisms of industrialization.
it is such a shame that some aspect of the 21st century media machine seems to over-represent the extremes, and marginalize those of us who are capable of clear-headed, consistency..grounded in egalitarian ethical values and skeptical of violence.
my hope is that some leader, much like MLK or Gandhi will emerge from the arab world, and represent a unification of that part of the world, that will eventually force us to reconsider our corporate self-destruction.
non-violent mass resistance would be so easy right now, we have all the tools, we only lack a set of unifying principles.
this is a great article...it is provocative in a constructive way, it forces us to evaluate ourselves without accepting an agenda that goes against basic human decency...

TU

I am there with you, but we must remember even though Ghandi unified Indians against the British, as soon as they gained independence, the Muslims wanted to seperate into their own cultural/political nation. I worry that any pro-active institutions inevitably weaken to the forces that thrive on the emotions and scales they aim to deter.

Like protesters going after cops for police brutality and then bringing it upon themselves. Subversion seems like the true activism. We must perhaps, be like the ninja?

TU

I am there with you, but we must remember even though Ghandi unified Indians against the British, as soon as they gained independence, the Muslims wanted to seperate into their own cultural/political nation. I worry that any pro-active institutions inevitably weaken to the forces that thrive on the emotions and scales they aim to deter.

Like protesters going after cops for police brutality and then bringing it upon themselves. Subversion seems like the true activism. We must perhaps, be like the ninja?

ken vallario

i completely agree with you...
i have often felt that the legacy of non-violent resistance needs a 21st century innovation, and i have yet to have a particularly strong insight on that...but your ninja metaphor strikes a chord with me, and reminds me of my own occasional playful utilizations of the jedi knight type of idea, a mystical form of chivalric code that lives within culture affecting very local change...such a movement would benefit i think from such people supporting one another, if only to ameliorate the affects of isolation..but of course, the unifying idea has yet to really emerge..
like you, i think that non-violent leaders do create a momentary artificial unity that does often slightly collapse in their absence...
good stuff TU

ken vallario

i completely agree with you...
i have often felt that the legacy of non-violent resistance needs a 21st century innovation, and i have yet to have a particularly strong insight on that...but your ninja metaphor strikes a chord with me, and reminds me of my own occasional playful utilizations of the jedi knight type of idea, a mystical form of chivalric code that lives within culture affecting very local change...such a movement would benefit i think from such people supporting one another, if only to ameliorate the affects of isolation..but of course, the unifying idea has yet to really emerge..
like you, i think that non-violent leaders do create a momentary artificial unity that does often slightly collapse in their absence...
good stuff TU

AnonymousCanadian

hear hear

but like the ronin with no master, without clear sense like this writer, the ninja is destined to fail

AnonymousCanadian

hear hear

but like the ronin with no master, without clear sense like this writer, the ninja is destined to fail

Anonymous

In reading this I was reminded of visiting a fundamentalist eco-community an hour away from where I live (Alberta's hub for in-the-field oil & gas exploitation: Grande Prairie), they've got a pretty wicked setup: passive & active solar, hand-crafted windmills, organic everything, bio-diesel, solid community norms (despite the patriarchal base...), etc. etc. Yet they've got a cloud of misdeeds hovering over their community that seems to scare any potential ally away.
I agree that non-violent, mass-resistance is possible, and yes, unifying principles are necessary. But why hasn't it happened? I don't think that unifying principles will can be established until we can acknowledge who the real enemies are, and just stand up for one another, despite the different tactics, points of view, fundamental moral differences or whatever it may be that separates "us and them". As we fight amongst ourselves, the world is still burning. I was invited to go live with the community (blonde & blue-eyed as I am), and I'm quite tempted to go give it a shot - there is a lot that a city-raised kid like me can learn. But that doesn't mean I can't disagree with their fundamental principles or retain my own.. We'll just see how they react to that once I'm out there, then I'll get back to you.

Anonymous

In reading this I was reminded of visiting a fundamentalist eco-community an hour away from where I live (Alberta's hub for in-the-field oil & gas exploitation: Grande Prairie), they've got a pretty wicked setup: passive & active solar, hand-crafted windmills, organic everything, bio-diesel, solid community norms (despite the patriarchal base...), etc. etc. Yet they've got a cloud of misdeeds hovering over their community that seems to scare any potential ally away.
I agree that non-violent, mass-resistance is possible, and yes, unifying principles are necessary. But why hasn't it happened? I don't think that unifying principles will can be established until we can acknowledge who the real enemies are, and just stand up for one another, despite the different tactics, points of view, fundamental moral differences or whatever it may be that separates "us and them". As we fight amongst ourselves, the world is still burning. I was invited to go live with the community (blonde & blue-eyed as I am), and I'm quite tempted to go give it a shot - there is a lot that a city-raised kid like me can learn. But that doesn't mean I can't disagree with their fundamental principles or retain my own.. We'll just see how they react to that once I'm out there, then I'll get back to you.

Pages

Add a new comment

Comments are closed.