i

CHANGE FOR THE IMPROBABLE: CHANGE FOR HUMAN AND NONHUMAN

SURVIVAL

by David Benfell

Residential Conference

Saybrook University

San Francisco, CA

ii

January 2013

iii

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION...................................................1

THE GOAL: A SUSTAINABLE SYSTEM OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION..........5

Anarchism: A Theoretical Beginning..................6

A Vegetarian Ecofeminist Society....................8

The Animal Liberation Movement.....................11

The Anarchist Experience...........................13

The Elites Strike Back.............................14

MEANS TO AN END...............................................16

Violence, Nonviolence, and Some Things In Between. .17

The Question of Property Damage...................18

Public Opinion....................................24

Of Multiple Means..................................28

Action Labeled as Terrorism........................31

CONCLUSION....................................................32

iv

References....................................................33

1

CHANGE FOR THE IMPROBABLE: CHANGE FOR HUMAN AND NONHUMAN

SURVIVAL

INTRODUCTION

Given threats to human survival, for which our system

of social organization is largely culpable, there can be

little question of the need for social change. Further, it

is apparent that the way we treat each other is connected to

how we treat the environment and how we treat animals, that

is, our choice of hierarchical social relations among humans

is inseparable from our hierarchical attitude towards nature

—both towards the ecology and towards animals—in that some

human animals, especially those who are wealthy, white, and

male, are privileged to exploit other human animals and

human animals accordingly presume a privilege to exploit

nonhuman animals and nature (Best & Nocella, 2004), utterly

without regard for sustainability and utterly without

2

regard for the categorical imperative not only that any

action should be taken only if it can be the rule for

everyone to take that action and that each person should be

an end in her- or himself, rather than a means to someone

else’s ends (Benfell, December 7, 2012, March 6, 2013, April

11, 2013; Johannesen, 2002).

It is apparent as well that the threats to human

survival are urgent—the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists’

Doomsday Clock stands at five minutes to midnight (Socolow,

et al, January 14, 2013). For many plants and nonhuman

animals, too, the situation appears dire; we are believed to

be in a sixth mass extinction event, apparently due in large

part to human activity (Center for Biological Diversity,

n.d.; Livestock Environment and Development Initiative,

2006; McDaniel & Borton, 2002). Then, too, it is apparent

that not only can the elite not lead humanity—and all the

species of the earth—to salvation, but that their very

existence and the system of social organization that

3

privileges them stands in contradiction to such a salvation

(Bodley, 2008), and their diminished empathy (Benderev,

August 10, 2013) inhibits their interest in such a salvation

relative to their interest in the status quo and the

preservation of their position and their privileges in the

short term (Hayes, 2012; Lenski, 1966; Mills, 1956/2000;

Seldes, 1948/2009). This is most notably seen in their

repeated failures to commit to binding reductions in

greenhouse gas emissions (Biron, March 28, 2013; Democracy

Now!, December 8, 2011a, December 8, 2011c, December 4,

2012; Gillis, December 24, 2011; Goodman, December 13, 2011;

Leahy, April 28, 2013; Levitz, December 11, 2011), even as

they, too, face a dire longer-term threat (Chestney,

September 27, 2012; Deutschewelle, May 8, 2012; Klare, April

21, 2013).

Humanity and all of life on earth therefore face

existential challenges. Viewed not only as a system of

social organization but as a means of accumulating and

4

preserving essential resources to be made available when

needed for future emergencies (Lenski, 1966), the status quo

is not only a manifest failure but a destroyer of those

resources. One challenge for humanity is to develop a new,

sustainable system of social organization. Another is to

displace those in positions of power and privilege whose

interests may lead them to violently resist necessary change

(Benfell, March 15, 2012, April 11, 2013, August 19, 2013).

Finally, because all of us, not just the elite, not just

those who control resources, but all of us must cooperate to

avert our own extinction, the capitalist and social values

of competition and domination that induce a functional

emotional underdevelopment (Kasser, Cohn, Kanner, & Ryan,

2007) must be abandoned in order to secure those of

cooperation and concern for all life (Fromm, 1956/2010;

Korten, 2008). It will not work to reduce the problem of

human survival to a profit-making opportunity for a few

(Clark & York, 2008; Democracy Now!, December 8, 2011b),

5

which would, in any market system, come at the expense of

others (Kent, 2011; Muller, March/April, 2013; Weber,

1978/2010).

This would seem to rule out an incremental, iterative

approach such as outlined in the 8-stage MAP model (Moyer,

2001), in which each cycle may take years to produce a small

advance—this may yield results that are much too little,

much too late. Further, the MAP model leaves elites—a major

component of the problem—in place. It would also seem to

render inapplicable many—but not all—of the theories Suzanne

Staggenborg (2011) describes, which appeal to an existing

political order. On the other hand, alone among the

movements she describes, feminists have taken action to

fulfill immediate needs. A caution must be attached,

however: The modern women’s movement can trace its roots at

least as far back as 1790 (Kerber, 2004) and still cannot

claim to have achieved a goal of equality. Rather, in some

ways, to the extent that equality has drawn nearer, it has

6

been through an increased oppression of working class men

(Faludi, 2006).

This essay will return to the question of what elites

may be prepared to do in order to preserve their position,

which they have achieved in a competitive context (which is

not to say that the competition has been fair or that it has

proceeded according to ideological notions of how it should

proceed). For now, it is sufficient to note that they are

unlikely to acquiesce to a model of social organization that

I believe essential, and that they appear determined to

preserve a distinction between themselves and everyone else

(Benfell, March 15, 2012, April 11, 2013; Hayes, 2012;

Kasser, Cohn, Kanner, & Ryan, 2007; Lenski, 1966; Mills,

1956/2000; Shah, May 14, 2003).

Any struggle for particular rights must be accompanied by the need to develop a larger conversation about society and what has to be doneto dismantle its underlying structures of inequality of wealth and power so as to develop broader social movements built on a more organized

7

and totalizing sense of politics and political change. At the same time, given the dire circumstances the world currently finds itself in,the late Tony Judt was at least partly right in arguing that in this day and age one responsible task of the intellectual may not be to imagine a better world in such narrow terms but to prevent the existing one from getting any worse. Of course, Judt spoke from a cautious pessimism that haunted him just before his death, but I am sure he would view that challenge as the most elementaltask of the public intellectual and that it would represent just the beginning in a more sustained collective effort to move beyond pessimism to hopeas part of a broader effort to restructure the entirety of a corrupt and antidemocratic society. (Giroux, September 10, 2013)

This essay envisions and sets out some thinking for a

social change movement to achieve a radically egalitarian

society. Such a movement differs from traditional social

change movements (to the extent there are such things) both

in that it seeks not to persuade elites but rather to

dislodge them, and in that it asserts a foundational value

of egalitarianism, not only among humans but among human and

nonhuman animals and the environment which we all share.

This is extremely problematic in that such a social change

8

will likely take many generations, if not centuries or even

millennia, to achieve, time that may not be available. It is

perhaps even more problematic in that beyond these two key

points, I do not offer a prescription for what such a

society will look like, thus impairing my ability to

persuade those convinced of a need to see a plan in advance.

Nor do I even offer a convincing plan for how to achieve

this society; rather, this essay seeks to examine known

possibilities in a radical response to a dire threat.

THE GOAL: A SUSTAINABLE SYSTEM OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

Somewhat simplistically, humans have two known models

of social organization. The first is indigenous and somewhat

romanticized, living in low-density, small, more egalitarian

hunting and gathering societies that grow slowly if at all,

largely in harmony with the earth, and in which nearly all

participate in the gathering of food. The total world

population in this model might have leveled out at an

9

ecological carrying capacity of 200 million. The second,

which has largely supplanted and exiled the first, entails

an ever more rapidly growing society, living in increasingly

high-density, large, labor-specialized, coercively

hierarchical, and unsustainable societies that genocidally

compete with surrounding societies to obtain needed

territories (and their resources). In this model, wilderness

is conceived of as evil and land which has not been

developed to maximize short term economic value is viewed as

empty and wasted. Natural ecosystems are to be conquered and

exploited (Bodley, 2008; Burroughs, 2008; Oelschlaeger,

1991; Outwater, 1996; Union of Concerned Scientists, August,

2000). Jared Diamond (1999) views the latter system as

inevitable for societies located in geographical conditions

that enable it.

In these models, the role of war is in dispute. There

is an absence of evidence for systematic, organized violence

in the Paleolithic and there are good reasons for suspecting

10

that war was at least considerably more common beginning in

horticultural societies (Burroughs, 2008; Lenski, 1966;

Oelschlaeger, 1991), but Barbara Ehrenreich (1997) theorizes

that as megafauna declined, hunting men sought alternative

expressions of violence. Since the Neolithic, it is apparent

that a principal preoccupation for elites is an often

violent competition—war—among themselves to determine who

will control which lands and the resources and peoples that

exist on those lands (Benfell, March 15, 2012). It is less

clear that war is a natural condition for humanity as a

whole (Jacobson, March 18, 2012) and Ehrenreich (1997) also

acknowledges a considerable difficulty in persuading men to

kill.

Anarchism: A Theoretical Beginning

Anarchism tends to be defined in relation to the state,

that is, in opposition to even the existence of rulers. As

Chris Rohmann (1999) puts it, “[a]narchists . . . see

11

authoritarian government as the tool of the powerful,

propertied classes and the enemy of a just social order” (p.

17). Phrasing it in this way, however, suggests what many

anarchists would argue to be an incomplete analysis, that

is, one that fails to fully attend to economic authority as

being at least as inimical to the autonomy of the person as

political authority. The qualifier, fully, in that last

sentence is important: “Contemporary libertarian

writers . . . describe themselves as 'anarchocapitalists'

and base their hostility to the state on the inviolability

of each individual's ownership of himself and his property”

(Labedz & Ryan, 1999, p. 30).

It is the notion of property itself that is

problematic: “Historically, anarchists have been hostile to

private property as ordinarily understood” (Labedz & Ryan,

1999, p. 30). Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s (1840/2007) critique

of property saw those who claimed it earlier as depriving

those who come or are born later of the means to provide for

12

the necessities of life—more famously, as theft, since all

humans, he believed have the right to be able to provide for

themselves. More brutally, and in the modern day, the

message of private property for those who are homeless, is

that they have no legal place to be, and therefore no right

to live. Property is inherently a form of authority,

realized in a right to control who may use or enjoy what one

claims as property. Accordingly, I view ‘anarchocapitalism’

as self-contradictory.

Anarchism, in addition, assumes a cooperative society

(Labedz & Ryan; Rohmann, 1999). Further, following from the

analysis of property, it follows that such societies

collectivize much property, such formerly being known as the

Commons.

Doubt is sometimes expressed that humans are capable of

being cooperative in the way that anarchists necessarily

assume (Rohmann, 1999) and I am inclined to agree that after

5,000 to 10,000 years of indoctrination in what Bodley

13

(2008) calls “commercial” society, that this may indeed be a

problem. Peter Kropotkin’s (1902/2006) classic, Mutual Aid,

citing even Charles Darwin himself, argues at length that

species that cooperate are better prepared for survival than

those that do not and describes a long history and

prehistory of cooperative humans. This necessarily assumes a

certain degree of altruism, and while there may be some

quibbling about just how altruistic humans naturally are, it

is clear that some altruism in human relations, perhaps

expressed most strongly toward blood relations, less

strongly to friends, and least strongly of all to strangers,

is essential to human societies and can be seen to exist

(Lenski, 1966; Kitcher, 2011).

To the extent that this anarchist view of cooperative,

somewhat altruistic humanity is accurate, it would be the

competitive, individualistic traits manifest in “commercial

society” that are the deviation. Bodley (2008) accordingly

argues that humans existed for hundreds of thousands of

14

years in just such relatively egalitarian, cooperative

societies and that “commercial” society has been an

aberration of the last 6,000 years. We will return to this

comparison.

A Vegetarian Ecofeminist Society

In our view from the shore, we see animal abuse asjust one symptom of a much larger disease complex that also brings us racism, sexism, militarism, environmental destruction, alcoholism, drug abuse,domestic violence, male domination and a downrightbad attitude toward our fellow creation, just to name a few. (Western Wildlife Unit, 2004, p. 189)

If Philip Kitcher’s (2011) Ethical Project entails an

expanding class of moral persons, that is, of beings

entitled to autonomy in an evolutionarily developing ethics,

vegetarian ecofeminists, such as Greta Gaard (2002, 2011),

Patricia Denys (2011), and Karen Warren and Duane Cady

(1994), explicitly connect various forms of oppression among

human animals, such as those of class, race, and gender, to

those of the environment and of nonhuman animals, and they

15

expand the class of moral persons to include nonhuman

animals. Though vegetarian ecofeminist scholars may rarely

refer to the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), and advocates

for animal liberation—some of whom are scholars themselves—

may rarely invoke the label of vegetarian ecofeminism, the

intellectual similarity is too obvious to ignore. As Steven

Best and Anthony J. Nocella II (2004) put it,

Like racism or sexism, speciesism creates a false dualistic division between one group and another in order to arrange the differences hierarchicallyand justify the domination of the "superior" over the "inferior." Just as society has discerned thatit is prejudiced, illogical, and unacceptable for whites to devalue people of color and for men to diminish women, so it is beginning to learn how utterly arbitrary and irrational it is for human animals to position themselves over nonhuman animals because of species differences. Among animals who are all sentient subjects of a life, these differences —humanity's claim to be the solebearer of reason and language—are no more ethically relevant than differences of gender or skin color, yet in the unevolved psychology of thehuman primate they have decisive bearing. (Best & Nocella, 2004, p. 13)

16

The dualism that Best and Nocella (2004) refer to

unmistakably echoes the dualism—or, as Elizabeth Minnich

(2005), arguing that ‘dualism’ suggests a parity, prefers to

call it, hierarchically invidious monism—critiqued by

numerous feminists and other critical theorists (Code, 1991;

Collins, 1990/2010; Meyer, 2008; West, 1990/2010).

Profoundly, it echoes the hierarchically invidious monism of

colonizer and colonized, connecting classic conceptions of

empire with multiple forms of oppression, including that of

the coercive hierarchy of law and so-called “justice” that

must be recognized as a problem in and of itself. It invites

a remembering of the relationship so often found among

indigenous peoples that connects them to their ancestral

lands (Battiste, 2008; Cannella & Manuelito, 2008; Fine,

Tuck, & Zeller-Berkman, 2008; Giroux & Giroux, 2008; Grande,

2008; Jaramillo & McLaren, 2008; Kincheloe & Steinberg,

2008; Ladson-Billings & Donnor, 2008; McCaslin & Breton,

2008; Said, 1994; Saavedra & Nymark, 2008; Stonebanks, 2008;

17

Swadener & Mutua, 2008), and implicates an often forgotten

relationship between all humans and the earth.

For me, this fundamental relationship places vegetarian

ecofeminism and, hence, animal liberation scholarship

squarely in the critical tradition and as a logical

extension of anarchism (Gordon, 2008; jones, 2004; see also

the analysis in Schnurer, 2004), with differences appearing

more as developmental than as categorically exclusionary.

Vegetarian ecofeminism and animal liberation scholarship

both connect the violence of the slaughterhouse, the fur

trade, vivisection, dairy industry, and environmental

destruction with the violence of war and the structural and

physical violence of class, race, and gender oppressions

(Adams, 1991; Bernstein, 2004; Cole & Morgan, 2011; Denys,

2011; Gaard, 2002; Gillespie, 2011; Glasser, 2011; Schnurer,

2004; Singer & Dawn, July 25, 2004). As humans, our survival

depends upon an abandonment of violence. In both vegetarian

ecofeminist and animal liberation thinking, this does not

18

mean merely abandoning some forms of violence, but rather

that we must abandon them all.

The notion that animal rights activists are somehow anti-human is untrue. Rather, we choose tobe activists for other species because billions ofinnocent animals are murdered each year, without even a twinge of guilt. We are vegans because we realize that violence and hatred must be destroyedat the root, in our everyday habits of consumption. We embrace Alice Walker’s words of wisdom: “The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites or women for men.” (Yourofsky, 2004, p. 128)

The society that incorporates total nonviolence is the

society best equipped to face the massive challenges that

humanity now faces. That leaves a lot open in terms of

organization—intentionally. To do otherwise is to adopt a

prescriptive attitude, and thus to adopt a hierarchical

stance. It is better for us to come together as equals and

ask, what shall we do now (Gordon, 2008)?

19

The Animal Liberation Movement

A possible difference between vegetarian ecofeminism

and animal liberation scholarship, however, is that animal

liberation scholarship offers not merely a critique of our

present system of social organization but also more

explicitly a bridge to activism, exploring not only

vegetarian ecofeminism but the ethics of action. Action may

be divided into two categories. The first, indirect action,

by its nature, gains more attention and may therefore seem

more familiar. It consists of actions that “aim[] for future

change through more circuitous routes [than direct action],

such as education, legislation, and symbolic demonstrations

of opinion.” The second, direct action, includes “activist

tactics that, like boycotts and sabotage, are intended to

have an immediate impact on a problem or its causes” (jones,

2004, p. 137). The role of each within the animal liberation

20

movement—or any movement—is a topic to which we will return

at length.

In both direct and indirect action, the animal

liberation movement exists within a constellation of

movements that have arisen or become prominent in response

to the advance of neoliberal ideology, manifest in economic

globalization and the increasing power of multinational

corporations. Involved groups that specialize in direct

action include the Animal Liberation Front, Sea Shepherd,

and Earth First! (Gordon, 2008; McCurry, January 9, 2012;

MercoPress, December 19, 2012; Moghadam, 2013). Some other

movements respond to neoliberalism and economic

globalization, which has “taken away much of the developing

countries’ sovereignty, and their ability to make decisions

themselves in key areas that affect their citizens’ well-

being” (Stiglitz, 2007, p. 9) and undermined wages,

employment security, and environmental protection in both

the developed and developing worlds, leading to an increase

21

in social inequality (Bernanke, February 6, 2007; Bullard,

Mohai, Saha, & Wright, March, 2007; Hatton, January 26,

2013; Karabell, May 4, 2012; Moghadam, 2013; Muller,

March/April, 2013; Oskamp, 2000; Ritholtz, July 9, 2013;

Stiglitz, 2007; Union of Concerned Scientists, August, 2000;

Weaver, 2009; Zakaria, January/February, 2013). The Trans-

Pacific Partnership, now being negotiated in secret, is

testament to the determination of elites to pursue these

irresponsible neoliberal policies despite these movements

and despite a well-established record of harm for workers

and the environment. Reportedly, the agreement will

undermine the sovereignty even of developed countries by

enabling multinational corporations to challenge regulations

that they believe limit their profits in courts run by

corporate lawyers. By advancing so-called “free trade”

further, the agreement is expected to further undermine

workers’ conditions and environmental and safety and health

regulations. Concern has also been expressed that its

22

provisions may further enhance intellectual property

“rights” at the expense of consumers (Biron, March 5, 2013;

Bybee, September 12, 2012, February 12, 2013; Carter, June

13, 2012; DuRand, April 12, 2013; Gallagher, March 6, 2013;

Hamburger, Leonnig, & Goldfarb, July 9, 2012; Marshall,

November 25, 2012; Paley, April 17, 2013; Smith, June 19,

2013; Stamoulis, April 12, 2013; Sutton, September 27, 2012;

Wallach, June 27, 2012, November 21, 2012).

The Anarchist Experience

Historically, anarchists—or at least near cousins to

anarchists—have occasionally pointed to some societies or

organizations that address some problems with what John

Bodley (2008) labels as “commercial” society, Riane Eisler

(1995) labels as “dominator” society, and Philip Slater

(2009) calls “control” culture (Fromm, 1956/2010; Kropotkin,

1898/1997, 1902/2006). But Uri Gordon (2008) limits his

examples to activist groupings, which often do not adopt the

23

anarchist appellation and which may be ephemeral; he offers

no pretense that the theories he describes in their

application might scale to larger, more stable societies.

Indeed, some such groupings—existing in and combatting the

present paradigm—believe they depend upon a degree of

anonymity (Animal Liberation Front, 2004b; Best & Nocella,

2004), hardly consistent with an image of settled society.

Still, there are examples from relatively recent times,

extending into the present. The mayor of one small

Andalusian town (in Spain) seems to have adopted at least

some anarchist principles in collectivizing land and

guaranteeing employment for all—in a country where the

unemployment rate was 27 percent (Fotheringham, May 12,

2013). Others, including Noam Chomsky (1976/2005), Erich

Fromm (1956/2010), who labels it communitarian socialism,

and Emma Goldman (1972/1998) seem to believe that anarcho-

syndicalism, which has met with some success in Spain since

before the Spanish Civil War, offers a way forward. The

24

Mondragon Corporation (n.d.), based in Spain but now

operating internationally, claims over 85,000 employees and

functions as a cooperative of cooperatives, largely

implementing anarcho-syndicalist ideas.

As impressive as, for example, the Mondragon

Corporation appears to be, however, it remains unclear if

its model can continue to scale upwards, from the several

tens of thousands the organization now employs to the

several billion that now occupy our planet, and it remains

to be seen what will happen if power elites, who combined

forces even when viciously opposed to each other, to crush

anarchism in the Spanish Civil War (Chomsky, 1969/2005;

Goldman, 1972/1998), decide that any of these examples pose

a threat to their position.

The Elites Strike Back

The case of the Spanish Civil War in 1936-1937 is

instructive. Anarchists had aligned with—indeed were even

25

participating in the government of—increasingly Communist-

led Republican forces which were engaged in combat with

Fascists. Anarchists controlled large segments of the

country. But in the end, the Communists turned against the

Anarchists and one might suspect that the power elites the

world over cared less whether Fascists or Communists were in

power in Spain than in whether an anarchist system of social

organization might deprive the country of any power elites

at all (Chomsky, 1969/2005; Goldman, 1972/1998).

It is in this light, and in light of a centuries-long

struggle by royals and nobility to suppress relatively

egalitarian and cooperative towns and guilds of the medieval

era (Kropotkin, 1898/1997, 1902/2006) that I view with some

alarm the militarization of the police in the United States,

a militarization that has become the standard response to

anti-capitalist and anti-globalization protests (Balko, July

7, 2013; Becker & Schulz, December 21, 2011; Democracy Now!,

February 15, 2013; Elliott, December 24, 2011; Morey, May

26

14, 2013; Schneier, August 13, 2013; Wolf, December 21,

2012). For if it is indeed the case that power elites are

unwilling to tolerate an anarchist society, then it follows

that these militarized forces will be deployed against such

societies.

This development coincides with the rhetorical useof the word "war." To the police, civilians are citizens to protect. To the military, we are a population to be subdued. Wars can temporarily override the Constitution. When the Justice Department walks into Congress with requests for money and new laws to fight a war, it is going to get a different response than if it came in with astory about fighting crime. Maybe the most chilling quotation in the book is from William French Smith, President Reagan's first attorney general: "The Justice Department is not a domesticagency. It is the internal arm of national defense." Today we see that attitude in the war onterror. Because it's a war, we can arrest and imprison Americans indefinitely without charges. We can eavesdrop on the communications of all Americans without probable cause. We can assassinate American citizens without due process.We can have secret courts issuing secret rulings about secret laws. The militarization of the police is just one aspect of an increasing militarization of government. (Schneier, August 13, 2013)

27

Let’s face it—many of us are afraid. Afraid of being wrong. Afraid of being alone. Afraid of spending years in prison. Afraid of being shot or incinerated, like the 60 adults and 24 children inWaco, Texas at the bloody hands of the US government. Fear is our enemy’s greatest weapon, because, unlike having to place a police officer in every home, it is already there, waiting to be unleashed with carefully orchestrated images on corporate-controlled TV and newspapers. Prison cells with their iron doors slamming shut, police beatings by baton-wielding Nazis, “terrorists” being led away in orange suits and chains, images that keep our fear at being different alive and strong. (Western Wildlife Unit, 2004, p. 190)

MEANS TO AN END

At the outset, I should caution here that I will be

looking further into theories of social change movements in

the coming months. In its entirety, while this essay is a

new work, it should be taken as an interim statement written

at the beginning of a renewed exploration of this topic and

as a review of what I have previously learned. While I have

read some of the books and some of the other materials that

have been suggested for this exploration, I have conducted

28

very little in the way of a new literature search in the

preparation of this essay.

Accordingly, I rely heavily on the example of the

Animal Liberation Front (ALF) as a radical activist movement

for social change, for I have materials relevant to this

movement at hand. While, as Kim Stallwood (2004) sees

herself, I see myself as a poor candidate for clandestine

work, as a vegan, as an anarchist, and as one who argues for

a radically egalitarian society, the ALF—warts and all—has

attracted my attention, in large part because I have an

interest in how vegans and animal rights activists present

themselves to the world. Some of what appears here is simply

the consequence of that attention.

However, I do not employ the example of People for the

Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). I and others have

criticized this organization for its exploitation especially

of women’s bodies and for its hypocritical and appalling

euthanasia practices, in which a vast majority of adoptable

29

animals which come into its care are put to sleep. Apart

from advocacy of veganism, PETA offers nothing in the way of

social change that I advocate (Benfell, March 30, 2009;

Glasser, 2011; Marsh, May 24, 2013; Winerip, July 6, 2013;

Winograd, April 2, 2013).

Violence, Nonviolence, and Some Things In Between

Even without the urgency of climate change, nuclear

materials, and bioengineering (Socolow, et al, January 14,

2013), some activists view at least some issues of justice

in terms of violence waged by the powerful against the

powerless and, having become frustrated with the limited

effectiveness of more peaceful means, see nonviolence as

complicity with that violence. They insist on immediate

direct action and reject any appeals to the contrary (Best,

2004; Best & Nocella, 2004; Friedrich, 2004; Molland, 2004;

Regan, 2004; Stallwood, 2004).

30

An intense sense of urgency informs their [Animal Liberation Front] actions. They recognize a profound crisis in the human relation with the natural world, such that the time has long passed for moderation, delay, and compromise. They can nolonger fiddle while the earth burns and animal bodies pile up by the billions; they are compelledto take immediate and decisive action. (Best & Nocella, 2004, p. 11)

Driven by an abhorrence of all abuse and exploitation of the weak and innocent, the activists break unjust laws and risk their freedomin pursuit of a rightful cause—animal liberation—in much the same way that campaigners in past struggles fought for the abolition of slavery and the emancipation of women. It used to be a “crime”to help a slave escape from bondage. It was—indeed, still is!—a “crime” to torch empty buildings in order to commit economic sabotage. How many thinking people would now condemn the abolitionists and Suffragettes for taking such extra-parliamentary actions? (Webb, 2004, p. 75)

Those who believe that the purposes of animal liberationists are unjust would appear to inherit the burden of proof. After all, there is little dissension concerning the liberation of slaves, Indians, and Afghans. The objective of freeing a group of individuals from a repressive regime so that they can live autonomous lives hardly seems in need of vindication. Thus, the anti-liberationist bears the onus of showing why the animal liberation movement is relevantly different

31

from these other lauded campaigns. (Bernstein, 2004, p. 95)

The Question of Property Damage.

Violence, however, at least outside that waged by the

State or among States, is generally not a preferred way, at

least among humans, to win friends and influence enemies.

Direct action may therefore be calibrated such that violence

—and some deny that violence is even an applicable term—may

only occur against property, not against human or nonhuman

animals (Animal Liberation Front, 2004a, 2004b; Best &

Nocella, 2004; Webb, 2004). Even this is controversial and

some allege that the line between property destruction and

endangerment of life is increasingly being breached. Writing

of Animal Liberation Front (ALF) direct actions, Kim

Stallwood (2004) insists on four core values, including one

that appears entirely to preclude property damage. However,

she writes,

32

For example, as in acts of open rescue, prying open and permanently damaging a lock or padlock isacceptable when the intent is to gain access to documents and evidence of animal cruelty and suffering. As in the practice with open rescues, areplacement lock is left at the site of the damaged lock. Also, in certain circumstances, carefully selected property damage that renders inoperable equipment that is directly used to cause suffering and pain to animals is compatible with the four core values. This also includes similar minimal property damage to free animals from oppression. As with leaving a replacement lock, some form of compensation to the minimal damage caused should be made, which serves as a symbolic and actual reparation.

Clearly, what is incompatible with the four core values of animal advocacy is gratuitous violence, including graffiti, wanton property destruction or vandalism, and home demonstrations (Stallwood, 2004, p. 89)

Judging from stories to be found on the North American

Animal Liberation Press Office (n.d.), there is little if

any evidence available that Stallwood’s (2004) constraints

have gained substantial traction among animal

liberationists. Rather, the impetus to relieve suffering and

33

distress among nonhuman animals now often outweighs any long

term goals the ALF may have as a social movement.

Others may argue that property destruction is still

violence. Tom Regan (2004) phrases it this way:

Ask any member of the general public whether firebombing an empty synagogue involves violence. Ask any lawyer whether arson is a violent crime (whether or not anyone is hurt). The response is overwhelmingly likely to be, “Am I missing something? Of course these acts are violent.” The plain fact is, our language is not tortured or stretched when we speak of the “violent destruction of property.” The plain fact is, we donot need to hurt someone in order to do violence to some thing. (Regan, 2004, pp. 232-234)

From my limited reading of ethicists’ arguments, this

argument might seem insufficiently rigorous. Some might

consider it a sort of populist appeal, substituting a

dubious “common sense” for careful philosophical reasoning.

I would argue, however, that animal rights activism

straddles a curious divide between public opinion and

scholarly ethical reasoning. If it settles for dry

34

philosophical arguments in peer-reviewed journals, it

abandons the possibility of any popular appeal and limits

its claim to activism. If it settles for, say, Saul

Alinsky’s (1971/1989) Rules for Radicals—Alinsky cites omissions

in the U.S. Declaration of Independence that make it a one-

sided document to make his point—it abandons any

intellectual integrity whatsoever, simplifying and omitting

truths for popular consumption. The space in between those

poles may not always be comfortable, but may sometimes be

appropriate.

Steven Best and Anthony Nocella II (2004) reject

Regan’s argument, asserting that property cannot suffer in

the way that animals and humans do. If Best and Nocella

assume that all pain—or perhaps the only pain that counts—is

physical in origin, their argument is weak. Any animal,

human or not, may suffer, for example, if its home, whether

labeled as property or not, is damaged; or if its food,

again whether labeled as property or not, is stolen; or if

35

it is deprived of any of the material conditions necessary

for its survival, still quite regardless of whether these

conditions assume the socially constructed label of

property. The purpose of property damage, while possibly

targeting objects that may be luxurious beyond the level of

necessity, is nonetheless to cause suffering of this kind,

in an attempt 1) to dissuade animal abusers and 2) to

persuade potential animal abusers to desist (Schnurer,

2004).

Regan (2004) further argues that a vast majority of

property damage in the name of animal liberation—I might

suggest the recent example of a garden hose turned to flood

the home of a Wisconsin fur auction executive (Animal

Liberation Front, August 31, 2013)—does not serve an

immediate purpose of liberating animals. He then argues that

nonviolent alternatives have not been exhausted, that the

act of burning down a laboratory after the animals have been

liberated exceeds the violence that is necessary. The first

36

of these arguments seems reasonable enough. The second,

however, seemingly fails to adequately consider 1) that the

lab, if preserved, may continue to be used as a facility for

the abuse of animals—the latter being considered entirely

expendable—and 2) anywhere from decades to millenia of

apparently failed effort that led to the direct action

approach in the first place. Noel Molland (2004) dates a

history of the movement to Pythagoras in 200 BCE, who

evidently recommended vegetarianism and compassion for

animals. Best and Nocella (2004) similarly cite the example

St. Francis of Assisi. More directly, Best and Nocella point

to a contemporary movement that began in the 1970s but which

some activists perceived by the late 1970s and 1980s to have

failed to have brought about the substantial change needed.

Regan (2004) then proceeds to an argument on media

effects. Here he relies on what appears to be “common

sense,” that the media tells a story of “law-abiding” animal

37

abusers in conflict with “beady-eyed flamethrowers” (p.

235). As we shall see, the story is not quite so simple.

Freeman Wicklund (2004) offers a somewhat stronger

version of the argument against property destruction in

arguing that the means produce the ends, that in order to

produce a society in which animals rights are respected,

“the majority of people . . . [must] have voluntarily adopted

an animal rights philosophy” (p. 238). Anarchists might

recognize the argument: In broad outlines, it resembles the

one marshaled by Michael Bakunin against Karl Marx, that the

State, which lives by coercion (Weber, 1946/2010), cannot

produce a cooperative society (Morris, 1993). Benedict

Anderson (2006) explicates the problem, pointing out the

multiple ways—especially in a modern society—in which

successful revolutionaries

inherit the wiring of the old state: sometimes functionaries and informers, but always files, dossiers, archives, laws, financial records, censuses, maps, treaties, correspondence,

38

memoranda, and so on. Like the complex electrical system in any large mansion when the owner has fled, the state awaits the new owner's hand at theswitch to be very much its old brilliant self again. (Anderson, 2006, p. 160)

Anderson (2006) points to other factors as well—

traditions and identities among them—that raise the question

for any violent revolution: Having achieved their ends by

force, how are revolutionaries to avoid replacing one set of

thugs with another? Given the prevailing paradigm of the

State, of commercial society, and of functionalism (or of

functionalist conservatism) that Weber (1946/2010), Bodley

(2008), and Lenski (1966) respectively point to, each in

their own way but ultimately at a single concept, one might

expect a difficult search for a successful example.

Paired with that question, however, is a corollary one:

How can a revolution displace elites who will call upon the

full capacity for violence of the State in order to preserve

their positions? Ginsberg (August 12, 2013) somewhat

brutally puts it this way:

39

People say that problems cannot be solved by the use of force, that violence, as the saying goes, is not the answer. That adage appeals to our moralsensibilities. But whether or not violence is the answer depends on the question being asked. For better or worse, violence usually provides the most definitive answers to three major questions of political life: statehood, territoriality, and power. Violent struggle—war, revolution, terrorism—more than any other immediate factor, determines what nations will exist and their relative power, what territories they occupy, and which groups will exercise power within them. (Ginsberg, August12, 2013)

Ginsberg (August 12, 2013) offers a single

counterexample, which he considers “one of the rare

exceptions,” in the “peaceful divorce of Slovakia and the

Czech Republic,” but each of those states retain an elite

class of thugs—civilized perhaps, but claiming a monopoly on

the use of violence on their territory and thus conforming

to Weber’s (1946/2010) definition of the State. This example

thus fails to counter the example of the Spanish Civil War,

in which elites seemingly were willing even to sacrifice

40

their own position to ensure that an order in which there

were at least some elites was preserved.

Notably, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), while

promising never to harm “innocent life,” has foresworn

nonviolence, arguing “that a revolution is necessary in the

United States of America to rid the world of one of the

greatest terrorist organizations in planetary history, the

US government” (quoted in Best, 2004, p. 305).

Anarchists and, by extension, animal liberation

activists should remember that any violence is a form of

coercion. Violence, except in defense, except as an act of

resistance to domination, is an act of domination and is

therefore inherently authoritarian and therefore cannot be

anarchist action. And so it is incumbent upon activists to

be very certain that their violent actions are clearly acts

of defense, either of themselves or of other innocents.

41

Public Opinion.

Far from alienating our likely allies, I have found that ALF activities speak to people, regardless of their belief in animal rights. They provide an opportunity to discuss the gravity of the situation, the fact that animals suffer and die like we do, the fact that they are not less important than we are, the fact that when animals are liberated, there is cause for celebration, notshame. People grasp these concepts, even if they don’t agree. (Friedrich, 2004, p. 257)

That animal liberationists may weigh the urgency of

relieving animal suffering in the here and now as justifying

direct actions to free them is not to say that these

activists do not care about influencing the public. Maxwell

Schnurer (2004), using the example of a butcher learning of

an ALF action against a laboratory where vivisection is

performed, considers it unlikely that the butcher will be

moved. Rather, “the meaning of the ALF is in the argument

presented to those who are listening: that some humans are

willing to sacrifice everything for animals” (Schnurer,

2004, p. 113), which is to suggest that these activists, in

42

some sense, view their own struggles as heroic and hope that

some other humans will recognize their actions accordingly.

While omnivorous humans might not initially be inclined to

view such activists as heroes, Schnurer goes on to argue

“that social movements are effective precisely at this

moment when they alter the very fabric of meaning that

people cling to,” that is, when inadequately examined

meanings are challenged. Further, he writes that “the ALF

makes a pointed rebuttal to the ideas of speciesism, and

their actions represent a vigorous rejoinder to those whose

system of meaning allows them to commit evil,” by

“document[ing] a world [of atrocities against animals]

hidden from view, . . . [by] communicat[ing] a direct sense

of warning [that they must be aware of the stakes of the

issue] to all who participate in animal oppression . . .

[and] to all who might encounter, or consider taking part

in, animal oppression” (p. 114).

43

A similar shift in meaning occurs when, for example,

Martin Luther King, Jr.,

expected them [the state and county political leadership at Selma, Alabama] to respond with violence and, in doing so, imprint themselves on the collective consciousness of a national television audience as the brutal oppressors of heroic and defenseless crusaders for freedom and democracy. With network cameras rolling, Alabama state troopers viciously attacked marchers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, seriously injuring many of them in what the news media called "Bloody Sunday." (Ginsburg, August 12, 2013)

Benjamin Ginsburg (August 12, 2013) views so-called

nonviolence as an intentional provocation. In his view,

nonviolence as a tactic of social movements is anything but

nonviolent. It has been repeatedly clear that violence in

service to the status quo is often counterproductive.

Gerhard Lenski (1966) accordingly expected elites to employ

propaganda in order to establish legitimacy, so as to

minimize the need for violence, just such as seen in Selma,

Alabama, in March 1965 (Ginsburg), in the violence of the

44

labor struggles (Zinn, 2005), in the counterculture

movements of the 1960s and early 1970s (Aptheker, 2006), and

against the Occupy movement (Harris, October 22, 2011; Mann,

October 23, 2011; Slosson, May 2, 2012; Solnit, November 22,

2011). Yet police forces are becoming more—not less—

militarized, and are escalating their response to uprisings

accordingly (Balko, July 7, 2013). In this light, King seems

hardly even to have been gambling in anticipating the

brutality of “Bloody Sunday” in Selma, Alabama (Ginsburg,

August 12, 2013). But he and other so-called nonviolent

activists are also relying on a falsely dichotomous reaction

in the wider public, casting the police as perpetrators and

the protesters who provoked them as innocent. Even if left

implicit, Ginsburg’s point seems unmistakable: While few

might deny that police are principally culpable for

brutality against peaceful demonstrations, a tactical

reliance on such violence constitutes its own culpability—

that the police may be foolish and even criminal to don the

45

affect and the effect of imperial storm troopers does not

excuse activists for the manipulation that produces their

response.

Other approaches that seek public appeal are those of

the “open rescue” and undercover video. Maxwell Schnurer

(2004) points to a series of tactics in mainstream discourse

about animals that 1) objectify animals as cuts of meat to

be consumed, just as some parts of women’s bodies are

isolated and eroticized, and 2) distance and obscure

suffering animals from the humans who consume them. Karen

Davis (2004) argues that even when videotaped, ALF actions

to rescue abused animals retain anonymity and this distance:

All rescues are shot at a long-distance angle. Therescuers look and act like remote, stylized figures rather than flesh-and-blood people, and the animals, including birds and fish, are so far away that it is difficult to be sure what kinds ofbirds, for example, are being taken out of the cages. (Davis, 2004, pp. 206-207)

46

In sharp contrast, open rescues show both rescuers and

rescued as individuals, with faces and eyes (Davis, 2004).

Undercover investigations, now banned in several states

(Oppel, April 6, 2013), have produced videos documenting

animal cruelty, that are alleged “to have been doctored or

manipulated” (Zahniser, August 22, 2012), and that have

prodded legislators, regulators, and prosecutors to take

action (Oppel; Zahniser).

Open rescuers also critique anonymous rescuers’ actions

as insufficient:

On accepting the Animal Rights Hall of Fame award at the 2003 animal rights conference in Los Angeles, Rod Coronado said that when you save 50 dogs from a laboratory, saving their lives is all that matters. But one might note that people will make money from catching or breeding 50 dogs who will replace those saved. What do we say to the replacements—“Sorry, the lives of those we rescuedmattered more than yours”? (Dawn, 2004)

The argument, as Karen Dawn (2004) puts it, is that “if

an action gets ‘good’ press, it can influence public opinion

47

and therefore save far more animals in the long run” by

influencing policy (p. 215). Policy has been influenced. In

California, for example, while enforcement may be uneven and

some bans continue to be challenged, a proposition

increasing chicken cage size and laws banning foie gras and

shark fins have passed (Egelko, April 27, 2013; Human

Society of the United States, September 29, 2004; Institute

of Governmental Studies, 2012; Onishi, August 12, 2012).

These are, arguably, modest and incremental achievements.

However, one would assume that each is likely of greater

benefit than any single direct action that lacks a public

relations benefit.

Still, ALF actions do not always play out in the media

as one might expect. Dawn (2004) notes that coverage of an

attack on a San Francisco foie gras chef, while garnering

sympathy for the chef, nonetheless raised the issue of

cruelty of force feeding ducks and geese. She quotes several

letters to the editor including one which read:

48

The animal-rights groups are wrong to vandalize orthreaten chefs but, unfortunately, it seems to have worked—front page of The Chronicle. It is too bad that the simple truth about factory farms isn’t enough to get a front-page story. . . . (Unknown, quoted in Dawn, 2004, p. 218)

Writing of a dubious mink farm release—many of the mink

were re-captured, shot by neighbors, or run over—Dawn (2004)

then questions “whether there is really such a thing as

negative press on animal rights issues at this stage of our

movement” and sees “the huge amount of coverage” as

signifying a continued vitality to the anti-fur movement

(Dawn, 2004, p. 221).

Of Multiple Means

There are those who can see the horrors of vivisection and fur farming, the oil-covered shorelines and the clearcut mountainsides, and plod forward through the much of lobbying, petitioning, letter writing, politicking and protesting. This ’zine is not for them. This ’zineis for every young man and woman who has cried forthe blood of the earth, stood in shock, open-mounted at the callousness and cruelty some can inflict on the most peaceful of our fellow creations, the Animal People. For all who have

49

ever felt helpless against an enemy a thousand times larger than themselves. For those who cannotlive with the pain of knowing that every morning the laboratory lights are turned on, the chainsawsare oiled and sharpened, the gas chambers are wheeled out to the pelting barns, and the slaughter is continuing—this is for you, so that you may never feel alone again, so that you may see that though we may never achieve total victoryin our lifetimes, sometimes victory and freedom isours simply by fighting, by breaking our own chains before we can break the chains of others (Western Wildlife Unit, 2004, pp. 191-192)

Possibly outside the strategic or tactical thinking of

most activists is a recognition by some that both direct and

indirect action may contribute to movement outcomes

(Coronado, 2004; Friedrich, 2004; jones, 2004; Watson,

2004). Strategizing for animal liberationists, pattrice

jones states flatly that,

Neither is entirely effective without the other. Analysis of other social movements in history suggests that our best bet will be a strategy thatincludes a diversity of direct action tactics in coordination with a diversity of other types of tactics.” (jones, 2004, p. 139)

50

Friedrich (2004) adds that “[i]n the same way that John

Brown made William Jennings Bryan respectable, ALF

activities make the rest of the movement respectable” (p.

257). Rod Coronado (2004) critiques what he claims is a one-

sided account of Gandhi’s achievements:

Gandhi’s principles of nonviolence formed merely one strategy employed by India’s independence struggle, yet they are often cited as a successfulexample of the power of nonviolence. Only someone unfamiliar with India’s history would believe passive nonviolence to be solely responsible for India’s independence. Such arguments fail to recognize the value illegal direct action plays ina liberation struggle. They also perpetuate the myth that as long as we adhere to our moral and ethical principles, we will be rewarded. In doing so, proponents of passive nonviolence exercise a choice of tactics that is the product of privilegeand only available to those in the First World. This privilege itself is the product of the violence committed to create the so-called “liberties” the United States government promotes. . . . In his autobiography, Nelson Mandela aptly states, “It is not the oppressed whodetermine the means of resistance, but the oppressor.” (Coronado, 2004, p. 182)

51

Indeed, one might ask, if passive—or as advocates

prefer to call it, “strategic”—nonviolence is in fact so

effective, if in fact “[r]eason has to be strengthened by

suffering and suffering opens the eyes to understanding”

(Wicklund, 2004, p. 243), why has it not worked for the

animals led to slaughter or experimented upon in labs or

skinned alive? As Bruce Friedrich (2004) puts it, “[i]t is

hard to fathom the animals doing any more suffering than

they already have, but public empathy has yet to develop”

(p. 255). Indeed, Friedrich argues that Gandhi did not need

public empathy to develop, that he already had the advantage

of “massive global popular opinion” (p. 255).

Some direct activists simply point to their results.

Coronado (2004) points to closed labs, destroyed property,

animal releases, and economic sabotage:

Even targeted vivisectors themselves—such as thoseat the University of Arizona, where a 1989 ALF raid torched two research laboratories and rescued1,200 animals—admit to the effectiveness of direct

52

action. Following the action, animal research at the university fell under greater scrutiny. Vivisectors reduced the number of animals sacrificed in redundant experiments and were forced to address charges of animal abuse claimed by the ALF. All of these achievements were accomplished without harm. And we’re supposed to believe these concrete victories to be counterproductive to the goals of animal liberation? (Coronado, 2004, p. 179)

Action Labeled as Terrorism

Paul Watson (2004) points to the arbitrariness of the

label terrorism and argues that in contrast to anti-abortion

activists and jihadis, the label cannot apply to “[a]nimal

rights activists and environmentalists [who] have not been

implicated in a single murder or a conspiracy to commit a

murder” (p. 281). Paul Sorenson (2011) points out that the

original meaning of the term referred to state violence

against civilians, as in the French Revolution, as well as

to the more recent usage in reference to non-state actors

such as al Qaeda, and concurs that nothing similar is present

53

in the animal rights movement. Multiple U.S. presidential

administrations, Congress, federal agencies, and state

legislatures, acting at the behest of the animal-using

industry, have seen it differently (Best, 2004; Black &

Black, 2004). Whether direct or indirect, whether undercover

or open, any action that physically or economically injures

an “animal enterprise” may now apparently be prosecuted

under the federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA),

which replaced and broadened provisions of the already

onerous Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA) (Sheppard,

December 21, 2011):

In March 2006, [Lauren] Gazzola was found guilty of six felony charges, including stalking and conspiracy to violate AEPA. Gazzola was never personally involved in any illegal protest, she says—just in writing and speaking about protest actions, and posting accounts from people who did engage in those acts. Nor were the other five SHACactivists charged with actually committing violentacts. But government prosecutors made it clear that they believed they were shutting down the activities of a group that promoted terrorist acts. (Sheppard, December 21, 2011)

54

However draconian one may view the AETA, it has, at

least if stories on the North American Animal Liberation

Press Office (n.d.) web site are to be believed, already

failed to halt numerous actions against animal enterprises.

Further, it seems to have failed to dissuade a Compassion

Over Killing undercover investigation that led to the

closing of a slaughterhouse in California’s Central Valley

(Zahniser, August 22, 2012) or a series of undercover

investigations reported in a New York Times story on so-called

“Ag-Gag” legislation (Oppel, April 6, 2013). What the act

might do, by lumping all animal rights actions together as

criminal or even as “terrorist,” is to blur the perceived

boundary between indirect and direct actions. Activists

already implicated in indirect actions will have less reason

to refrain from direct actions.

55

CONCLUSION

This essay, an interim work completed at the beginning

of a renewed exploration of social change theories, has

offered little in the way of solutions. Rather, the

available means to the goal of a radically egalitarian

society are exposed as insufficient and problematic. The

problem of displacing elites who are increasing their

abilities to employ coercive violence to prevent urgently

needed change remains a problem. The problem of persuading a

critical mass of the world population to adopt radical

egalitarianism remains a problem—and this latter problem

seems utterly unaddressed in the approaches I have explored

in this essay.

Finally, the problems of climate change and

overpopulation remain serious problems. Frank Fenner, a

leading researcher in defeating the small pox virus and in

“suppress[ing] wild rabbit populations on farming land in

56

southeastern Australia” told a reporter for the Australian

that he believes humans will be extinct within 100 years

(Jones, June 16, 2010). Assuming he is right, that does not

mean we have 100 years to solve the problem. Rather, the

tipping point might come far sooner, leading to an

environmental catastrophe of a kind that humans have never

experienced and which may be beyond our capacity to adapt to

(Boxall, June 7, 2012).

These are urgent problems. And while it would be one

thing if the only question was about what a new system of

social organization would look like, we lack even a

plausible plan for bringing it about.

References

Adams, C. J. (1991). Ecofeminism and the eating of animals. Hypatia, 6(1), 125-145.

Alinsky, S. (1971/1989). Rules for radicals: A pragmatic primer for realistic radicals. New York: Vintage.

Animal Liberation Front. (2004a). Animal Liberation Front guidelines. In S. Best & A. J. Nocella II (Eds.),

57

Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (p. 8). New York: Lantern.

Animal Liberation Front. (2004b). Introducing the Animal Liberation Front. In S. Best & A. J. Nocella II (Eds.),Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (pp. 7-8). New York: Lantern.

Animal Liberation Front. (2013, August 30). "Animal Liberation Front floods house of fur auction VP. North American Animal Liberation Press Office. Retrieved from https://animalliberationpressoffice.org/NAALPO/2013/08/30/animal-liberation-front-floods-house-of-fur-auction-vp/

Associated Press. (2013, May 25). Millions march against GM crops. Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/26/millions-march-against-monsanto

Balko, R. (2013, July 7). “Why did you shoot me? I was reading a book”: The new warrior cop is out of control.Salon. Retrieved from http://www.salon.com/2013/ 07/07/%e2%80%9cwhy_did_you_shoot_me_i_was_reading_a_book_the_new_warrior_cop_is_out_of_control/

Battiste, M. (2008). Research ethics for protecting indigenous knowledge and heritage: Institutional and researcher responsibilities. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 497-509). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Becker, A. & Schulz, G. W. (2011, December 21). Local policestockpile high-tech, combat-ready gear. Center for Investigative Reporting. Retrieved from

58

http://cironline.org/reports/local-police-stockpile-high-tech-combat-ready-gear-2913

Benderev, C. (2013, August 10). When power goes to your head, it may shut out your heart. National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/2013/08/10/ 210686255/a-sense-of-power-can-do-a-number-on-your-brain

Benfell, D. (2009, March 30). PETA is a lousy god. Retrievedfrom https://disunitedstates.org/?p=1613

Benfell, D. (2012, March 15). We “need to know how it works.” Retrieved from https://parts-unknown.org/wp/2012/03/15/we-need-to-know-how-it-works/

Benfell, D. (2012, December 7). The inevitability of speciesism. Retrieved from https://parts-unknown.org/wp/2012/12/07/the-inevitability-of-speciesism/

Benfell, D. (2013, March 6). “We have found the enemy, and he is us” – and our system of social organization. Retrieved from https://parts-unknown.org/wp/2013/03/06/we-have-found-the-enemy-and-he-is-us-and-our-system-of-social-organization/

Benfell, D. (2013, April 11). Towards sustainability. Retrieved from https://parts-unknown.org/wp/2013/04/11/towards-sustainability/

Benfell, D. (2013, August 19). Big Brother wants you to be afraid. Retrieved from https://disunitedstates.org/?p=5806

59

Bernanke, B. S. (2007, February 6). The level and distribution of economic well-being. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. Retrieved from http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20070206a.htm

Bernstein, M. (2004). Legitimizing liberation. In S. Best & A. J. Nocella II (Eds.), Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (pp. 93-105). New York: Lantern.

Best, S. & Nocella, A. J., II (2004). Introduction: behind the mask: Uncovering the Animal Liberation Front. In S.Best & A. J. Nocella II (Eds.), Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (pp. 9-63). New York: Lantern.

Biron, C. L. (2013, March 5). U.S. 'stalling' could force acceptance of onerous TPP. InterPress Service. Retrieved from http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/03/u-s-stalling-could-force-acceptance-of-onerous-tpp/

Biron, C. L. (2013, March 28). Subsidies play “significant role” in climate change, IMF says. InterPress Service. Retrieved from http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/03/ subsidies-play-significant-role-in-climate-change-imf-says/

Black, J. & Black, J. (2004). The rhetorical "terrorist": Implications of the USA Patriot Act for animal liberation. In S. Best & A. J. Nocella II (Eds.), Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (pp. 288-299). New York: Lantern.

Bodley, J. H. (2008). Victims of progress (5th ed.). Lanham, MD:AltaMira.

60

Boxall, B. (2012, June 7). Earth may be near tipping point, scientists warn. Los Angelese Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/07/local/la-me-0607-global-tipping-20120607

Bullard, R. D., Mohai, P., Saha, R., & Wright, B. (2007, March). Toxic wastes and race at twenty: 1987-2007. United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries.Retrieved fromhttp://www.ejnet.org/ej/twart.pdf

Burroughs, W. J. (2008). Climate change in prehistory: The end of the reign of chaos. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

Bybee, R. (2012, September 12). Obama's double game on outsourcing. Dollars and Sense. Retrieved from http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2012/0912bybee.html

Bybee, R. (2013, February 12). Yes, he did: Obama plugged Trans-Pacific Partnership while touting 'middle class' growth. In These Times. Retrieved from http://inthesetimes.com/article/14571/will_president_obama_push_an_offshoring_agenda_in_sotu/

Cannella, G. S. & Manuelito, K. D. (2008). Feminisms from unthought locations: Indigenous worldviews, marginalized feminisms, and revisioning an anticolonialsocial science. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T.Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 45-59). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Carter, Z. (2012, June 13). Obama trade document leaked, revealing new corporate powers and broken campaign promises. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html

61

Center for Biological Diversity. (n.d.). Human population: Akey factor in species extinction. Retrieved from http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/ overpopulation/index

Chestney, N. (2012, September 27). 100 million to die by 2030 if world fails to act on climate. Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/27/us-climate-inaction-idUSBRE88Q0ZJ20120927

Chomsky, N. (1969/2005). Objectivity and liberal scholarship. In B. Pateman (Ed.), Chomsky on Anarchism (pp. 11-100). Edinburgh: AK.

Chomsky, N. (1976/2005). The relevance of anarcho-syndicalism [Interview by P. Jay]. In B. Pateman (Ed.),Chomsky on Anarchism (pp. 133-148). Edinburgh: AK.

Clark, B. & York, R. (2008). Rifts and shifts: Getting to the root of environmental crises. Monthly Review, 60(6). Retrieved from http://monthlyreview.org/2008/11/01/rifts-and-shifts-getting-to-the-root-of-environmental-crises

Code, L. (1991). What can she know? Feminist theory and the construction of knowledge. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

Cole, M. & Morgan, K. (2011). Veganism contra speciesism: Beyond debate. Brock Review, 12(1), 144-163.

Collins, P. H. (1990/2010). Black feminist thought in the matrix of domination. In C. Lemert (Ed.), Social theory: Themulticultural and classic readings (4th ed., pp. 541-552). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Coronado, R. (2004). Direct actions speak louder than words.In S. Best & A. J. Nocella II (Eds.), Terrorists or freedom

62

fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (pp. 178-184). NewYork: Lantern.

Davis, K. (2004). Open rescues: Putting a face on the rescuers and on the rescued. In S. Best & A. J. NocellaII (Eds.), Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (pp. 202-212). New York: Lantern.

Dawn, K. (2004). From the front line to the front page — an analysis of ALF media coverage. In S. Best & A. J. Nocella II (Eds.), Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on theliberation of animals (pp. 213-228). New York: Lantern.

Democracy Now! (2011, December 8a). Critics: Rich polluters—including U.S.—should face sanctions for rejecting binding emissions cuts. Retrieved from http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/8/critics_rich_polluters_including_us_should

Democracy Now! (2011, December 8b). Entrepreneur: Capitalismwill save world from climate crisis to preserve marketsfor iPads, Coke. Retrieved from http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/8/entrepreneur_capitalism_will_save_world_from

Democracy Now! (2011, December 8c). Wanjira Maathai: U.S. should "shape up or get out" at U.N. climate talks. Retrieved from http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/8/wanjira_maathai_us_should_shape_up

Democracy Now! (2012, December 4). In Doha, lead U.S. negotiator plays down expectations of climate action inObama's second term. Retrieved from http://www.democracynow.org/2012/12/4/in_doha_lead_us_negotiator_plays

63

Democracy Now! (2013, February 15). From Dorner to Waco to MOVE bombing: A look at growing militarization of domestic policing. Retrieved from http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/15/from_dorner_to_waco_to_move

Denys, P. (2011). Animals and women as meat. Brock Review, 12(1), 44-50.

Deutschewelle. (2012, May 8). Mankind must change ways to survive, report says. Retrieved from http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,15935446,00.html

Diamond, J. (1999). Guns, germs and steel: The fates of human societies.New York: W. W. Norton.

DuRand, C. (2013, April 12). Trans-Pacific Partnership: Freetrade vs. democracy. Center for International Policy Americas Program. Retrieved from http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/9355

Egelko, B. (2013, April 27). Shark fin ban stands while opponents challenge law. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved from http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/ Shark-fin-ban-stands-while-opponents-challenge-law-4765894.php

Eisler, R. (1995). The chalice and the blade: Our history, our future. New York: HarperSanFrancisco.

Elliott, J. (2011, December 24). How the feds fueled the militarization of police. Salon. Retrieved from http://www.salon.com/2011/12/24/ how_the_feds_fueled_the_militarization_of_police/

Faludi, S. (2006). Backlash: The undeclared war against American women, 15th anniversary ed. New York: Three Rivers.

64

Fine, M., Tuck, E., & Zeller-Berkman, S. (2008). Do you believe in Geneva? Methods and ethics t the global-local nexus. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 157-180). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fotheringham, A. (2013, May 12). 27% of Spaniards are out ofwork. Yet in one town everyone has a job. Independent. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/ news/world/europe/27-of-spaniards-are-out-of-work-yet-in-one-town-everyone-has-a-job-8612920.html

Friedrich, B. G. (2004). Defending agitation and the ALF. InS. Best & A. J. Nocella II (Eds.), Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (pp. 252-262). NewYork: Lantern.

Fromm, E. (1956/2010). The sane society. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge.

Gaard, G. (2002). Vegetarian ecofeminism: A review essay. Frontiers, 23(3), 117-146.

Gaard, G. (2011). Ecofeminism revisited: Rejecting essentialism and re-placing species in a material feminist environmentalism. Feminist Formations, 23(2), 26-53.

Gallagher, K. P. (2013, March 6). Don’t trade away financialstability in Trans-Pacific Partnership. Financial Times. Retrieved from http://blogs.ft.com/ economistsforum/2013/03/dont-trade-away-financial-stability-in-trans-pacific-partnership/

Gillespie, K. (2011). How happy is your meat?: Confronting (dis)connectedness in the ‘alternative’ meat industry. Brock Review, 12(1), 100-128.

65

Gillis, J. (2011, December 24). Harsh political reality slows climate studies despite extreme year. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/ 25/science/earth/climate-scientists-hampered-in-study-of-2011-extremes.html

Ginsberg, B. (2013, August 12). Why violence works. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Violence-Works/140951/

Giroux, H. A. (2013, September 10). Intellectuals as subjects and objects of violence. Truthout. Retrieved from http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/18704-intellectuals-as-subjects-and-objects-of-violence

Giroux, H. A. & Giroux, S. S. (2008). Challenging neoliberalism's new world order: The promise of critical pedagogy. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L.T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 181-189). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Glasser, C. L. (2011). Tied oppressions: An analysis of how sexist imagery reinforces speciesist sentiment. Brock Review, 12(1), 51-68.

Goodman, A. (2011, December 13). Climate apartheid. Truthdig.Retrieved from http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/climate_apartheid_20111213/

Goldman, E. (1972/1998). Address to the International Working Men's Association Congress. In A. K. Shulman (Ed.), Red Emma speaks: An Emma Goldman reader (3rd ed., pp.421-431). New York: Humanity.

Gordon, U. (2008). Anarchy alive! Anti-authoritarian politics from practice to theory. London: Pluto.

66

Grande, S. (2008). Red pedagogy: The un-methodology. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 233-254). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hamburger, T., Leonnig, C. D., & Goldfarb, Z. A. (2012, July9). Obama's record on outsourcing draws criticism from the left. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obamas-record-on-outsourcing-draws-criticism-from-the-left/2012/07/09/gJQAljJCZW_story.html

Harris, P. (2011, October 22). Police brutality charges sweep across the US. Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/22/police-brutality-charges-us

Hatton, E. (2013, January 26). The rise of the permanent temp economy. New York Times. Retrieved from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/the-rise-of-the-permanent-temp-economy/

Hayes, C. (2012). Twilight of the elites: America after meritocracy. New York: Crown.

Humane Society of the United States. (2004, September 29). Schwarzenegger terminates foie gras in California; HSUSurges consumers nationwide to reject the inhumane 'delicacy'. IndyBay. Retrieved from https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2004/09/ 30/16970781.php

Institute of Governmental Studies. (2012). Proposition 2. University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved from http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/elections/proposition-2

Jacobson, B. (2012, March 18). Why war isn't inevitable: A science writer studies the secret to peaceful

67

societies. Alternet. Retrieved from http://www.alternet.org/story/154508/why_war_isn%27t_inevitable%3A_a_science_writer_studies_the_secret_to_peaceful_societies

Jaramillo, N. & McLaren, P. (2008). Rethinking critical pedagogy: Socialismo nepantla and the specter of Che. In N.K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 191-210). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Johannesen, R. L. (2002). Ethics in human communication (5th ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Jones, C. (2010, June 16). Frank Fenner sees no hope for humans. Australian. Retrieved from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/frank-fenner-sees-no-hope-for-humans/story-e6frgcjx-1225880091722

jones, p. (2004). Mothers with monkeywrenches: Feminist imperatives and the ALF. In S. Best & A. J. Nocella II (Eds.), Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (pp. 137-156). New York: Lantern.

Karabell, Z. (2012, May 4). Monthly jobs numbers don't matter. Daily Beast. Retrieved from http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/04/the-monthly-jobs-numbers-don-t-matter.html

Kasser, T., Cohn, S., Kanner, A. D., & Ryan, R. M. (2007). Some costs of American corporate capitalism: A psychological exploration of value and goal conflicts. Psychological Inquiry, 38(1), 1-22.

Kent, G. (2011). Ending hunger worldwide. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.

68

Kerber, L. K. (2004). Prescribing the pill: The republican mother and the woman citizen: Contradictions and choices in revolutionary America. In L. K. Kerber & J. S. De Hart (Eds.), Women's America: Refocusing the Past (6th ed., pp. 119-127). New York: Oxford University.

Kincheloe, J. L. & Steinberg, S. R. (2008). Indigenous knowledges in education: Complexities, dangers and prfound benefits. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 135-156). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kitcher, P. (2011). The ethical project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Klare, M. (2013, April 21). The coming global explosion. TomDispatch. Retrieved from http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175690/tomgram%3A_michael_klare%2C_the_coming_global_explosion/

Korten, D. (2008). After the meltdown: Economic redesign forthe 21st century. Tikkun 23(6), 33. Retrieved from http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/Korten-economic-redesign-for-21st

Kropotkin, P. (1898/1997). The state: Its historic role (V. Richards,trans.). London: Freedom Press.

Kropotkin, P. (1902/2006). Mutual aid: A factor of evolution. Mineola, NY: Dover.

Labedz, L. & Ryan, A. (1999). Anarchism. In A. Bullock & S. Trombley, Eds., The Norton dictionary of modern thought (2nd rev. ed., p. 30). New York: W. W. Norton.

Ladson-Billings, G. & Donnor, J. K. (2008). Waiting for the call: The moral activist role of critical race theory scholarship. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T.

69

Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 61-83). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Leahy, S. (2013, April 28). Leave it in the ground, climate activists demand. InterPress Service. Retrieved from http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/04/leave-it-in-the-ground-climate-activists-demand/

Lenski, G. (1966). Power and privilege: A theory of social stratification. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Levitz, D. (2011, December 11). Climate delegates reach modest compromise at Durban. Deutschewelle. Retrieved from http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/ 0,,15593531,00.html

Livestock Environment and Development Initiative. (2006). Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

Mann, T. (2011, October 23). The Occupy movement adds volumeto police brutality complaints. Atlantic Wire. Retrieved from http://www.theatlanticwire.com/ national/2011/10/occupy-movement-adds-volume-police-brutality-complaints/44012/

Marsh, J. (2013, May 24). Claws come out as PETA goes after anonymous online commenters for shelter kill claims. New York Post. Retrieved from http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/claws_come_kills_shelter_peta_goes_rkK9NKluuT53huumRp4L5K

Marshall, A. G. (2012, November 25). Why so secretive? The Trans-Pacific Partnership as global coup. Truthout. Retrieved from http://truth-out.org/news/item/12934-why-so-secretive?-the-trans-pacific-partnership-as-global-coup

70

McCaslin, W. D. & Breton, D. C. (2008). Justice as healing: Going outside the colonizers' cage. In N. K. Denzin, Y.S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 511-529). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McCurry, J. (2012, January 9). Japan to release Australian activists who boarded whaling ship. Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/10/ japan-release-australian-activists-whaling-ship

McDaniel, C. N. & Borton, D. N. (2002). Increased human energy use causes biological diversity loss and undermines prospects for sustainability. BioScience 52(10), 929-936. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0929:IHEUCB]2.0.CO;2

MercoPress. (2012, December 19), US court tells Sea Shepherdto stay away from Japan's whaling fleet in Southern Ocean. Retrieved from http://en.mercopress.com/2012/12/19/us-court-tells-sea-shepherd-to-stay-away-from-japan-s-whaling-fleet-in-southern-ocean

Meyer, M. A. (2008). Indigenous and authentic: Hawaiian epistemology and the triangulation of meaning. In N. K.Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 217-232). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mills, C. W. (1956/2000). The power elite. New York: Oxford University.

Minnich, E. K. (2005). Transforming knowledge (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Temple University.

Moghadam, V.M. (2013). Chapter 1: Introduction and overview.In Globalization and social movements: Islamism, feminism, and the

71

global justice movement (2nd ed., pp. 1-29). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Molland, N. (2004). Thirty years of direct action. In S. Best & A. J. Nocella II (Eds.), Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (pp. 67-74). New York: Lantern.

Mondragon Corporation. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/language/en-US/ENG.aspx

Morey, J. (2013, May 14). U.S. military 'power grab' goes into effect. Long Island Press. Retrieved from http://www.longislandpress.com/2013/05/14/u-s-military-power-grab-goes-into-effect/

Morris, B. (1993). Bakunin: The philosophy of freedom. Montréal: Black Rose.

Moyer, B. (with McAllister, J., Finley, M. L., & Soifer, S.,2001). Doing democracy: The MAP model for organizing social movements. Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada: New Society.

Muller, J. Z. (2013, March/April). Capitalism and inequality: What the right and the left get wrong. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/ articles/138844/jerry-z-muller/capitalism-and-inequality

North American Animal Liberation Press Office. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://animalliberationpressoffice.org/NAALPO/

Oelschlaeger, M. (1991). The idea of wilderness: From prehistory to the age of ecology. New Haven, CT: Yale University.

72

Onishi, N. (2012, August 12). Some in California skirt a banon foie gras. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/us/some-california-restaurants-skirt-foie-gras-ban.html

Oppel, R. A., Jr. (2013, April 6). Taping of farm cruelty isbecoming the crime. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/us/taping-of-farm-cruelty-is-becoming-the-crime.html

Oskamp, S. (2000). A sustainable future for humanity? How can psychology help? American Psychologist, 55(5), 496-508. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.496

Outwater, A. (1996). Water: A natural history. New York: Basic.

Paley, D. (2013, April 17). Tremendous pharmaceutical profits or totally protected plunder? Center for International Policy Americas Program. Retrieved from http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/9369

Proudhon, P-J. (1840/2007). What is property? Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University.

Regan, T. (2004). How to justify violence. In S. Best & A. J. Nocella II (Eds.), Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (pp. 231-236). New York: Lantern.

Ritholtz, B. (2013, July 9). Economic inequality is not an accident, it was created. Big Picture. Retrieved from http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/07/economic-inequality-is-not-an-accident-it-was-created/

Rohmann, C. (1999). A world of ideas: A dictionary of important theories, concepts, beliefs, and thinkers. New York: Ballantine.

Said, E. W. (1994). Culture and imperialism. New York: Vintage.

73

Saavedra, C. M. & Nymark, E. D. (2008). Borderland-mestizaje feminism. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith(Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 255-276). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schneier, B. (2013, August 13). [Review of the book Rise of theWarrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces, by R. Balko]. Schneier on Security. Retrieved from http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/08/ book_review_ris.html

Seldes, G. (1948/2009). 1000 Americans: The real rulers of the U.S.A. Joshua Tree, CA: Progressive.

Sheppard, K. (2011, December 21). Are animal rights activists terrorists? Mother Jones. Retrieved from http://motherjones.com/environment/2011/12/are-animal-rights-activists-terrorists

Singer, P. & Dawn, K. (2004, July 25). Echoes of Abu Ghraib in chicken slaughterhouse. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jul/25/opinion/oe-singer25

Slater, P. (2009). The chrysalis effect: The metamorphosis of global culture. Eastbourne, UK: Sussex.

Smith, Y. (2013, June 19). More Obama Administration secrecy: Rep. Grayson can't discuss classified Trans-Pacific Partnership draft. Naked Capitalism. Retrieved from http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/06/more-obama-administration-secrecy-rep-grayson-sees-and-cant-discuss-classified-trans-pacific-trade-agreement-draft.html

Socolow, R., Rosenbaum, T., Korb, L. J., Eden, L., Ewing, R., Glaser, A., . . ., Wilson, E. J. (2013, January

74

14). An open letter to President Obama: The time on theDoomsday Clock is five minutes to midnight. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved from http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/open-letter-to-president-obama-the-time-the-doomsday-clock-five-minutes-to-midn

Solnit, R. (2011, November 22). You can crush the flowers, but you can't stop the spring. TomDispatch. Retrieved from http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175471/ tomgram%3A_rebecca_solnit%2C_ms._civil_society_v._mr._unaccountable/

Sorenson, J. (2011). The myth of "animal rights terrorism." Brock Review 12(1), 91-99.

Stallwood, K. (2004). A personal overview of direct action in the United Kingdom and the United States. In S. Best& A. J. Nocella II (Eds.), Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (pp. 81-90). New York: Lantern.

Stamoulis, A. (2013, April 12). Seven reasons to fight the TPP. Center for International Policy Americas Program. Retrieved from http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/9349

Stiglitz, J. E. (2007). Making globalization work. New York: W. W. Norton.

Stonebanks, C. D. (2008). An Islamic perspective on knowledge, knowing, and methodology. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 293-321). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Swadener, B. B. & Mutua, K. (2008). Decolonizing performances: Deconstructing the global postcolonial. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.),

75

Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 31-43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Union of Concerned Scientists. (2000, August). Population – biodiversity linkage. Retrieved from http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/biodiversity/population-and-environment-series/population-biodiversity.html

Wallach, L. (2012, June 27). NAFTA on steroids. Nation. Retrieved from http://www.thenation.com/article/168627/nafta-steroids

Wallach, L. (2012, November 21). Can a "Dracula strategy" bring Trans-Pacific Partnership into the sunlight? Yes! Retrieved from http://www.yesmagazine.org/ new-economy/can-dracula-strategy-bring-trans-pacific-partnership-into-sunlight

Warren, K. J. & Cady, D. L. (1994). Feminism and peace: Seeing connections. Hypatia 9(2), 4-20.

Watson, P. (2004). ALF and ELF — Terrorism is as terrorism does. In S. Best & A. J. Nocella II (Eds.), Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (pp. 279-287). New York: Lantern.

Weaver, T. (2009). The ecology of globalization: The wolf atthe global door. Human Organization 68(4), 363-373.

Webb, R. (2004). Animal liberation—by "whatever means necessary." In S. Best & A. J. Nocella II (Eds.), Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (pp. 75-80). New York: Lantern.

Weber, M. (1946/2010). What is politics? In C. Lemert (Ed.),Social theory: The multicultural and classic readings (4th ed., pp. 114-116). Boulder, CO: Westview.

76

Weber, M. (1978/2010). Class, status, party. In C. Lemert (Ed.), Social theory: The multicultural and classic readings (4th ed., pp. 119-129). Boulder, CO: Westview.

West, C. (1990/2010). The new cultural politics of difference. In C. Lemert (Ed.), Social theory: The multiculturaland classic readings (4th ed., pp. 511-521). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Winerip, M. (2013, July 6). PETA finds itself on receiving end of others' anger. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/peta-finds-itself-on-receiving-end-of-others-anger.html

Winograd, N. J. (2013, April 2). Shocking photos: PETA's secret slaughter of kittens, puppies. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html

Wolf, N. (2012, December 21). The coming drone attack on America. Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/21/coming-drone-attack-america

Yourofsky, G. (2004). Abolition, liberation, freedom: Comingto a fur farm near you. In S. Best & A. J. Nocella II (Eds.), Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (pp. 128-136). New York: Lantern.

Zahniser, D. (2012, August 22). Central Valley slaughterhouse closed over inhumane treatment. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2012/ aug/22/local/la-me-0822-slaughterhouse-20120822

Zakaria, F. (2013, January/February). Can America be fixed? The new crisis of democracy. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved

77

from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/ articles/138474/fareed-zakaria/can-america-be-fixed

Zinn, H. (2005). A people’s history of the United States: 1492-present. New York: HarperPerennial.